Moving fish on the wharves

Press, 28 March 1979, Page 20

Moving fish on the wharves

If waterside workers win the right to unload fish from fishing boats using New Zealand ports they are likely to find that they have very little work. The disadvantages would be such that some joint fishing ventures in New Zealand’s new economic zone at sea would barely be profitable. That would be a tragedy for the country’s fishing industry, which needs the assistance of foreign skill and capital, as well as assured access to export markets.

The country as a whole would suffer, too, from lost exports and lost jobs. Even the watersiders would find that, by insisting they handle fish each time it comes over a wharf, they lose the opportunity to handle fish when it is finally exported. If little fish is landed for processing, little processed fish is going to be exported.

The dispute which arose last week at Bluff concerning the cargo of the German factory ship Wesermunde was particularly unfortunate. Bluff is a port with a declining trade. It needs work, something which Bluff watersiders appeared to recognise when they reached a local agreement not to insist on handling fish as it came ashore for processing. That agreement was apparently overridden by the Waterside Workers’ Federation. After five days of frustration the Wesermunde returned to sea with its cargo.

Being wise after the event, it is clear that the fishing industry should have sought a national agreement from the waterside workers before the Wesermunde berthed. Reaching a sensible agreement might not be so easy now when time is short, tempers are running high, and other ships, and other export ventures, are in jeopardy. If fish is unloaded by fishermen and fish processors, this will not take away

from watersiders work which has traditionally been theirs. To be sure, the large boats being used in joint fishing ventures operate on a different scale from the smaller New Zealand vessels, but if the right to handle the fish from the Wesermunde is conceded, are the watersiders planning to go on to demand the right to unload smaller boats, and even the oyster catch, as well?

Precedents exist for according a special status to the handling of specialised cargoes. The Waterfront Industry Act exempts the handling of bulk sugar, bulk cement, and petroleum products from its definition of “waterside work.” The act also makes provision for a section of the waterfront to be exempt from the provisions of the act if it is leased for commercial purposes and is not a place where work has customarily been performed by waterside workers. The company operating the Bluff venture leased from the Southland Harbour Board a berth which was defined under section 2 of the act as not being within wharf limits.

The point at issue is much more, however, than the status of a section of the Bluff waterfront. Fishing industry spokesmen say that skilled staff need to handle raw or partly processed fish to ensure that it is not damaged during unloading, that no unnecessary delays occur, and that the costs of double handling are avoided.

These arguments should carry the day when talks continue this week between representatives of the unions involved in the dispute. That way, the country’s fishing industry is not subject

to unnecessary frustrations as it tries to expand, and the watersiders will gain work in handling the export of processed fish.