THE SEARCH FOR A COMMONWEALTH ROLE

The Fisheries Development Committee

Nevertheless the Executive still had reservations about Thompson's programmes. In September 1940 Rivett advised the Executive of his concern regarding the work of the "Warreen" urging that it must be considered essentially as an exploratory vessel. His recommendation was that a Committee be appointed to advise the Executive on the work of the fisheries laboratory and of the "Warreen" and to ensure a closer association with the University of Sydney and the industry. The Executive resolved that Julius and Rivett should again discuss the matter with Thompson. On the other hand the academic marine biologists, particularly Professor Goddard of Queensland University, urged Rivett not to direct the Fisheries Section along the exploratory fishing route. In a letter to Rivett on the 7th November 1940 he says "there is no undertaking in which CSIR is engaged that demands greater caution in relation to commercial advice and undertakings. The history of such advice as has been rendered in past years by the various States is an appalling story of unscientific and rashly judged advice ..... I have had no faith in the Gepp spirit as evidence in Mr. Fowler and I have been nervous of his unscientific enthusiasm. We require years of patient scientific work, concerted caution and co-operation between the States". Finally "I do most sincerely hope that no demands will be made for rashly early achievement on the part of the Fisheries Division and that the organization will be given the opportunity to rise above a merely technical plain. There is a demand for marine biological research and its broadest aspects in Australia and I look to CSIR to function as the fount in that connection."

Sir George Julius Chairman of CSIR took the chair at the Fourth National Fisheries Conference in 1940 (called by CSIR to develop the advisory committee idea referred to above) in Melbourne and began by recalling the 1929 conference chaired by Gepp. Sir David Rivett followed and hoped the conference would "help to bridge the gap between investigational work and its immediate industrial application.".To assist in this CSIR had invited eight leading figures from the industry; seven of them were fish processors. The Conference has some points of similarity with the 1929 meeting.

Julius warned "the functions of CSIR were more to give additional help to the State organizations than to go into the question of economic development."

Dakin chided the industry "the demand by industrialists for the provision by the Government of a large ship to go out and show how to catch these fish commercially was asking rather much." .

Fowler - pressed for "a new vessel (should) be chartered ...for intensive trolling for tuna." and "a boat building programme whereby at least 6 tuna trollers of 50 ft. or more could be built by the Commonwealth Government and let out to approved crews,"

Kesteven recalls that Fowler was the star performer and the meeting was a confrontation between Fowler's plans for surveys and Thompson's strategy based on biological investigations. "I think the Executive were disposed to favour Fowler's search-for-resources approach and wanted to find a way to support Fowler, but as scientists could not disown Thompson"

The Conference lasted two days and generally failed to inspire but it generally supported Fowler's policies and recommended the establishment of a Fisheries Development Committee consisting of Dakin, Thompson and representatives of industry with Fowler as Secretary, and :

.. another conference on developing mullet fisheries;

.. CSIR to recommend Commonwealth long term loans at low

interest for machinery and equipment;

.. CSIR to discuss with State departments revising fishing

regulations "where it is known that such are hindering

production."

Tariff Board Enquiry 1941

The resolution of the 4th conference in November 1940 recommended the establishment of a Commonwealth Fisheries Development Committee but the Commonwealth rejected that and instituted the Tariff Board Enquiry which began early in 1941. Despite the 1940 conference repeated calls continued,particularly from the Tasmanian Government, for the Commonwealth Government to support the development of pelagic fisheries. Eventually the Commonwealth Minister asked the Tariff Board "whether assistance to the fishing industries (including the processing of fish) is necessary and, if so, to what extent and in what form".

The Tariff Board hearings began in a climate of optimism

"The war has emphasized the need, previously apparent, for development of Australia's sea fishery resources.....The fishing resources of Australian seas have been sufficiently proved to warrant exploitation.... The position is that there are plenty of fish in our seas."

Messrs. H. McConaghey, H..F. Morris, H.E. Guy and W.J. Rose conducted the Enquiry and traveled to Melbourne, Sydney, Hobart and Launceston to hear witnesses but there was insufficient interest to warrant a visit to South Australia, Western Australia or Queensland. Given the present distribution of the fishing industry the Board's itinerary may appear eccentric but their report reveals that at the time there were only three fish canneries - two in New South Wales and one on Flinders Island and only two States (South Australia and Tasmania) "possess boats suitable for undertaking investigations in the open sea.". The Board attempted to cover the other States by correspondence and with an interview with the Chief Inspector of Fisheries in Western Australia but the state of industry organization frustrated their endeavours and was reflected by the comment -

"It was hoped that the South Australia Fishermen's League, whose views were sought, would be able to suggest means of rendering assistance to the industry, but there was no response to the invitation beyond an intimation that, while the fishermen realized that their industry required assistance to develop its full national value, the League was unable to formulate any scheme of assistance."

CSIR also declined to give formal evidence on the basis that the Enquiry's terms of reference were outside its charter but Thompson and Fowler both appeared in a private capacity. Nevertheless State Departments of Fisheries, fishermen and fish processors from New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania grasped the opportunity to push for assistance. Boat builders in Victoria and Tasmania urged Government support for building larger vessels and the Federal Association of Australian Housewives and the Navy commented (unfavorably) on the quality of Australian canned fish.

A New Commonwealth Fisheries Authority

In bringing down its report the Tariff Board reviewed the present state of the fishing industry and found:

- that a bounty on canned fish paid for 10 years from 1907 did not lead to the development of the industry;

- inshore fisheries were fully developed and there was limited opportunity to expand demersal fisheries but "marked expansion" must depend on pelagic fish;

- table fish is marketed fresh or frozen and is largely demersal fish. Pelagic fish is suitable for canning and whilst tuna is expected to be an excellent canning fish, canned Australian salmon needs improvement;

- important fishing grounds were limited to the waters near centres of population;

- the exploitation of pelagic fish in Australia was still experimental;

- the development of fisheries is obviously more the responsibility of the Commonwealth than of the States on account of the limitations imposed by State boundaries and the value of unified control. However, in some of the States, important steps have been taken by the authorities;

- "there has not been nearly the amount of attention paid to fisheries in Australia that there has been in many other countries, notably Japan, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, United States of America, Canada, Newfoundland, Germany and Denmark and, in recent years, the U.S.S.R. The simplest explanation of the lack of interest is that the abundance of food produced from the soil has not made necessary the exploitation of the resources of the sea. In this country for generations the emphasis has been on increasing the production of the soil and, even in the years of the worst harvests or the severest droughts, there has been no occasion for us to turn for subsistence to the sea. Fish has come to be regarded in the nature of a luxury or as a desirable variant or extra course at meals. Statistics show that the total consumption of meat (beef, mutton, lamb, pork bacon and ham) per head of Australian population amounted to 211 lb. annually over the last five years recorded. This could be compared with an annual consumption per head of approximately 14 lb. of fish which would include approximately 4.5 lb. of imported fish. Of the imported fish, approximately 3 lb. would be in canned form."

The Board's general conclusions were very positive.

"The advantages to be gained by the development of a large and prosperous fishing industry are important as a contribution to both war-time effort and post-war reconstruction. A desirable foodstuff could be made available to the community at reasonable prices from Australian resources; this is particularly important at present. A fleet of vessels would be maintained which could be drawn upon by the Navy in time of war, as also could their crews. The building and servicing of fishing boats would result in expansion of a desirable industry."

They supported the current programme of CSIR which "should be vigorously continued and, as occasion warrants, expanded" and stated that the stage had been reached when additional assistance outside CSIR was desirable -

- for inshore fishing an improved marketing system under State responsibility;

- for demersal fishing new, modern trawlers and danish seiners are needed to exploit more distant waters;

- only pelagic fishing have the possibility of major development.

The Board then turned to how assistance should be given and canvassed

either - an expanded role for CSIR;

or - a new Commonwealth organization covering both research and development;

or - the retention of research under CSIR and a new Commonwealth fisheries development authority as an adjunct to an existing Commonwealth Department.

The Board discussed the options with Rivett and the report records -

"However, discussions with the chief executive officer indicates that the council regards its functions as restricted to fundamental research and it would welcome relief from investigations into the developmental aspect."

Here Rivett, whilst repeating the views of Julius to the 1940 conference, seems to be expressing the dilemma that CSIR had faced since 1935 - how to carry out the Government's desire for an exploratory fishing programme inside an organization committed to excellent scientific research. Rivett told D'Alton

"Unfortunately CSIR cannot go much further in this matter(fisheries development). We come to our terminus at the boundary between scientific work and practical application. Much as we might like to trespass on the other side of the fence we must be careful not to pretend to possess knowledge on the economic side which is really not our function to develop".

From their actions and views both before and afterwards Thompson (at times) and Fowler seemed to have few inhibitions at leaping the fence.

This left only the third option which the Board endorsed. Recognizing the extent and diversity of the fishing grounds the Board recommended the new Authority should be a co-operative venture with State Departments but although the participation of industry representations would be desirable the lack of any organization made this impossible. The Board perceptibly foresaw problems of delineating the role of the new Authority and CSIR, co-ordinating State and Commonwealth activities and how to provide for industry representation. Their solution was to propose another national conference without industry representatives.

On the important question of the extent and nature of help to the industry the Board decided that CSIR and the new Authority should have adequate funds for staff and equipment but

- no case had been made for relief from custom duties on fuel and machinery nor for sales tax;

- higher duties on imported fish would not assist the industry;

- bounties on building fishing vessels and catching fish were not favoured;

- there was no justification for monetary grants or loans to new or existing canneries.("One canning concern, after overcoming considerable difficulties, appears to be satisfied with its prospects under existing conditions. The troubles of others seem to be, in part at least, due to failure to take all circumstances into account before embarking on the projects.") However when the new Authority is functioning "those responsible for such work will be in a position to recommend whether or not assistance....is necessary and if so what measures should be adopted for giving such assistance." But if they recommended changes to tariffs or duties "it will be necessary to comply with the provisions of the Tariff Act.", i.e. they will need the endorsement of the Tariff Board.

Thus, in summary, despite saying that the industry could be and should be expanded, and now was the time for the Commonwealth Government to assist, the Board said no to any monetary assistance in any form. But -

- there should be a new Commonwealth Authority;

- CSIR should continue as a research body;

There should be another conference to work out how the new Authority would fit into the existing administrative structure and the new Authority would be better placed to advise the Government on assistance. In essence their answer to the question posed as to whether assistance was justified was to recommend the establishment of a new Commonwealth Government department that could reconsider the question on a case by case basis.

The Fifth National Fisheries Conference

Having received the Tariff Board's report and approved its recommendation Federal Cabinet agreed to its call another conference to consider how CSIR and the proposed new Commonwealth fisheries authority would collaborate. Although the conference was called by the Nationalist Government it began on the day the Curtin Labor Government took office, thus one may assume that CSIR was not overly concerned that the new government might have a different view on the proposed Commonwealth Fisheries organization.

In preparation for the conference John Reynolds prepared a briefing for his Minister(D'Alton) based on discussions with CSIR, the NSW State Fisheries Department, NSW Development Bureau and industry representatives in Sydney and Hobart. He summarized the events that had preceded it and suggested how the new authority might be established:-

"- The recommendations of the Tariff Board has neither solved the problem nor suggested means of overcoming the difficulties connected with the establishment on a sound basis of the fishing industry..

- The conference now being held is not regarded with any enthusiasm.

- The proposed authority will consist of a leading commercial man and small Executive with probably Mr. Fowler as Secretary.

- C.S.I.R. want to retain "Warreen" and will therefore be the 'catching authority'.

- The new authority evidently will only be the connecting link between C.S.IR.and the 'Business World'. Note: This, of course, raises the question as to whether the new Authority is warranted, the commercial interests cannot see its necessity and are satisfied to deal direct with C.S.I.R. Fisheries Division.

- Professor Dakin, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Pearson are evidently in close

collaboration regarding the new proposals.

- The planned headquarters is to be in Sydney.

- The Fisheries Office (Chief Secretary's Department) N.S.W. is of the opinion that no great development can be expected from the fishing industry on the information available. But the Development Bureau is definitely of the opinion that the expectation of development can be regarded optimistically. Note: The Development Bureau is in close contact with the commercial and industrial world and probably is in possession of certain knowledge with regard to the expansion of the industry which the Fisheries Office has so far not been acquainted. Certain hints of expansion were given to us by the commercial companies.

- The C.S.I.R. (Fisheries Division) possesses a certain confidence of the commercial interests but it is not certain that the confidence will be reposed in the new Authority. It depends, of course, on the personnel.

The question of establishing a new Authority depends on:-

1. The duties that will be expected of them.

2. The representation on the Authority.

3. The personnel of the Executive.

4. Their scope and Authority.

Note: As a channel of communication and as a mean of collecting and collating all information on the fishing industry and its associate connections it will be of some value. We should insist, however, that it is not overloaded with a big staff which would make it unwieldy and tend to overlap into the realms of the C.S.I.R. (Fisheries) and State Fisheries Departments."

When the Conference began the principal matter discussed was the proposed Commonwealth Fisheries Development Authority and its relationship with CSIR but when Sir George Julius took the chair at the CSIR head office in Melbourne he began the meeting by announcing that other matters could be discussed. CSIR were represented by Julius, Thompson, Fowler and the Secretary G. Lightfoot together with Professor Dakin and Joseph Pearson. The case for CSIR was not made by Thompson but by Professor Dakin who again argued that all scientific work should rest with CSIR and exploratory surveying and gear investigations. This seems to reflect the Executive's growing discontent with Thompson and, in the absence of Rivett and Richardson, Dakin was assigned to press the Executive line. He moved that the Commonwealth Fisheries Development Authority should be confined to extension, liaison and administration. As the debate developed it became clear that Thompson and Fowler were supportive of the case pressed by Tasmania and Victoria that CSIR should not stop at research but should proceed to directly foster commercial development.

Contrary to the Tariff Board's recommendation the Conference declared clear demarcation lines were not possible and CSIR might stray into development at some time. The Conference set out seven functions for the Authority:

- the examination of commercial and economic aspects of the fishing industry and to make recommendations to others re developing fisheries;

.. to advise on means to stimulate development;

.. to advise the Minister on the allocation of funds;

.. to promote an interest in fisheries and maintain close contact

with the States;

.. to encourage uniformity in State fisheries legislation;

.. to examine the need for improved navigational aids;

.. to establish contact with the defence service to see what fish and

fish products were needed in the war.

The functions of the Authority bear little relationship to the Bureau proposed in 1929 and did not appear likely to over extend the manpower resources of the Commonwealth Public Service.

The Conference went on to consider the structure of the new Authority. Dakin proposed an organization similar to CSIR with a small executive without representation from the States, his views were supported by Pearson. H.C. Smith (Tas) countered with D'Alton's proposal for a Commonwealth Department of Fisheries and a Commonwealth Advisory Council following the model of the Agricultural Council. He attacked the concept of an Executive on the grounds that it was simply placing another body between the operators and the Government. Julius replied that "the time was not propitious for the formation of a new Commonwealth Department." New South Wales proposed a system of State Committees and a federal body advising the Minister. Both Dakin and Smith made modifications to their proposals. Smith's proposal was supported by Western Australia and Queensland but not for the last time would the three distant States be defeated 4:3 by CSIR for the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

The vote by South Australia against the Tasmanian proposal was apparently made contrary to Government policy for on 5th November, after reading the Minutes of the Conference, A.P.Blessing, the South Australian Minister responsible for fisheries, wrote to D'Alton. Having read of Smith's motion "I am impressed with the idea, and regret that it was not carried" .. the Agricultural Council "was an excellent organization, and one along similar lines for fisheries should be beneficial. Might I suggest that you ask the support of the Ministers in other States in bringing the matter before the Commonwealth Government". When D'Alton received the letter he was in the midst of an election campaign or he might have more caustically reminded Blessing that if his State had voted for the motion there would have been no cause for his "regret". Instead he stressed that "Unfortunately the Conference was held despite a change in the composition of the Federal government, and no efforts were made as far as I know to ascertain the new Government's view. I note in Sunday's press that the Commonwealth Government is suggesting that the new Fishing Authority may be established under the control of the Department of Supply and Development. You will recollect that a recommendation of this nature was passed at the Fisheries Conference in Melbourne in 1940"

No Result

Thus was a second attempt to establish a Commonwealth Fisheries Bureau/Department defeated. The Conference resolved that there should be a Commonwealth Council for Fisheries Development consisting of a Standing Committee and an Executive. The Executive should consist of a part time Chairman and two full time members, plus a Secretary and such staff as was necessary. The Standing Committee should consist of a member from CSIR and one from each State Government plus the Executive. The Chairman should be appointed in consultation with the States and a member of CSIR should attend Executive meetings to ensure liaison. State advisory committees would be considered by the States.

A review of the proceedings reveal that Tasmania and the distant States supported a bigger Commonwealth role as proposed by Fowler and Thompson.The CSIR Executive sought (and ultimately achieved) a nominal bureaucratic function thus their spokesman Professor Dakin co-opted Pearson to undermine the Tasmanian position. The Tasmanians were allied with the views of the two most qualified fisheries people, Thompson and Fowler, both members of CSIR's own Fisheries Division. Thompson's contributions were confined to an outline of proposed Commonwealth functions and the Minutes make no reference to Fowler.

It is difficult to conceive a more cumbersome and bureaucratic structure to guide a Cinderella industry struggling to develop nor a more top heavy administration to direct an organization with so limited a role.

However within a few weeks of the Conference the Commonwealth Government had much more pressing matters to consider than a Commonwealth Fisheries Authority. The war entered a much more desperate stage for Australia with the entry of Japan into the conflict. D'Alton wrote to John J Dedman, Minister in Charge of CSIR in the new Government, urging him not to appoint a Chairman of the new Executive until he had discussed the matter with him during visit to Canberra "within the next fortnight".It is not clear whether this meeting had any influence but Dedman told Claude Barnard (MHR) in November that the Government may establish a development authority in the Department of Supply and Development. The new government quickly shelved the recommendations of the CSIR Conference and adopted the course foreshadowed by Dedman. The Minister for Supply and Development, John Beasley, declared of the recommendations of the conference :

- practical results would be slow in coming,

- the research specialists and equipment required could not be spared from "important war work",

- the proposal was unlikely to relieve the wartime food shortage and the same results could be achieved by direct contact between Thompson, the State departments and the Supply Organization.