"we are a fish starved and fish hungry people" - H W Gepp. 26 Sept 1929

"Men, money and markets" was the slogan of the Bruce Government's commitment to industry development that dominated the last half of the 1920's. A Development and Migration Commission was established to facilitate the initiative and link Australian industry to an Empire marketing scheme.

The Development and Migration Commission was established by S M Bruce in May 1926 as a major Government programme and Gepp was the most powerful, and best paid, public servant of the day. Gepp's Vice-Chairman was C.S. Nathan a Western Australian businessman who had worked closely with him in London in 1924. The Development and Migration Act was founded on the belief that the two activities were inexorably linked. Bruce also saw the Commission as soothing Commonwealth-State relations in the distribution of developmental finance particularly the Imperial "£34 million scheme".

Professor T T Flynn of Tasmania provided much of the development philosophy followed by the Development and Migration Commission in fisheries. Gepp had been manager of the Electrolytic Zinc Co in Hobart and a member of the State Development Board whilst Flynn was Professor of Biology at the University of Tasmania. The first report of the Commission highlighted the high level of imports of fish which Flynn had noted in his Tasmanian Royal Commission. Flynn's commercial venture, Tasmanian Fisheries Development Pty. Ltd., was based on the three principles later espoused by Gepp and the Commission.

The Commission and the Council for Scientific and Industry Research (CSIR) joined with the State Development Board to survey the economy of Tasmania. Fisheries was listed as both a national and Tasmanian development priority particularly as interest had been stirred in England by Flynn's venture. When Gepp visited Tasmania in the first half of 1927, Flynn was again overseas promoting his project but on his return presented a major submission to the Commission, entitled "Fisheries Development in Tasmania" . He stressed the high imports of fish and the dearth of an Australian fish processing industry. Australia needed and could sustain a fish meal industry. In his mind the lack of development was a consequence of the paucity of scientific knowledge and lack of a fishing population. Currently, due to the collapse of the Russian market for British herrings, skilled fishing labour could be encouraged to migrate to Australia. Flynn also referred to the suitability of Tasmania for fisheries, fisheries research and fisheries education. The research needed to support the development of fisheries should be coordinated with teaching and concentrated at one university not duplicated throughout Australia.

The loss of the "Endeavour" quenched the Commonwealth's enthusiasm for fisheries development for many years until Herbert Gepp became chairman of the Development and Migration Commission. In 1916 Gepp, the industrialist and champion of the application of science to industry, was appointed to the Advisory Council of Science and Industry, established by W.M. Hughes, and remained an influential participant in the evolution of that body through the Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry to the Council for Science and Industrial Research. The Advisory Council recognised the absence of a permanent marine biological station in Australia and approached the universities. W A Haswell, Professor of Zoology at the University of Sydney, urged it to construct such a facility in Sydney. But it did establish a special committee on Marine Biological Economics which included W J Dakin In 1926 after attending the Imperial Conference in London, Gepp accompanied Prime Minister Stanley Bruce to a meeting with the British Prime Minister, Lord Balfour, where they discussed the possibility of Sir Frank Heath, the Secretary of the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, visiting Australia to promote further scientific co-operation., The report presented by Heath after his visit in 1925 was the basis for the establishment of CSIR; it included recommendations that the new organization undertake fisheries research in addition to its other activities and that Tasmania was the appropriate site for this work.

The development of Australian fisheries became entangled and perhaps eventually strangled by an "Empire Development" movement which appeared early in 1923. The British Government established an Imperial Economic Committee "to find methods whereby Empire supplies could be given some definite advantage over foreign supplies." The establishment of the Committee was a resolution of the 1923 Imperial Conference. The "definite advantage", in the initial stages, was £1 million to be annually granted by the British Government in lieu of preference to promote inter-Imperial trade and disbursed through an Empire Marketing Board. The President of the Board of Trade was the Chairman and the Dominions were full members. Although the Committee produced a separate report on fish they decided at the first meeting that canned fish should be regarded as meat. The Fish Report was finished at the end of July 1927 and was judged by McDougal to be "a good and comprehensive document and will contain more up to date information about fisheries than any other existing document". From a modern perspective the report lacks specific recommendations but documents the underlying structure and nature of the fishing industry and thoroughly examined the demand for fish and fish products particularly in Britain.

The section on Australia is brief and refers to the difficulty of distance to inland markets and "the stern competition from meat" as special difficulties in developing a trade in fresh fish. They concluded that there should be a market for fish meal and there should be room for "some hundred steam fishing vessels". The latter appears to have been determined by comparing the total consumption of fish in Australia with that in Britain and multiplying by 3000, the number of vessels in Great Britain!

The report identified "two important facts", the extreme perishability of fish after capture and the danger of overfishing. It is interesting to note that overfishing was considered to be only a possibility - "Any limit to the supply of fish brought to land is not due to a failure of the total stock of fish in the sea or to lack of ability to catch fish..... The limit is set by the means available for preserving fish" Thus the Committee reached its principle recommendation - "research should be instituted with a view to improving the methods of preserving fish from the moment it is caught to the moment it reaches the consumer" This conclusion was undoubtedly sound but the recommendation that "the full development of ( Australian and New Zealand fish resources) may be retarded by the absence of better means of preserving fish" is more questionable. The development of fish meal industries, including in Australia, strongly supported the ideas of Flynn.

Gepp advised McDougal in July 1927 of his desire to hold a Conference on the development of Australian Fisheries immediately after the report became available : the Development and Migration Commissioners were greatly influenced by the report.

The acceptance of the Heath Report provided the Victorian Government with an opportunity to act on one of recommendations of their 1919 Royal Commission. The Premier of Victoria wrote to the Prime Minister urging the establishment of a "central marine biological laboratory"; the request was referred to the Executive of the newly formed CSIR. The Executive deemed the matter to be an economic problem and therefore the province of the Development and Migration Commission; "later it(CSIR) might be prepared to conduct scientific research" in fisheries. The Victorian request and the urging of Flynn prompted Gepp to call a conference.

Prime Minister Bruce invited the States and CSIR to attend a National Fisheries Conference in 1927 organized by the Commission to discuss the development of Australian fisheries and the implications of the Heath Report. Herbert Gepp chaired the meeting and the Secretary was Stanley Fowler, its main aim was to provide a plan to foster development.

Senator Alexander John McLachlan, an Honorary Minister and later the Minister responsible for Development and CSIR, opened the Conference in Melbourne on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Commission, Sen. Pearce. The highlights of Flynn's long submission to the Commission were repeated almost word for word in the opening addresses by Senator MacLachlan and Gepp. McLachlan identified the Commonwealth's fisheries function as -

There was general agreement that the price of fish was too high, imports, now valued at £1.5 million were also too high, and transport and marketing were inadequate. It appeared to the Senator that more research was necessary to overcome these problems. If development could be initiated it "would have a very important bearing on, and provide a stimulus to, migration of British people to the Commonwealth." Skilled British fishermen, and their families, would be valued migrants since in Australia "there was practically no hereditary fishing population".

Gepp began with a reference to the work of the Imperial Economic Committee and its recently completed Fish Report. He outlined the role of his Commission establishing the link between migration and development and imperial development schemes backed by British Government loans.

David Rivett, for the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, in his comments strove to assert the Council's place in relation to the Commission. He pointed out that the Council had already "looked at" fisheries development although no "definite steps had been taken". CSIR would consider any recommendations coming from the conference but "as it had been called by the Development and Migration Commission the Council does not hold itself bound to put forward any specific recommendation ... we are here to listen."

The States were represented by a mixture of Ministers and officers. They unanimously acknowledged their limited ability to conduct research and exploration and the need for a marine biological station. The Conference also confirmed the view expressed by the NSW Chief Inspector of Fisheries (E W Wood) that no serious attempt had yet been made to distribute fish outside the metropolitan area. Rivett agreed that the distribution and transport of fish were vital problems, which was also a key finding of the Imperial Fish Report. Many of the 16 agenda items were complex and needed more detailed examination and five sub-committees were established to report on the following subjects in about six months.

Following the Conference Gepp asked McDougal to closely follow fisheries matters in Britain and these investigations revealed considerable interest amongst British fishing companies in establishing operations in Australia. One owner was prepared to bring his fleet of 14 trawlers and crews if the Government would guarantee -duty free entry, assisted passage for crews and families (700 people) and some "further aid from private capital or Government".

McDougal's investigations in Britain led him to the conclusion that the high cost of living in Australia was the principal impediment to the development of "a great fishing industry." Thus it would be necessary to adopt the most up to date fishing but with labour saving devices - such as the "new super trawler" which was "unfortunately of German origin, but this I think cannot be helped.". Secondly, the complete utilisation of all parts of the fish in the development of a fish meal and fish oil industry were required.

The Commonwealth fisheries development effort led by Dannevig using the "Endeavour" was really a carry-over from the pre-federation State surveying programmes of Saville-Kent and others. Gepp had fostered the application of science to industry including fisheries but some members of CSIR urged a much more rigourously scientific approach to fisheries. Personal rivalry between Gepp and Rivett may have added to the divergence. The power and influence of the Commission and its chief at this time contrasted with the initial difficulties encountered in establishing CSIR.

In March 1926 the Acting Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry, Gerald Lightfoot, prepared a confidential report on the consequences of the Heath Report which largely concentrated on the establishment of a fisheries research station. He recommended that Mr. D.G. Stead (NSW Fisheries) be invited to prepare a further report. Stead was highly critical of Heath's recommendation that fisheries research should be centred in Tasmania. It was obvious he stated "that the fisheries station should be in such a position as will enable it to be used for the practical training of investigators and scientific and commercial fisheries men generally." To Stead the coast of New South Wales was both the most highly developed fisheries area and where current and potential development was centred.

He concluded that Heath's suggestion clearly indicated an absence of familiarity with the outstanding factors controlling the distribution of economic organisms in Australian waters and modestly concluded

The Conference Sub-Committee appointed in 1927 to investigate the marine biological station was chaired by Flynn and four of the six other members were also university professors (Nicholls (WA),Goddard (Qld) Agar(Melb) Harrison(Syd)), in contrast to the Conference itself where the academics were in a minority. Taking advantage of the ANZAAS Conference in Hobart the Sub Committee met there on Jan 12 1928 and resolved that due to "the diversity of conditions and problems biological stations should be established at various points on the Australian and Tasmanian coasts", the stations to be of equal status but not necessarily of equal size. They should be managed by the local Professor of Biology, the Museum Director Director of Fisheries and representatives of the State and Commonwealth Governments. There should also be a Marine Biological Council of Australia and a Federal Bureau of Fisheries.

From a report in the "Mercury" it appears that Gepp and Flynn proposed to the Tasmanian Premier J A Lyons that the State should share the costs (estimated to be £6000 capital and £1500 a year) with the Commonwealth. Lyons was reported to be "favourably disposed" to the idea and agreed to discuss it in Cabinet.

Stead's virulent criticism was echoed 50 years later when it was again mooted that the national fisheries and oceanographic laboratories be moved from Sydney to Hobart. Flynn's entrepreneurial outlook and association with Gepp may not have helped him in the sub-committee to implement Heath's recommendation to centre Commonwealth fisheries research in Tasmania , but the major hurdle was the attitude of CSIR. Having had an earlier report from Professor Haswell of the University of Sydney recommending his city for the marine biological station and the report by Stead, CSIR did not look favourably on Tasmania as the centre of Commonwealth fisheries research. On returning to Australia, Professor Dakin (University of Sydney) approached David Rivett in May 1929 with a proposal to establish the research station near Watsons Bay, in Sydney Harbour, in collaboration with the University of Sydney. Rivett was impressed by the proposal and wrote to his colleague Professor Richardson saying that we should "put it before the Fisheries Conference at its next meeting and try and carry the whole thing through, incidentally killing the previous unpractical and rather foolish schemes which have been or are floating around amongst the members of that rather heterogeneous assembly."

A letter to Dakin dated March 1915, from Rivett, suggested a friendly personal relationship already existed between the two when Dakin was at the University of Western Australia. After 1929 their relationship grew into a powerful axis that strongly influenced Commonwealth fisheries policy for the next 20 years.

When the second session of the Australian Fisheries Conference opened in Sydney on 26th July 1929 considerable progress had been made in overcoming the lack of information that the 1927 meeting blamed for the lack of fisheries development. The sub-committees established in 1927 had reported. Gepp's Development & Migration Commission had now been in operation for three years and CSIR was more firmly established .The Imperial Economic Committee had reported on developing fisheries and the paper had been studied for particular relevance to the Australian situation.

The Hon. Thomas Paterson, Federal Minister for Markets and Transport, opened the Conference on behalf of the Prime Minister and

The cast was similar to 1927, Gepp was again Chairman with Stanley Fowler as Secretary. The Conference again pointed to the low level of fish consumption in Australia and the high level of imports. This low consumption was found to be due, in part, to the scarcity of fish outside the coastal capitals and the high prices. The Conference drew attention to progress in fisheries development made in other dominions.

Shipborne brine freezing had just been demonstrated in Melbourne for the first time. Although the conference did not indicate that a need for better preservation of fish was limiting the development of fisheries, as had the Imperial Committee, it did recommend research into the new technique of rapid brine freezing. Instead it again concluded that the failure of the Australian fishing industry to develop was attributable to the "absence of the foundation knowledge.", but this time made a pertinent elaboration.

The Conference resolved that in order to utilize the nation's fish resources the Federal Government should immediately set up an organization with equipment to conduct scientific, statistical and practical investigations of commercial, and potentially commercial fisheries. The U.S. Bureau of Fisheries was recommended as a model for the proposed Australian national organization. The proposed "Australian Bureau of Fisheries" should have an "investigation trawler" to continue the work of the "Endeavour" and a competent man appointed Director of Fisheries (cf recommendations of 1907 conference).The Conference was conscious of the costs and the "difficult financial position of the Government" and asked the question "is the expenditure justified? Conference had no hesitation in saying Yes!". They estimated capital expenditure of £100,000 and a recurring expenditure of £50,000. The Conference saw a difference between the perceived role of the new Bureau and CSIR which should conduct "marine biological research necessary for a full understanding of our aquatic resources" as it "has its own funds and equipment for this work." This dichotomy was to plague Commonwealth fisheries research and development for much of the next 60 years.

The defeat of the Bruce-Page Government in 1929 signalled the end for the Development and Migration Commission and the power of Herbert Gepp. As Gepp's influence on fisheries policy waned that of David Rivett waxed. Although Rivett had already stamped his mark on CSIR by 1931 he had not yet seriously addressed the question of a fisheries programme despite its inclusion in the original plan proposed by Heath. The financial crisis of the early 1930's was the watershed between initiatives of Gepp and the dominance of Rivett. Both championed the application of science to industry but with different emphases and strategies; Gepp favoured large bureaucratic research organisations experimenting in the refinement of a technological process or solution of a problem, whereas Rivett as a classically trained research chemist, favoured the British university model of a small research team under an eminent scientist to solve technological problems. Rivett steadfastly supported "the man at the bench" and rejected bureaucratic structures. He expected the research to proceed beyond the solution of a problem to a point where a real contribution to the expansion of scientific knowledge had been made.

In November 1929 Senator J.J. Daly,Vice President of the Executive Council and the new minister responsible for CSIR in the Labour Government led by James Scullin, distributed a statement on fisheries he made in Parliament. The statement contained many of the ideas, and phrases, from the report Flynn made to the Development and Migration Commission. He said that under the previous Government much had been written and protracted correspondence exchanged with the States "but that no practical results had yet manifested themselves." Daly's solution was the same as Flynn's - "scientific research is required to attract private enterprise and capital for the exploitation of fisheries." He urged the Executive of CSIR to consider a new programme like that undertaken by the "Endeavour" but made no mention of an Australian Bureau of Fisheries.

The period 1927-1929 had been a period when infant Australian industries were promoted and eventually led to wide spread protectionism and tariff protected industries - even protection for the fishing industry received some consideration. But this burst of government support ended without aid to the development of fisheries notwithstanding the efforts of the Development and Migration Commission. The onset of economic depression further deferred any Commonwealth fisheries initiatives.

Despite the encouragement of Heath, the two Conferences of 1927 and 1929, and the urging of Daly, CSIR made no provision for fisheries in its budget estimates. Treasury restrictions in response to economic depression severely hit the organisation and it was barely able to continue existing programmes. The Development Commission recommended a new vessel be constructed and Prime Minister Scullin stated in Parliament that the Government would give effect to the advice but it had not decided how nor where the vessel would be built. But the Development and Migration Commission had lost its influence with the change of government and Scullin ended its existence in 1931. Gepp continued as a part time consultant for some time but it was not he, but his assistant Stanley Fowler, who was eventually instrumental in forcing the reluctant Rivett to establish a Fisheries Investigation Section in CSIR and a research station at Dannevig's 1880's fish hatchery at Cronulla on the southern outskirts of Sydney.

When the Development and Migration Commission closed Fowler was transferred to a Development Branch in the Prime Minister's Department. There he continued to press Gepp's ideas for exploratory fishing and to fight the academic outlook of the university marine biologists. By October 1931 various schemes to develop pelagic fisheries were being promoted and all seemed to require an assurance from some reputable Government organization that the fish were present. For example in order to finalize investment for a proposal for an integrated fishing/processing operation based on pelagic fish off Tasmania, the Nicholas company of Melbourne sought such an assurance from Stanley Fowler, then from the Tasmanian Sea Fisheries Board and finally from David Rivett. Rivett reported to his Chairman, Sir George Julius, on the 12th October that no one in the present state of our knowledge could give the assurance required. The Commonwealth Government was anxious to foster development and proposed a committee with Julius as Chairman to assist in the attraction of capital for fisheries development. Rivett warned Julius that the relationship between the Minister and the Development Branch was "not exactly satisfactory" and "the Branch has been expressing opinions which are probably more truthful than they are acceptable politically." Rivett was of the view that the new Committee was expected to provide the necessary assurance. John Gunn, head of the Development Branch, confirmed that the Minister was dissatisfied with the advice given by Fowler. Rivett recommended to Julius that he should not refuse to chair the Committee but demand full co-operation from Fowler and the Development Branch and warned

The Scullin Government was defeated soon after, nevertheless the Committee (Julius, Dakin and Wood - ex NSW Chief Inspector of Fisheries) reported to the new Minister,Senator McLachlan, that immediate research and the careful collection of statistics were required before development programmes were initiated. After such information is made available "the development of the industry should be left to private enterprise." McLachlan completed the policy circle when he referred the report to the Development Branch and CSIR!

The new Prime Minister Joseph Lyons was familiar with, and sympathetic to, the problems of developing fisheries. His first significant parliamentary task, almost 20 years before, was to chair a Select Committee of the Tasmanian House of Assembly charged with investigating the use of crayfish pots. Later as the Tasmanian Premier he reformed the administration of fisheries in 1924 by establishing a Sea Fisheries Board. They further recommended that in 1928 he had offered to jointly fund the proposed national fisheries research station with the Commonwealth.

With their financial position a little better CSIR became more involved in fisheries in 1932 but less impressed with Fowler's predictions and more influenced by the views of Dakin. In November 1932 another Committee, chaired by Julius and consisting of himself, Gunn and Dakin, presented a report outlining actions that the Government might take. They concluded that the Government should not purchase a trawler, as had been recommended by the 1929 conference and accepted in principle by Scullin, but should hire commercial vessels and reimburse owners of any loss. In any development programme priority be given to pelagic fishing including the use of the purse seine net and "some limited marine biological investigations be carried out at a shore station"; these latter two recommendations were consistent with the Conference proposals. In September Fowler wrote a 43 page report on the development of fisheries contesting the views of the Julius Committee. The "Argus"reported that Cabinet would consider the matter on July 5 1933. Eventually the Government supported Fowler's plan for a new Government vessel despite the Julius Committee's recommendations.

Finally in October 1933, seventeen years after the loss of the "Endeavour", Prime Minister Lyons announced that as a result of the recommendations of the 1927-29 conferences a sum of £20,000 was to be made available to procure a vessel specially designed for exploratory work on pelagic fisheries. In addition experiments on fish canning and the testing of other methods of preserving fish would be carried out. The Commonwealth would also cooperate with the States in a study of the distribution of fish products.

The Minister for the Interior, John Perkins, began the consideration of the expenditure in the Estimates debate in the House of Representatives on the 5th October 1933 by referring to the recommendations and philosophy that emerged from the conferences.

The discussion which followed was the most extensive debate since 1906 but in the intervening years the Members' knowledge of fisheries had barely improved. The difference between demersal and pelagic fish was as mysterious to most as it had been in 1907 and the primary pelagic fishing method, the purse seine net, was referred to by Mr Marr, the Minister for Health, as "persine fishing". Marr's overall contribution did little to assist Perkins with comments such as

There were other striking similarities with the "Endeavour" debate a quarter of a century before. For example the Government again appeared to be only vaguely aware of, or unprepared to discuss, how the vessel would be obtained (locally built or purchased from overseas) or how it would be managed. At a time of acute unemployment the Labour Opposition vigorously urged that it should be built at Cockatoo Island Dockyard. Secondly the possibility of the conservative party embracing a socialistic fishing business occupied considerable time -

The Government vigorously proclaimed that the vessel would only be engaged in research and directed by "the Commonwealth Director of Development (Gunn) who will obtain the advice and services of such expert officers as are necessary and will consult with the CSIR" and would not undertake commercial fishing. The Opposition was not satisfied -

Mr Hughes (UAP) doubted whether "in these hard times" such a venture was entirely laudable. Opposition members, particularly those from NSW were suspicious that the Government was excessively aiding private enterprise. Referring to the sale of the NSW government trawling fleet Mr Rosevear said

This seemed to be an endorsement of the Government's view, although it was not Rosevear's intention. He was effectively supporting the views of the Development and Migration Commission, and the Government, that private enterprise would indeed exploit the information provided by a government vessel to the benefit of the whole industry. Finally Mr Holman brought some clarity to the discussion

He agreed with an interjection from Mr Hutchins that the investigation would be like a geological survey. As members were clearly much more comfortable with the government's role in mining than fishing the vote was approved.

Perkins announced that the fisheries programme was to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Director of Development. Senator McLachlan, now Minister for Development and Scientific and Industrial Research, wrote to the Premiers

But Rivett argued that CSIR should carry out "marine scientific research" and the Development Branch only development work. The 1929 conference had recommended a Commonwealth Fisheries Bureau which, along with the State Departments of Fisheries, would carry out fisheries research to support management and foster fisheries development whilst CSIR would conduct marine biological research. McLachlan's announcement suggested that Gunn's Development Branch would assume much, if not all, of the functions of the proposed Bureau. However the universities had traditionally undertaken marine biological research and intended to continue. Here Rivett seemed to be defining a new role for CSIR - that of the "scientific aspects of fisheries research", implying that the universities research would not be related to fisheries or the Bureau would not undertake scientific research. Alternatively CSIR's role would overlap the other two. In retrospect the universities have never been seriously challenged for their dominant role in marine biology except where CSIRO wandered into the area and until the Australian Institute of Marine Science was established. Conversely rivalry and debate was to mark the relationship between CSIR, and its successor and Commonwealth agencies later established in lieu of the Bureau.