When limited entry was introduced there was no provision for replacing divers who wished to retire. Initially some divers simply gave up their entitlement and new entrants that met the qualifying standards were issued with licences up to a maximum of 120. The value of being one of the privileged 120 was now obvious to all. The Minister, who issued the licence, was put under great pressure to accept the case of one applicant after another. The value of an entitlement to hold a licence was widely known and people were anxious to join the fishery. Those seeking to enter legally began to press for the right to buy licences, others chose to fish illegally.

Complaints about ‘poaching’ began to escalate in 1971. The inspectors were faced with several problems — a man in a wet suit is difficult to identify and does not carry identification or his licence. But unscrupulous licence holders caused the biggest problem for they would take others to sea with them, who also dived, and the licensee sold all the catch. The immediate thrust of the managers was to make this difficult and eventually force the unscrupulous from the fishery. In August it was made an offence for a person in charge of a boat to allow unlicensed persons to dive. Later the names of licence holders were published. David Dennison suggested that we should issue identity cards. This good idea was easier said than done and was not achieved for some years. The PFAT complained that when offenders were caught the Magistrates were too lenient. Clark urged the Association to join in the campaign to educate the public of the harm caused by illegal fishing.

Poaching was an even bigger problem interstate; it was from there that the most notorious poachers were about to appear. On 5 February 1972 readers of the Mercury learnt of the arrival in Hobart of the ‘luxurious cruiser Janthe’. ‘Lounging in a chair with his feet on a stool and a glass of scotch in his hand’ the skipper David Strachan ‘laughed at claims’ that he planned an ‘onslaught on the local abalone industry’. His fame had preceded him and he was upset to learn that a deputation from the industry had gone to the Department to complain of his arrival. ‘Nobody spits in my eye’ he said ‘I intend to right this mislabelling’. True to his word David and his son Cam went about demonstrating that claim for the next twenty-eight years.

In the early years of this saga the Janthe needed the assistance of both licensed divers and processors with registered premises to be successful. One diver in particular actively assisted and fished from the Janthe. The law-abiding divers at Bicheno decided to ‘assist’ the inspectors in solving the problem. They got the Bicheno branch of the PFAT to black ban any factory believed to be buying illegally caught abalone. This policy was developed after many long and boisterous debates in the bar of the Silver Sands Motel. Members of the PFAT wanted all poachers moved out of the district quickly. ‘They’ve got their hands in our pockets’ said one. One processor was closed for a month and this brought complaints to the Minister. The Minister had already cancelled the only licences held by Strachan and felt that it was better to allow the industry to try and settle the matter. The licensed diver at the core of this issue was refused a licence for 1973. The Janthe episode was but the first in the endless contest between fisheries inspectors and the abalone bandits. Increased staff, new equipment and new laws helped but the enforcement staff felt as though they were on a treadmill. However henceforth those with the legal right to fish also conducted a ceaseless campaign against the poachers and continuously reminded the Government of the need to commit resources to the task, particularly when there was talk of increasing licence fees.

When the member for Braddon, Lloyd Costello became Minister in the new Labor Government early in 1972, I seized the chance to get a resolution of this problem. I found him a straightforward and decisive Minister and the only Minister in my memory to resign on a matter of principle. He came to the post with no pre conceived ideas and had an open mind. We had discussed a variety of schemes to rank applicants but there seemed no way to create vacancies. The prime purpose of the policy was to try to control effort, so no new positions could be created. On the other hand a few divers who wanted to leave the fishery were diving for the minimum period necessary to avoid having their licence cancelled for ‘ceasing to fish’. The Flinders Island Council complained that there were no local divers and ‘their resource’ was only being harvested by Victorian poachers. I worried that we were likely to fail to fully use this valuable resource unless new divers were brought in. Diving induced illness was now apparent in quite a few divers but the Government was unwilling to refuse to reissue licences on health grounds. In some Australian fisheries places in limited entry fisheries could be bought and sold but not in others. It was a very contentious issue. After some hesitation the Government had earlier accepted the sale of entitlements to use a boat in the lobster fishery, but because the abalone diving licence was a personal licence, like a driver’s licence, it could never be transferred. A new person meant a new licence issued by the Minister.

A sizeable number of divers had no hesitation in displaying their new wealth. Consequently there was considerable resistance within the Parliament to allowing ‘licences that were issued for virtually nothing to be sold for thousands of dollars’. An economic survey conducted by the Commonwealth showed that the average Tasmanian diver had a gross return of $13,000. The total fishing costs of one diver were but $4,400 and this included the cost of a dinghy boy and depreciation of $1,600. Fourteen boats earned between $24,000 and $30,000. A similar number of divers earned more than $18,000. The study looked separately at the mother-ship operations that were unique to Tasmania. The public perception of the wealth of the fishery posed problems for Labor Government seeking reform.

Despite the political consequences Costello concluded that, in order to provide the new entrants that were needed to utilise the resource at an optimum level, divers that wanted to stop or should no longer dive for health reasons, should be allowed to sell their right to fish. (A kind of going away present.) Knowing the mood of the Parliament, particularly the Legislative Council, there was no enthusiasm for bringing in new laws. So a mechanism had to be created within the existing Fisheries Act. It was decided that a diver who had held a licence for at least three years could request that his licence be cancelled and nominate another qualified person to take his place. If the nominee was ‘a fit and proper person’ and met the entry criteria, the Minister would then licence them. The Government would produce ‘a scale of tariffs’ that could be charged by the parties for the transfer and stamp duty was payable on that transaction. The Government would have liked a bigger share but could not gather it without new legislation. It had to be content with the duty and an additional $150 added to the licence fee. This was calculated to return an effective royalty of 1.5%.

The Minister believed that he was not likely to get the support of the Party if the licences could be freely bought and sold. We all knew that the industry would not object to any regulation of sales but hoped that ‘half a cake’ would be appreciated as much better than no bread. Costello got Cabinet’s approval for the scheme in early June 1972 and announced it to the press. In the same package of measures it was decided to issue five special licences to promote the fishery around the Furneaux Group, divers would now have to be full time in the abalone fishery and only one diving suit per licensed diver could be carried on a boat fishing for abalone. This last measure was a desperate move to prevent a few ne’er do wells with a licence from using unlicensed divers on their boat.

However the sale of entitlements was not yet a fait accompli. A PFAT deputation met the Minister on 7 July and presented him with a petition from more than 20 divers strongly objecting to the increase in the fee and to any involvement by the Government in the transfer of a licence. In addition to opposition in the community the processors also opposed the move. Much to Costello’s embarrassment a meeting of the full Parliamentary Labor Party killed the scheme. The Opposition had a field day and moved a censure motion against the Minister ‘for misleading the House’.

The backdown on transfers of entitlements lifted the controversy to new heights. Michael Munday wrote to the Mercury condemning it as ‘a totally thoughtless move’. He complained that it would increase unlicensed diving and further ‘our country has reached a poor state when people sitting in offices are employed to see that those other who wish to obtain a living from the God-given sea are prevented from doing so.’ Other letter writers congratulated the associations for opposing the increase in fees.

In an attempt to resolve the issue the Minister went to a special PFAT meeting at Bicheno in October 1972 on the eve of the PFAT Conference. I reminded the meeting that we were talking about the sale of 120 exclusive rights to a fishery now worth $2 million a year. It was costly to manage and the fees proposed would help a little in providing the increased cost of patrolling so urgently needed. The Minister announced that six more inspectors were being appointed. One high profile diver told the Minister that ‘he would not sell his licence for even $3000’! (He subsequently sold his entitlement and later bought another one and then did it all over again.) The headline for report of the meeting in the morning paper came from the comments of Charles Woollard who had proclaimed that he was prepared to pay $10,000 for a licence. The meeting unanimously resolved to have the Conference press for unrestricted transfers and no increase in fees. Costello agreed to reconsider his decision. He took the question back to the Caucus but the thought that licensees would get $10,000 for giving up an entitlement they acquired from the State for $100 a year, was again fatal. He informed the PFAT of his decision and assured them that he would crack down on illegal operators and ‘more frequently exercise his powers to cancel or suspend licences’ particularly on the owners of abalone boats knowingly carrying unlicensed divers. The Minister refused to issue a licence for 1973 to one prominent diver. By his own admission he then bought a 20 metre boat and fished illegally off the west coast for three months and continued to do so. He denied that poachers affected the stocks. ‘we fish in reject areas’ he told Gary Oxley of the Mercury.

As commonly occurred in Tasmania when one industry organisation is seen to lose an argument another springs up. So in November 1972 the Master Fisherman’s Association, a rival of the PFAT, presented a petition from nearly half the licensees requesting unconditional transfers and no fees. They came away empty handed for this Minister had had enough abalone for the time being.

Through 1973 the health impacts of diving became more apparent. At least one diver was very severely affected by ‘the bends.’ The reckless behaviour of some in the early days of the fishery had now taken a nasty toll. It was time for another go. In April 1974 Deputy-Premier Bill Nielson set the wheels in motion. He chaired a Committee of PLP members that included those who were most opposed to Costello’s scheme and set about changing attitudes. Those of us who were key advisors briefed the group on the fishery. The Deputy-Premier’s strategy was to rest the case on the deteriorating health of some long term divers and how it was in the community interest to encourage them to retire. The accidents focussed attention and the Government was under pressure to upgrade hospital facilities and get a new recompression chamber. As a first step all divers were required to have an annual medical examination by one of a panel of qualified doctors to ensure they were aware of their health status and could be informed of the appearance of any diving related conditions such as bone necrosis. This made it clear to the Committee that the health risks were real. In July 1974 I was summoned to accompany Nielsen to a meeting with the Premier. Eric Reece still had some reservations about allowing divers to cash in their right but listened carefully to the case and agreed to urge the Caucus to approve transfers. With the weight of the Premier behind the case the Party concurred at its Launceston meeting on 29 July. Ironically the Minister was overseas and played no part in the final stage. The Government announced that the transfer of entitlements would now proceed ‘because of the concern over the special health risks of commercial abalone divers’. Divers who had held a licence for at least three years would be eligible. New applicants had to pass the medical examination and have been domiciled in Tasmania for the past two years. Preference would be given to applicants who came from the same geographical area as the retiring diver.

The transfers were negotiated for $3000 but eighteen divers opted to sell during the first six months. A significant number including Nigel King, Alan Spence, Charlie Baker, Chris Campbell and David Chaffey were keen to move into other forms of fishing. Although they probably received less than $10,000 for their place in the fishery it seemed to be significant in promoting a change of vocation. Curly Robbins and Barry Hall thought this was a reasonable price, equal to about the return for about 100 hours diving, for they quickly re-entered the fishery. It took two years for the value of an entitlement to reach $10,000 and by then a third of the former licensees had left.

The Victorian fishing industry objected to the requirement that prospective divers be domiciled in Tasmania and raised the issue at the next meeting of Fisheries Ministers. The processors made no objection this time as they had probably already realised those new divers would need financing and that would be difficult through the banks. Financing divers allowed them to guarantee a source of supply and profit from any rise in the value of the entitlements. The former licensed diver, Michael Munday who had publicly criticised the Government for not allowing the sale of entitlements in 1972 became a persistent critic. In 1981 he appeared to favour a scheme where the Department negotiated the sale of entitlements. He claimed that diving was now the preserve of the very rich. ‘One hundred and twenty guys should not have a monopoly on a $11 million fishery’. He believed that it had caused the poaching problem but all could be solved if special non-negotiable licences were issued to the poachers for $25,000.

The Division boosted its research effort. Nancy Witherspoon had studied the substantial collection of length measurements of the commercial catch to assess the impact of fishing at various places. She demonstrated a reduction in the size composition of the catch between 1968 and 1975 but in all areas the modal length was well above the legal minimum length. Colin Sumner then took charge of the dedicated research team. The initial tagging program I had run in the early days of the fishery had provided preliminary estimates of growth and mortality rates. Market measuring had monitored the impact of fishing on the size distribution of the catch. Now we needed data from a wider area and better estimates of fishing mortality. Colin conducted an intensive study of the Acteons to measure the rate of removal of commercial size abalone from the stock. The big increase in inspectors allowed offices to be set up around the State and the illegal activities were reduced to an acceptable level.