Call compromise in fishing negotiations

Press, 21 December 1981, Page 11

Call compromise in fishing negotiations

Wellington reporter If New Zealand cannot land, process, and export fish' at a competitive price, any processing industry established will go the way of British Leyland, according to the Director-General of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr M. L. Cameron). There were two main parties in the fishing industry — those who made their living from catching, processing, and exporting fish and those who made the rules.

Alongside were those who had a legitimate interest E in having a say, those who used the fish resource for recreation, and those who had a concern for the conservation of the. marine environment.

The Ministry was trying to negotiate a contract between the parties, Mr Cameron said. For this to be achieved, self-interest would have to be compromised to some extent. \ If there was not sufficient of the resource to go round, there was no way every individual or group could get everything it wanted. If this was not accepted by all parties, at the outset, negotiations inevitably broke down and everyone was the loser. In the absence of agreement, the Government would be the final arbiter.

The Ministry had tried hard to involve the various fishing interests in the negotiating of agreements, particularly for managing, the inshore fisheries.

“While the~e have been some successes, there are some very disturbing trends,” Mr Cameron said. “It is my judgment that the patience of our people is wearing thin and if they are subjected much longer to histrionics, distorted commentary through the news media, and less-than-respon-sible actions by those who purport to represent collective and responsible views, I believe they will give up. “If this happens, arid I sincerely hope it does not, the concept of regional fisheries management through consultation will not have a very bright future.” Ministry staff were not perfect, but they were trying very hard.