LESS FISH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23565, 27 January 1940, Page 10

LESS FISH

RESTRICTED TRADE BAN ON LICENCES HUNDREDS REFUSED MEN OUT OF BUSINESS Wha,t appears to have been a systematic and successful "drive" by the Government to put small coastal fishermen out of business is disclosed by further investigation of complaints which were made in an article published in Thursday's Hehali>. Recent Gazette notices show that of 290 applications from all parts of the Dominion for industrial fishing licences considered by the Bureau of Industries on December 15 and 18, only 12 were granted and 278 were refused.

Industrial sea-fishing from boats, "however propelled," wa-s made subject to licence under the Industrial Efficiency Act, 1936, by Gazette notice in April, 1937. However; persons already engaged in the industry and not desiring to obtain additional boats or gear were not required to obtain licences before December 1, 1938. In July, 1938, an amending notice was issued, requiring licences only for Danishrseine boats, trawlers and other boats operating power-drawn nets. This therefore exempted small fishermen using lines or set nets from rowboats or small launches. Wholesale .Exclusion

Last year the Government decided to gather into the licensing system all persons taking sea fish for sale. In September it revoked tlie previous notice and issued a new one in such terms as to embrace fishing by any means whatever, from vessels or otherwise. Persons already engaged in the industry were given until January 1, 1940, to obtain licences or give up fishing. Gazette notifications show that the Bureau of Industry on December 15 refused 44 applications for fishing licences and granted one only. On December 18 it refused 245 applications, but on an unspecified later date it reversed its decision in 11 of these latter cases and granted licences to the applicants. '

Under the circumstances it appears safe to say that most of the applicants must have been already engaged in the industry, either whole or part time, since the introduction of licensing would not tend to attract new entrants to the industry) but rather to deter them. Moreover, a search of the Gazette fails to show that these particular applications were notified in the ordinary way for public information, in order that interested parties might object to the issue of licences. Long Auckland List The lists indicate that so far as Auckland is concerned, licences were granted on second thoughts to only two applicants, living at Bayswater and Titirangi respectively. Altogether 67 applicants were refused licences, and theii addresses show how widespread was the effect of the bureau's policy.

The addresses of the unsuccessful applicants are as follows, beginning at North Cape:—Te Kao, Awanui (2), Mangonui, Whangaroa, Kaeo, Totara North (2), Russell (3), Paihia, Opua, Whangarei (3), Onerahi, Waikaraka, Whangaruru, Matauri Bay, Parua Bay, Dargaville (2), , Helensvilie, Pollok Settlement, Raglan, Kawhia (3), Hamilton, Huia, Avondale, Onehunga (2), Otahuhu, Weymouth (2). Torbay, Devonport, Northcote (2), Beach Haven (3), Greenhithe, Auckland (5), Panmure ; Howick, Maraetai, Surfdale, Oneroa, Whitianga (2), Coromandei (2), Puru (2), Thames, Wailii. Katikati, Mount Mauuganui, (2).

I n the former article it was* pointed out • that«the stoppage of small-scale fishing was a serious inconvenience to many people in the more remote districts, who hitherto had been able to buy fresh fish at moderate prices from local fishermen. Residents of many of the places in the list printed to-day cannot obtain fish from the larger centres. In many other cases it may be obtainable, but with added delivery costs and after delay, which cannot improve its freshness. An equally important point is that the Government's action has taken away all or part of the normal livelihood of a considerable, although scattered and unorganised, group of people.