Minesweeper To Be Used For Fisheries Patrol

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30827, 12 August 1965, Page 3

Minesweeper To Be Used For Fisheries Patrol

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, August 11.

From January 1, a Bathurst-class minesweeper recommissioned from reserve will join the five seaward defence motor launches of the Navy 7 Fisheries Protection Squadron in policing new 12-mile exclusive fishing limits, which will take effect on that date.

Announcing the move in Parliament today the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) did not name the minesweeper but other sources sav it will be H.M.N.Z.S. Stawell.

Mr Holyoake was opening a second reading debate on the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Bill, a measure which redefines and extends territorial waters as well as imposing unilaterally the new fishing zone.

He said New Zea- | land ability to police [ the 12-mile limit had I quite properly been questioned. At present the Fisheries Protection Squadron had the help of other Navy vessels and occasionally of Air Force planes. "You can get a fix —but you[ can t make an arrest with a plane.” said the Prime Minister. "Protection will become more difficult and it is necessary to increase our strength for policing limits. “The Government is also studying reports from depart I ments on further steps which! should be taken to acquire more specialised policing craft.” Mr Holyoake said. Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton): When an arrest is made, what can be done? Mr Holyoake: Offending craft can be impounded. Mr Kirk: Are there lesser penalties? Mr Holyoake: I’m not sure. I can inform the member later Outside Interest "Because of increasing international pressure on and interest in the resources of the sea, we can expect much greater interest to be shown by many countries in fishing around our shores, off our coast and in other parts of the world." he said. “No other nation has established traditional fishing rights here in New Zealand. Usually, if other nations have fished for three or five years in certain waters they claim traditional rights. “I do not think any nation can claim that for the zone proposed in this bill,” said Mr Holyoake. Ships which have come here have mainly been Japanese. From his talks in Tokyo he found the New Zealand position understood. “1 am hopeful we will have a proper degree of co-opera-tion between our two governments after January 1 as we have had in the past.” The Prime Minister expressed himself “delighted” at evidence of “sudden growth and vitality in the domestic fishing industry.”

More Countries "Since 1960. an increasing number of countries have claimed extended limits. There is plenty of precedent for what we are doing. “We should be giving the greatest possible measure of assistance and protection to our fishing industry. The bill will be a very, very important encouragement and aid to that industry.” There were three advantages in the new formula for reckoning the three miles of territorial water from “base lines" drawn across the mouth of bays and coastal indentations: More water was being brought within New Zealand jurisdiction. The definition of the territorial sea was being aligned with modern international practice. The territorial sea was being defined precisely by statute for all purposes.

Labour Support

Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon) said the Opposition supported the purposes of the bill although it could not understand why the Government had taken so long to ratify the 1958 Geneva Convention on the territorial

sea. although it had been signed by New Zealand.

So far 25 countries had ratified the treaty. Also, more than 30 countries had extended their fishing zone to at least 12 miles. Mr Mathison said the Opposition would like more details on the fisheries protection fleet and whether it would be able to enforce observance of the zone. It was also time to remove some of the anomalies against the fishing industry—which paid 25 per cent duty on electronic tracking equipment from Norway while the dairy industry paid no duty on machinery from Sweden. The Minister of Lands (Mr Gerard) said 33 countries had altered their territorial limits. Same Limits Twenty-eight had the same limits as New Zealand or less. Chile and Korea had increased limits . to 200 miles, and Ghana and India to 100 miles. Both the United Kingdom and Canada had 12-mile I limits.

Mr Gerard said that while he was Minister of Marine, in 1957, the Government had decided restricted regulations were holding back the fishing industry.. A select committee was set up to look into fishing in New Zealand, and it was unanimous in all [major findings. | Those findings, he said, were being implemented todav. Mr C. J. Moyle (Opp., Manukau) said the Opposition was pleased to agree with the bill and felt it was a step in the right direction. But, if by just setting a 12-mile limit, the Government hoped to frighten foreign vessels away from New Zealand’s rich fishing grounds, it had a lot of rethinking to do. He said he noted with some cynicism Mr Holyoake's news that a Bathurst minesweeper would be used in fishery patrol work and “some other ships were being considered.” He said the Government always seemed to be considering the question of more ships to police New Zealand’s waters.

More Ships “But we must have more ships to enforce the 12-mile limit otherwise our lack of enforcement will be taken as a weakness and the setting of the limit will cause more harm than good.”' Mr Moyle said it was also useless to set a 12-mile limit if the fishing grounds were not exploited by New Zealanders. “Otherwise this bill savours of a dog in the manger attitude,” he said. The Minister of Marine (Mr Scott) said that to hear the Opposition speak, one would think every inch of the coastline would have to be patrolled 24 hours a day.

With all the defence; equipment available, plus seven fisheries protection vessels. Mr Scott said he was confident more-than-adequate provision had been made to cope with the situation when legislation come into effect. “The Government is particularly keen and determined to assist the fishing industry.” the Minister said in emphasising the fisheries research vote was not down but had been increased. He said he welcomed the 'bill as another move in assisting the fishing industry, and knew results of it would be worth while, j Sir Basil Arthur (Opp., |Timaru) said he was pleased j to see the bill before the

House, and that the Opposition supported most of it. He said, however, that more information was needed from the Government on what it was doing to encourage the fishing industry generally. Govt. “Naive” Sir Basil Arthur said the Government was just being naive if it honestly expected Japanese and other foreign [vessels to pay any attention f o the proposed 12-mile limit. If New Zealand fishermen did not get out and exploit the fishing resources round the coast, then foreign vessels would come and do it instead, he said. Sir Basil Arthur said wholesalers had protested about the bill because it did not go far enough. He said some of the main fishing grounds in the country were outside the 12-mile limit. “In fact. Timaru fishermen operate 20 to 25 miles off the coast.”

Sir Leslie Munro (Govt., Waipa) said it was unfortunate no international agreement had been reached on a 12-mile limit. New Zealand was fortunate it did not have to provide for vested interests. After the failure of the 1960 Geneva Conference to get a 12-mile limit, the United States and Canada came to a compromise, extending their limits but providing for foreign vested interests for a period of 10 years.

New Zealand could have been in a similar position if it had delayed. Sir Leslie Munro said he did

not think it was too much to expect Japan would be reasonable in the matter and that New Zealand could get on "reasonably well” with her.

He also asked that fishing vessels built for New Zealand be of the type that could be converted for naval use.

Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp.. Waitakere) said that with the vessels New Zealand, now had, there would be great difficulties in covering a 4000-mile coastline, and the Prime Min-1 ister had pointed out the ‘shortcomings in using planes[ [for patrol. In recent months, Dr. Finlay said, there had been “a disturbingly mounting chorus" of dissatisfaction with what was being done for the fishing industry. It appeared this year a sum of only about £BOOO would be available for the industry. Harsh Words Recently, the chairman of the Fishing Industry Board was only one of the people to have harsh words to say about the Government. The secretary of the Federation of Commercial Fishermen had biting criticism. Dr. Finlay said the bill i seemed to be little more than ja declaration of intent. The I real substance of the way the ! bill would become effective was contained in its schedule. [ There was “considerable i perturbation" as to how New. Zealand would go about applying the Act. The declaration of intent was that no boat might fish in territorial waters unless registered in New Zealand. The penalty of forfeiture of gear of the offending vessel was a penalty that was very harsh in the fishing industry as a whole, Dr. Finlay said. He asked what would happen if the offending vessel showed some reluctance to be apprehended. “How far do we have the physical power to exercise this legal power we are bound to take upon ourselves. “If the master (of an offending vessel) said ‘You come near me and we’ll open up on vou' what would we do?

“We may find ourselves in a very awkward situation.” Dr. Finlay asked the Prime Minister to give an indication of how New Zealand vessels would react when faced with a challenge of that kind. Incentive Given The Parliamentary Undersecretary to the Minister of Finance’ (Mr Muldoon) said the Opposition was trying to criticise the Government for not encouraging expansion in the fishing industry, but for the first time in 10 to 20 years the fishing industry had been given some incentives to get up and catch some fish. And the industry was up and away, catching fish and creating wealth for New Zeajland, he said. i The debate was interrupted jby the 10.30 p.m. adjournI ment.