ACTION AGAINST FISHERMAN

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22768, 21 July 1939, Page 19

ACTION AGAINST FISHERMAN

UNLICENSED TRAWLING ALLEGED INDUSTRY’S POSITION UNDER EFFICIENCY ACT [THE PBEfes Special Service.] BLENHEIM, July ?0. The position of the fishing industry as affected by the provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Act,, 1936, was tested in a case before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, in which ah action was taken against R. Alfano, -a fisherman, of Wellington, on the grounds that he engaged in trawling at Cloudy Bay, contrary to the provisions of a notice published in the Gazette under section 14 of the Industrial Efficiency Act. The effect of the charge was that defendant bad net obtained a licence under the, act for the purpose of taking fish for sale by means of trawling.

The case was defended on the grounds that by virtue of a notice as gazetted by the Minister, the act itself did not apply to the industry until January 1, 1940. so far as those persons engaged in it at the time of the issue of the notice were concerned.

Counsel for the defence, Mr M. R. Watterson. Wellington, made legal submissions attacking the validity of the notice and the exercise of the powers delegated to the Minister. He also questioned the actions of the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine in deleting part of the terms of a licence issued under the Fisheries Act, 1908, on instructions from the Bureau of Industry, when'the Fisheries Act provided that a licence issued thereunder must be issued in general terms. Mr W. T. Churchward, for the prosecution, said the charge was brought under notice in the Gazette .on July 22, 1938, whereby the industry taking fish for sale was brought under the act. Under the notice different dates were fixed for different classes of persons affected. For those already engaged in the industry the date was January 1, 1940, but for those entering the industry for the first time it applied as from the date of publication of the notice. The prosecution proposed to show that defendant’s vessel, Marconi, at July 22 was not engaged in trawling, because either it was not in existence then or it was not registered under the Fisheries Act at that date. Second, defendant’s other boat, Valerie, was not his boat, being registered in the name of Mrs Alfano. Third, the Valerie had not been engaged in trawling as at July 22. Mr Watterson, for the defence, contended that no offence had been disclosed under the notice because it did not create any offence. For the validity of the notice, the second ground of the defence, he contended, war that the only power conferred upon the Minister under the act was to issue a notice applying the act to a particular industry and fixing the date of its application. Accordingly all other provisions in the notice were legislative acts on the part of the Minister, unauthorised by statute. Therefore they were ultra vires and could not be sustained. In addition, Mr Watterson claimed that, considering the notice issued by the Minister revoked all previous notifications, the conditions attempted to be imposed by the bureau in the granting of authority for the building of the Marconi were in effect restricting methods of taking fish and were entirely obliterated or were repugnant to the provisions in the notice itself. It followed, therefore, that they could have no effect and could not be considered in determining the case.

Evidence for the prosecution was heard from Alfred Charles Kaberry, District Inspector of Fisheries, Wellington, and Arthur Bert Petersen, fisherman, of Island Bay.

For the defence evidence was given by Allan McManaway, fisherman, of Queen Charlotte Sound, David Wilson, fisherman, of Tory Channel, and defendant himself. . It was all largely confined to whether defendant was actually engaged in trawling on the material dates. Decision was reserved by the Magistrate.