Confiscation provisions ‘too harsh’

Press, 27 April 1989, Page 2

Confiscation provisions ‘too harsh’

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Confiscation provisions in new fisheries legislation have been strongly criticised by the Fishing Industry Association.

It was making submissions on the Fisheries Amendment Bill before Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee. The bill permits the confiscation of boats, gear and quotas if the Fisheries Act is breached. The provisions were “far too harsh” according to the executive director of the fishing firm of Wilson Neill, Ltd, Mr David Sharp. Such penalty provisions were a real disincentive to investment in the industry in the present depressed economic climate.

He said banks and other lenders were reluctant to lend money if the security might be forfeited to the Crown in the event of conviction and confiscation. It would be fairer to increase the $lO,OOO maximum fine for over-fishing quota allowances, and sections relating to confiscation ought to be cut out. For the same offence, a big company could risk having millions of dollars of capital being confiscated while a smaller company would face a much lighter penalty because its investment had

been far less, Mr Sharp said. Fishing companies also wanted a provision changed in the bill so that the time in which fishermen could find extra quota if they caught more than they were legally entitled to, be extended from 10 days to a month.

He said fishermen were concerned that in its present form the bill made companies liable for criminal sanctions if any crew member — including those on foreign and chartered vessels — breached the Fishing Act.