Fish & Game Elections

Ken Sims
NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers

Dear Ken

Fish & Game New Zealand enjoys its close association with the Federation and we work very closely on a wide range of issues. Some of the matters raised in your November 2000 Newsletter are indicative of those issues, including the pressing issue of the non commercial status of trout which is severely threatened at the present time.

It was disappointing, therefore, to see the article on Fish & Game elections, particularly because no-one thought to give us a call to get their facts right and talk about the issue. The system by which potential electors have to signify their wish to be on the roll by signing a separate box on the licence is a requirement of the Conservation Act. When Fish & Game Councils were set up there was concern by the Government of the time that licence holders should not have to become members of the Fish & Game organisation (the way they were in the Acclimatisation Society days if they wished to vote for the councils). That is why there was no provision for membership of Fish & Game New Zealand and the requirement for licence purchasers to positively indicate whether they wanted to be on the electoral roll.

Following the last election the electoral system was reviewed. After consultation with regions, the New Zealand Council resolved that all adult whole season licence holders should be on the electoral roll as of right. Regrettably, to achieve this will require an amendment to the Conservation Act and it has been some years now since a slot in the legislative programme has been available for that to happen.

As an alternative, the New Zealand Council suggested that licence purchasers should be on the electoral roll unless they indicated they did not want to be. But even that was unacceptable to the Justice Department because the Conservation Act specifically requires that a person may chose to participate at the time when he or she purchases a licence or at any subsequent time before, but not later than one month before the next election is held. This apparently precludes any form of automatic entry to the roll even with a provision for people to opt out.

It should be noted that putting all licence purchasers on the electoral roll will be expensive. Currently holding an election costs around $30,000. To prepare electoral papers and mail these out to all whole season licence holders would cost in the order of $100,000. At a time when the organisation is facing so many challenges, this would divert money from other needy issues, so it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

We certainly do try and encourage people to stand for councils, be on the electoral rolls and vote. Fish & Game New Zealand as an organisation is run by anglers and hunters, for anglers and hunters and so enhancing the democracy to ensure that the ends of the organisation are those that licence holders want, is essential.

I hope that in future if the Federation has concerns about issues relating to the operations of Fish & Game New Zealand, it gives us the opportunity to comment so that the people reading your newsletter do get the full picture. We can only do the things we need to do to protect the interests of anglers and hunters if we have their support. We hope that we can work with the Federation to address any issues that do arise.

I would appreciate you reporting the correct situation in your next newsletter.

Mike Britton
Assistant Director
Fish & Game New Zealand

Fish and Game Elections
We have written back to Fish & Game, thanking them for their letter. We would point out that, in the first instance, we were simply reflecting the views that we had heard from our angling members. If we heard them from you, we can only assume that regional Fish and Game heard them as well.

The matter of elections goes back a long way. Fish and Game NZ, we understand, had major input into the draft Conservation Law Reform Bill. Going as far back as the 1960s and 1970s, Acclimatisation Societies urged the government to allow automatic membership, i.e. on buying a licence you were a member and had the right to vote. However it was blocked by the head office of Wildlife Service of Internal Affairs and in particular its director, the late Dr Gordon Williams. It was suspected that the real reason was a paranoia by bureaucrats of the political clout it would give acclimatisation societies.

Therefore we would have thought in the drafting of the Conservation Act, correcting that anomaly would have been a top priority inclusion? After all if you join a rugby, tennis, bowls or any sports organisation you don't then have to apply a second time to vote at the AGM. If anything it could be argued that the Conservation Law Reform Act weakened the democratic system by rejecting annual elections and going to three yearly ones to copy Parliament - perhaps a dubious role model!

Elections do not have to be expensive. Postal elections are. However a system of "polling booths" at sports shops with registers might be one alternative. In fact voter turnout might be much higher than a postal vote! Even so, a postal election currently costs $30,000 as you point out and perhaps $100,000 if all adults had the vote. Even at that cost, it is our opinion that licence holder participation is the very and vital strength of fish and game, and that democracy is precious, and that the cost is well worth it. Certainly in the context of 'the national budget of (we believe) $1 million, the $100,000 is reasonable. However the concept of a postal vote would see a figure well below $100,000 while giving all a vote.

We also understand fish and game councils no longer have to hold an annual meeting? This year, election year, we have had feedback from our regions that some fish and game councils made a very token effort at holding an annual meeting - the only direct opportunity every three years for licence holders to ask questions. Consequently it is not surprising that licence holder interest seems at an all-time low in some regions. As a contrast in the days of Acclimatisation Societies, annual meetings were well attended, even rural places such as Hawkes Bay in the 1970s having over 200 at a meeting.

The Federation supports the Fish and Game organisation strongly. If we do criticise, it is with constructive intent to strengthen it. We are also stating the views of our (joint) members, as they are related to us. Similarly our Federation can from time to time receive criticism from clubs and if it does, the executive fully considers it in that light. Because we have the full interest of fish and game at heart, from time to time, informal or formal discussion does arise. Good debate is constructive and there will be a further opportunity to discuss this within the Federation, at our upcoming AGM.