THE EARLY WAR YEARS

"1) That 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..

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

3) The proposed authority will consist of a leading commercial man and small Executive with probably Mr. Fowler as Secretary. Note: It is essential that Tasmania has representation on the Executive.

4) C.S.I.R. want to retain Wareen and will therefore be the 'catching authority'.

5) 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.

6) Professor Dakin, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Pearson are evidently in close collaboration regarding the new proposals.

7) The headquarters will be in Sydney.

8) 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

.9) 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.

We should be careful not to be ignored in the setting up of the Authority, if decided upon, as we detected a feeling that if Tasmania does not agree to the proposals, it will be proceeded with without Tasmanian representation."

When the Conference began to discuss the principal matter, the proposed Commonwealth Fisheries Development Authority and its relationship with CSIR, somewhat surprisingly, the case for CSIR was not made by Thompson but by Professor Dakin. He again argued that all scientific work, and exploratory surveying and gear investigations, should rest with CSIR. 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. Tasmania and Victoria argued that CSIR should not stop at research but should proceed to directly foster commercial development. As the debate developed it became clear that Thompson and Fowler supported of that view.

Despite the Tariff Board's recommendation the Conference declared "clear demarcation lines" were not possible and CSIR might stray into development at some time; nevertheless it set out seven functions for the proposed Authority:

- 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 bore little relationship to the Fisheries Bureau proposed in 1929 and ensured that it would have no operational role.

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 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 planting another body between the industry and the Government. Julius replied that "the time was not propitious for the formation of a new Commonwealth Department." Tasmania was supported by Queensland. New South Wales proposed a system of State Committees and a federal body advising the Minister. In the light of the debate both Dakin and Smith made modifications to their proposals. Smith's final proposal was supported by Western Australia and Queensland but, and not for the last time, the three distant States were defeated 4:3 by CSIR for the Commonwealth, New South Wales and South Australia.

The Conference further 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 for the new organization. The Tasmanians were allied with the views of the two most experienced fisheries people, Thompson and Fowler, both members of CSIR's own Fisheries Division.

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". However his reply inferred that the decisions of the conference would be reviewed in another, more favourable forum. He wrote "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".

Within a few weeks of the Conference the Commonwealth Government had more pressing matters to consider than a Commonwealth Fisheries Authority when the War entered a much more desperate stage, with the entry of Japan into the conflict. D'Alton wrote to J 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 in November that the Government may establish a development authority in the Department of Supply and Development. Whatever the ultimate cause, the new government quickly shelved the recommendations of the Conference and adopted the course foreshadowed by Dedman. The Minister for Supply and Development, John Beasley, said 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", and the proposal was unlikely to relieve the wartime food shortage. The same results could be achieved by direct contact between Thompson, the State Departments and the Supply Organization.

The retirement of Col. Lord, who had chaired the Board since its inception allowed the administration of sea fisheries to be changed. Dr. Joseph Pearson of the Tasmanian Museum had been elected to replace Lord but, despite his obvious desire to take control of fisheries, he had influential opponents. Reynolds had relayed to the Government Lord's opinion, that Pearson "has not taken a great deal of practical interest in the work of the Board. His work is in no way comparable to that of his predecessor the late Clive Lord." Pearson set out his qualification for the position in a long letter to D'Alton . He referred to his training as a marine biologist and having been formerly head of the Ceylon Fisheries Department. He had earlier referred to his career in Ceylon when offering advice to D'Alton on the evidence he should put to the Tariff Board. In that letter he urged caution in the government financing fisheries ventures, describing the support given to the Weerutta as an instance of "how support should not be given".

Pearson was a strong advocate of the "scientific research first" theory of fisheries development to avoid "the error common to so many countries, of floating expensive commercial concerns, and spending large sums of money, before the necessary investigations into abundance, distribution and methods of catching the food fishes had been thoroughly worked out." Opponents of this view argue that scientists can rarely ever be satisfied that enough investigating has been carried out. Although Professor Dakin often exhibited views similar to Pearson, on one occasion, in a radio broadcast, he urged a more adventurous course

However a more persuasive contrary view was published anonymously in the Fisheries Newsletter :

Pearsons's letter also criticized the proposed link with Agriculture. "One must guard against the error, so frequently made of trying to compare sea fisheries with agriculture. The problems of these large industries are comparable only in general terms." As D'Alton and Reynolds were already engaged in promoting an expensive concern, their desire to remove fisheries administration from the Sea Fisheries Board, particularly under Pearson's chairmanship, to D'Alton's own Department was understandable. Reynolds had previously sent to H.C. Smith a damning criticism of Pearson following the Melbourne Conference in November 1940 and before the latter's appointment as Chairman. "There is absolutely no confidence in him and the executive of CSIR refused to invite him to the recent conference despite his great efforts to attend. The leaders of the trade on the mainland, are also opposed to him. It has been ascertained from the Fisheries Department of Singapore that he has no standing at all in the scientific side of fisheries." The letter was somewhat maliciously referred to Cabinet but Pearson's appointment was announced nevertheless. Pearson had, at least on paper, impeccable credentials for the post. As has been referred to earlier, Pearson was better qualified academically than any other person then working in Australian fisheries and he had spent more than two decades in research, development and conservation of the fisheries resources of an island almost exactly the same size as Tasmania. However this long service in the British colonial service left unmistakable mannerisms and a conservative outlook that did not sit easily with all those wishing to shape fisheries development in the later years of the Great Depression in Tasmania.

After the national fisheries conference at the end of 1940 D'Alton asked Reynolds to review the Sea Fisheries Board following the retirement of the Chairman, Col. J.E.C. Lord. In anticipation an amendment to the Act had been passed which allowed a member, other than the Commissioner of Police, to be elected Chairman. Reynolds urged a complete review of the membership of the Board.

Reynolds was confident that D'Alton would arrange for Smith to take over the chairmanship of the Board and reassured Fowler accordingly.

Cabinet accepted D'Alton's premise that the fishing industry, with Government help, was ready to expand, and that as the "Board is only empowered to control, protect and maintain sea fisheries" a Department, with a development objective should take responsibility. The Premier announced that the "Government had always regarded fisheries as a primary industry" and control would in future be exercised by the Department of Agriculture. By April 3rd 1941 the transfer of administration to Agriculture was effected. A Mercury editorial praised the decision,

It was noteworthy that Cosgrove drew attention to possible future development of a canning factory "in the south" as one justification for the change.

The Sea Fisheries Board was not to be killed off but "reconstructed" and "given additional powers". "If the proposed canning industry were established its sponsors would be represented on the Board.". But, instead of the promised additional powers, D'Alton accepted the advice of his Department to give the Board "advisory power only". Smith further proposed that the new Board should consist of a representative of the Department of Agriculture, one representative of fish processors and two fishermen representatives, one from the north west coast and one from the south and east coast. Smith advised that the administrative work including the issue of licences could be handled by a part time clerk.

The Fisheries Act of 1941 transformed the Sea Fisheries Board into an Advisory Board and transferred administration from Police to Agriculture. The new Act left Inland Fisheries (Part III of the Act) still with the Attorney-General James McDonald and the policing of regulations with Tasmania Police. However provision was made to appoint specialized staff, including inspectors, and shortly afterwards the new Fisheries Division began to employ its own enforcement officers. Tom Challenger resigned from the Police Force in May to join the Division as its first inspector.

The Sea Fisheries Advisory Board met for the first time in D'Alton's office on the 25 September 1941. The make up of the Board was interesting: Smith as Chairman, Andrewartha representing the Police, Pearson "representing certain scientific bodies" as he had under the former Board, Andrew Joseph Burgess representing fishermen of the north coast and V.S.C. (Bill) Williams (formerly of the old Sea Fisheries Board) representing fishermen from the south and east coasts, were fairly predictable appointees. But Reynolds "representing persons engaged in preserving, canning and processing fish" was surprising. D'Alton addressed the Board on an impressive programme of development. He spoke of the proposed Commonwealth authority, the government plan to build a cool store for Triabunna, a joint scheme, with CSIR, to bring an expert tuna crew from the USA to demonstrate purse seining, loans for fishermen, the predation by seals and the scallop fishery.

The Board met again for its first working session on the 1st May 1942 to redraft the Regulations and discuss the purse seining tests. The interval of eight months demonstrated that the new Board would be truly advisory and in future the Department would control sea fisheries. In October 1942 the Commonwealth Government acted on one of the Tariff Board recommendations and began building large wooden ships at Prince of Wales Bay. A Wooden Shipbuilding Board was established and St. Ledger was appointed Secretary. Roy Huon Scott, a former port inspector in the Department of Agriculture replaced him as D'Alton's Secretary and was also appointed Acting Secretary of Fisheries.

The Department of Agriculture subscribed to the view that biological investigations should be conducted in parallel with the "investigations and development of fisheries." To undertake this work Smith proposed that the investigations should be in the hands "of a young officer who had instructed and shown an inclination for biology as a hobby during his schooling." This young man was to be appointed to the staff of the entomologist (Dr. J.W. Evans) "a biologist of wide experience and interests" whilst undertaking a science course at the University of Tasmania. His work would be directed by Evans and J.A. Tubb, the CSIR research officer who had been sent by Thompson to work in the Department of Agriculture. "It is only with the closest collaboration with CSIR that many agricultural problems in this State have been solved and I feel that fisheries problems could best be attacked in the same way", said Smith. It was a pity that the vastly experienced Pearson was not able to participate in this training.

With the Government re-elected the Sea Fisheries Division proceeded with acquiring a vessel. CSIR replaced Allan Tubb, who had been sent to America to study tuna fishing, with Maurice Blackburn, the son of a prominent Labor politician of the same name, as their officer in Hobart. A. M. Olsen reports that Tubb, Blackburn, and his successor Fairbridge considered they had been exiled to Tasmania. Whilst the new vessel, to be called Liawenee, was being constructed, the Government bought a 70ft motor launch the Arcadiar and built a platform on the stern to permit seining trials to begin. CSIR lent the Division a surround net that was variously described as a purse seine, a ring net and a lampara. Trials were made in D'Entrecasteaux Channel for sprats(Clupea bassensis) and in May 1942 a substantial catch of 5 tonnes was made. This catch was witnessed by the fish processors Luke Wright and C T Cox who were guests on the vessel, their experience lead directly to substantial investment in canneries. Stanley Fowler, still based in Melbourne, managed to continue with his aerial work despite the wartime restrictions and the Arcadiar did further useful work under the guidance of Blackburn demonstrating that surround nets could catch substantial quantities of pelagic fish. CSIR arranged for two more nets and a Hobart fish processor H Watt purchased one for his vessel "Mary" and caught 4 tonnes of mackerel in May.

Two new positions were authorised for the Sea Fisheries Division, a cadet biologist and a cadet inspector. Bern Cuthbertson, son of owner of the Weerutta, was appointed to the latter post; however he resigned early in 1942 and was replaced by S. Haward. The cadet inspector worked with Tom Challenger who was seconded from the Police to establish a specialized fisheries inspection unit. Thompson was not impressed with the idea of training a cadet biologist, he strongly argued for "open competition for an Honours Graduate in Biology and Chemistry." . The attempt by the State to enter the field of research was not welcomed by CSIR.

At the beginning of April 1941 Government felt confident enough in D'Alton's strategy to announce the possibility of a new fish cannery for southern Tasmania . Cosgrove met the Acting Prime Minister in Canberra soon afterwards and pressed him to match Tasmania £ for £ up to a total of £5000 to promote purse seining. D'Alton asked Rivett to endeavor to reverse the Acting Prime Minister's "unsympathetic response" but Rivett was reticent and suggested waiting until the Tariff Board reported -"it can't be long now".

D'Alton's second reading speech to the 1941 Act was redolent with the phrases that had peppered all such events since 1882.

The Commonwealth Government prohibition on the importation of fish as a wartime measure, created a potential demand for £1,000,000 worth of canned fish to be met by Australia's few canneries. Tasmania was best placed to take advantage of this opportunity with Australian salmon, barracouta and tuna in apparent abundance, so D'Alton had good grounds for his optimism. The speech concluded with two forecasts:-

... the Government would abide by the Tariff Board's findings, and

... other legislatives were planned to promote development.

In Parliament D'Alton paid tribute to the contribution of CSIR in the evaluation of pelagic resources and referred to "many conferences of late months with Sir David Rivett, Dr. Thompson and Mr. Fowler" and their enthusiasm. As soon as the Bill was passed D'Alton advised Harold Thompson at CSIR. He acknowledged that a briefing of Members by Thompson and Fowler was "of the utmost importance, particularly to those members of the Legislative Council who do not usually look with favour on the alteration of existing conditions." Thompson provided continuing support - "It will give me great pleasure to afford any help in my power with regard to the establishment of a fish cannery and refrigerated stores" Thompson replied on the 2nd of June. The meeting with the parliamentarians "was a complete success" and resulted in very favourable publicity for CSIR. Thompson "deeply impressed them all" and "Fowler also just said the right things without the slightest exaggeration."

The Government's strategy included a single large factory for Tasmania but not based on the Flinders Island Cannery. Thompson warned that he had heard that the Flinders Island Company were not keen on amalgamation despite the obvious advantages. He was concerned that any opposition to the establishment of a cannery in Hobart may be fatal to the project. Shortly after the Fisheries Bill was passed the Government amended the State Advances Act to allow the Agricultural Bank to make assistance available "for the taking, handling, preserving, processing or disposal of fish." D'Alton publicly acknowledged that a shortage of vessels was the major factor inhibiting the production of canned fish and he hoped the measure would allow fishermen to acquire newer larger vessels.

Following the successful outcome of its support for the development of a paper pulp industry the Government felt fully justified in now investing in the fishing industry. The Minister advised that £20,000 had been allocated for distribution to the fishing industry under the amended Act. The Government strategy received fulsome praise from the leader writer of the Melbourne Herald "The interest the Tasmanian Government is taking in granting practical assistance in the formation of an extensive fish canning industry in Tasmania is both typical of the steps which have been taken in that State to make the most of its natural resources, and an example to others."

Despite the difficulties being experienced by the Flinders Island Company four companies were interested in establishing canneries in Tasmania. D'Alton shared Thompson's view that the Flinders Island factory was in the wrong place, he was concerned that if it were forced to close "it would throw development of the fishing industry in Tasmania back 20 years". He urged Rivett to stress with Thompson the repercussions that would follow a closure and to act accordingly. Following Reynolds's investigation in October the previous year, the Government had been actively seeking to tie major food companies into the strategy to develop fisheries. By May 1941 D'Alton had received a commitment from Seafresh Seafood P/L of Melbourne who, in turn, had convinced Nicholas Pty. Ltd. to join with them. On receiving the commitment D'Alton got Cabinet approval to advance half the cost of the necessary vessels. The Government gave the Managing Director of Seafresh , Fred Haase, exclusive authority until 18 June to raise the capital for a joint venture (Seafresh - Nicholas - Tasmanian Government). D'Alton (with Cabinet approval) committed the State to find £15-20,000 capital as an equal partner. His discussions with Federal Ministers were encouraging and he advised Haase on the 9th June that although "this is subject to Parliamentary approval to which we anticipate no difficulty whatever." After seeking and receiving confidential advice from Rivett, D'Alton urged Haase to agree to manage the joint venture.

The Premier revealed in Parliament on 4th June 1941 that the Government had been negotiating with three mainland companies with a view to establishing a single, amalgamated canning company, justifying their actions on the grounds that many fishing companies had failed for "lack of capital and organization." Fearing the Legislative Council may not support this proposal, Cosgrove moved that a Select Committee should examine the matter; the Opposition and the Legislative Council readily supported the motion.

The Select Committee heard evidence from the principals of the interested companies and the leading members of the Tasmanian fishing industry. F.J. Haase revealed that he had been invited to Tasmania to advise on refrigeration for the fishing industry. He agreed with D'Alton that a lack of organization amongst fishermen was the reason why canneries had not developed. He gave evidence that D'Alton had proposed to him that the Government should join with his company in establishing a new company, but their present plan was to be associated with the Nicholas Group in a joint venture. Arthur W. Lightfoot the Director of Research and Production for Nicholas confirmed the plans. The partners were satisfied that the supply of fish was proven and were happy to work with the Government. The joint venture planned to produce Vitamins A and D as its principal objective as the supply of cod liver oil from Europe was curtailed by the war. They had discovered that shark livers were rich in Vitamin A but not D, but tuna could supply the latter. Robert Hall, the eccentric entrepreneur mentioned in chapter 5, gave evidence that fish oils had cured his rheumatism and skin cancer.

Stanley Fowler (CSIR) strongly supported the Government's belief in the availability of fish but Frederick H. Peacock of H. Jones & Co. strongly disagreed. Based on his company's experience with the Weerutta there was "absolutely no evidence that they (canning fish) can be caught." .... "Over a long period of years we have lost our faith." (p34). ... "I have never been satisfied that the fish are there ..... the venture would be a gamble." Peacock's position was set out in a formal submission and graphically supports Jones & Co's disillusionment; their agreement to support the tuna development plan by canning 90 tons (15 tons per week for 6 weeks from 15th March 1939) resulted in the receipt of less than 10% of that amount. Accepting the excuse of "teething troubles" they agreed to take a greater amount in 1940 when they received 8 tons. By the time of the hearing they had been involved for 3 years, had expected 300 tons of tuna, but had received only 17 tons in the first two years. Despite the commitment of two specially equipped vessels in the past season, plus the Wareen, they had only 18 deliveries totaling 8 tons. Whilst IXL had previously supported the development of the tuna fishery P.E.Keam the Chairman of the Tasmanian Committee of CSIR advised Rivett that the Company now "would not touch the fishing side" In the same letter Keam reveals that the fishermen were not solely to blame for the Company's jaundiced view "their pack is universally condemned by consumers."

The major Hobart fish buyer Gregory Casimaty shared Peacock's view. "I admire Mr. D'Alton for encouraging the industry, however while there are no supplies it is no good starting the industry ...we and Jones and Co. are prepared to take all the supplies of fish" he said at page 102 of the report. His experience of 27 years in fishing in Tasmania left him with concerns about the constancy of supply, yet one discerns a whiff of collusion between the two established companies when faced with Government support for a competitor. The Government would be more help if they provided better charts for fishermen he advised. D'Alton vigorously contested Casimaty's views presenting telegrams signed by Casimaty to several fishermen refusing to accept more supplies of their fish. A.C. Blacklow, MLC, and William Spaulding representing the Dunalley Fishermen's Co-operative, and the Tasmanian Fisherman's Association, were enthusiastic about the prospect of development, but, like B.T. Cuthbertson, would have preferred a wholly Tasmanian venture.

As D'Alton feared, the future of the struggling Flinders Island Canning Company was a major bone of contention. Norman Gadsen on behalf of that company complained that local fishermen would not supply fish and eventually they were forced to buy six vessels. They needed 20 tons of fish a week and were in doubt about the capacity of the resource to supply much more than this. Gadsen was concerned that the Government's proposal would be in competition with them - why not support us? He conceded that fishermen did not like living on Flinders Island, despite the construction of houses for them by the Government, and Hobart had advantages in this regard. Dunkerly, who had founded the Flinders Island Company, had left the firm after fighting to keep it alive and had joined the new joint venture. Despite the urging of several northern members of Parliament and Senator Lamp the Government was not keen to put more funds into Flinders Island but D'Alton was very supportive when Andrew Burgess proposed a State freezer for Stanley. D'Alton continued to seek Commonwealth funds and pressed the Parliamentary Rural Industries Committee when they visited Hobart in July 1941.

The Select Committee Report was tabled on 22nd July 1941 and the Government had much to be pleased about. The Committee found:-

.. Tasmanian waters abounded with great quantities of commercial fish

.. the Government should not take up shares in the Flinders Island Company or assist its incorporation into the new venture.

.. the State is best able to assist the industry be active participation in its development under conditions laid down in the Fish Industry Establishment Bill.

Following the tabling D'Alton revealed the details of the proposed joint venture when he moved the second reading of the Fish Industries Establishment Bill. The State would take up 25,000 £1 shares as part of providing £150,000 capital for Tasmanian Fish Industries Pty. Ltd. The Victorian companies Nicholas Pty. Ltd. and Seafresh Seafoods Pty. Ltd. would each take up 25,000 shares. The Government was co-operating with CSIR in their moves to bring several U.S. fishing experts to demonstrate purse seining. Vessels would be built together with a major refrigerated plant in Hobart and smaller depots elsewhere in south eastern Tasmania. Canning would not begin until the second stage, but fish oils would be produced as soon as possible. The debate on the Bill was adjourned after the second reading speech.

When debate resumed next day the Opposition split, the leader Henry Baker (a former Minister responsible for fisheries) and Messrs. Soundy, Shoobridge, Foster and Turner voted with the Government in support of the Bill. Baker had independently sought the advice of CSIR in May asking whether their investigations "have reached such a stage that the development of the fisheries is likely to be successful". Thompson replied very positively "the time has certainly come to attempt the expansion of Tasmanian fisheries.... In my opinion the work of investigation has proceeded far enough to warrant prompt consideration being given to such development."The opponents of the measure led by Sir Walter Lee doubted that sufficient research had been done to prove the supplies of fish were reliable. They were also concerned for the effect on the Flinders Island Company.

Baker acknowledged that the Flinders Island company regarded the Bill "with apprehension: and the report of the Select Committee "contained some pious remarks regarding the company." However the supporters maintained the country was starved of fish and there was room for both ventures. D'Alton assured the House that negotiations to achieve an amalgamation had not finished, but Mr. Ockerby (for the opposition) felt the Bill should be renamed "a Bill to close the Flinders Island fishing factory". Mr. Wright also believed that the proposed joint venture would close the Flinders Island factory and unsuccessfully moved for an adjournment to give time for an amalgamated venture including Flinders Island to be established.

Stripped of their newly found concern for the factory at Lady Barron the Opposition was simply opposed to this reformist initiative. "We are simply taking a plunge into the deep with heaven knows what result." (Sir Walter Lee). During the debate E W Turner referred to D'Alton as "a socialist sardine lying down with the capitalistic shark." The Minister responded with admiration of the ex-Magistrate's wit "I am only sorry he won't be here long enough to allow us to enjoy more of it ... I owe him that, because I heard him say to me '23 shillings and 8 shillings costs' "

Whilst the conservative forces were unsuccessful in the House of Assembly they were better placed in the Legislative Council, despite the favourable report from the Select Committee. The Select Committee contained four members from the Council and, ominously for the Government, three of these were the only members of the Committee to oppose the positive report. After the Bill passed the House of Assembly the directors of the Flinders Island Company exploited the probability of a less sympathetic hearing in the Upper House; they publicly threatened to close the factory unless they received Government support. "If the Government abandons Flinders Island completely and persists in its extraordinary policy we shall have no alternative but to close our factory and this we shall do at the end of the month" A Mercury editorial on the same day predicted that the Legislative Council "which is apt to be more cautious and conservative where State money is concerned" would be more difficult to convince of the virtues of the Bill. A further editorial three days later urged "the need for greater caution than was displayed in the manner in which the Bill was rushed through the House of Assembly." Before the Bill was debated in the Council D'Alton attempted to head off northern opposition in a speech in Launceston in which he pledged Government assistance to any existing interest in fishing or fish canning. D'Alton offered to build a refrigerated fish depot at Triabunna where the Flinders Island boats could "pick up fish for transport" to the factory at Lady Barron.

The full force of the Opposition was revealed when the Bill was read a second time in the Council by the Attorney-General James McDonald. Haase, having previously been assured that the Government expected no difficulty in Parliament, began to exhibit acute concern when the public debate began after the Bill passed the House of Assembly. "I am impressed by the amount of propaganda which has emanated from the vested interests and by the attitude of the local press." he wrote in a letter to D'Alton. Hobart retailer W G Bowtell and Launceston ship's chandler, G P Smith, were vociferous public opponents. Alexander Lillico (a member of the Select Committee) called it "putting the cart before the horse" - the supplies of fish were not yet proven. The Government should seek a joint investigation with the Commonwealth. Lillico was supported by another veteran conservative, Charles Eady -"the proposal was too nebulous" he warned. Lillico moved that the debate be adjourned for a month. McDonald viewed the motion as a vote to kill the Bill and vigorously resisted but it was carried on the casting vote of the President.

Although Lillico lead the opposition to the measure and would be thereafter be attacked by D'Alton and others for its defeat, the decisive motions were moved by Charles Eady and Joe Darling. Eady and Darling were great friends and both Australian representative cricketers. The attacks on Lillico for his obstruction of fisheries development were so virulent that he was forced to pay for newspaper space to defend his position. In the Advocate on the 25 May 1942 he explained that his move to delay the measure was not to defeat the project but to allow time to seek more information and Commonwealth assistance. The Advocate summarised the matter in a long editorial on August 4th by referring to the current scarcity of canned fish and the opportunity for development at this time. "There is something to admire, perhaps, in the enthusiasm that the Minister for Agriculture displayed in this matter" said the editor but he concluded that had the Minister showed more patience in both the Select Committee and the Parliament his venture may well have been crowned with success.

The Government attempted to now incorporate the Flinders Island Company in the venture in the hope of saving the scheme. Although the Flinders Island Company restructured the venture could not be saved; D'Alton wrote to Haase on 10 November 1941 "no good purpose can be served at the present time in taking further action in the matter." Having disposed of the threat of government sponsored opposition, the Company immediately expanded to meet the war-time demand and constructed a freezer at Dunalley to supplement its Lady Barron operation.

Despite the set back at the hands of the conservatives in the Legislative Council D'Alton had no intention of giving up the concept of fisheries development. The Cosgrove Government went to the people at the end of 1941 taking advantage of the fall of Menzies Government, the German attack on Russia, and the gentlemanly, if politically naive, decision of Henry Baker to set aside the usual partisan politics. It won a landslide victory a few days before the attack on Pearl Harbour. In his policy speech the Premier reminded electors of his Government's commitment to fisheries.

In an accompanying statement from D'Alton's office, on Commerce and Industry, reference was made to severe competition amongst the States for development and thus the State must "face facts" and be prepared to offer "attractive concessions" to ensure that Tasmania receives its share of new industries. "As a Government, in negotiating for certain industries, we have been disappointed on many occasions." Contemporaneously Prime Minister Curtin appointed a Committee to survey the economic position of Tasmania in relation to the war effort. The Committee was chaired by Professor E.R. Walker and assisted by H.C. Barnard MHR for Bass, and Sir George Bell. The Committee gave ringing endorsement to the fisheries development strategy and recommended that as Tasmania had "great potential for canned fish:-

It was not until Japan entered World War II that the Australian fishing industry began to be seriously affected by the changed economic circumstances. War time restrictions of men and fuel threatened the traditional scallop season in the winter of 1942 but the intervention of the State Government obtained a relaxation of the controls and ensured that scalloping continued throughout the war. The development strategy also had to be adapted. Minister of Supply and Development John Beasley wrote a personal note to D'Alton it which he explained why new enterprises could not be approved "at the moment". Most of the larger boats had been requisitioned for the Navy and "many things of great magnitude will happen within the next few months and the whole of our manpower and resources must be as far as possible, employed on the production of equipment vitally connected with the defence of our country. To commence a new enterprise at the moment, notwithstanding the justification of the case, would be unwise."

Luke Wright formerly Chief Executive of the fishing company Cam & Sons Pty. Ltd. of Sydney who referred to himself as "the leading practical authority in Australia on our fisheries" wrote to Beasley a few months later in August 1942. As mentioned earlier he had recently been in Tasmania and was invited to join a cruise of the Arcadiar during which he had observed huge shoals of blue sprat (Clupea bassensis) and he now sought a Commonwealth loan of £10,000 to purchase a purse seiner or the loan of "one of the Danish seiners not now being used to the best advantage." He told the Mercury "an unlimited market is available in NSW for all the fish that can be caught off Tasmania at good prices". Beasely sought the view of D'Alton before answering Wright. D'Alton's reply referred to the his Government's development strategy and that £10,000 had now been provided for the building of cool stores to supplement the "developmental plans of private industry at Dunalley, Devonport and Stanley". D'Alton endorsed Wright's capacity as a reliable developer and recommended that the fishing industry should be classified as a protected industry to overcome the problems that had been encountered with wartime restrictions. (Wright also applied to the Beasley for approval to float a company, Australian Canneries and Fish Products P/L, to operate 10 trawlers/danish seiners from Eden in NSW.)

The war time demand and the demonstrations of the Arcadiar stimulated fish canning and factories sprouted like mushrooms all the State. Launceston, Devonport, Stanley and Dunalley all received substantial investment. The East Coast Canning Co was formed and, as previously mentioned, the Flinders Island Co was restructured and developed, as Fish Canneries of Tasmania P/L, by purchasing the business and assets of the Tasmanian Fisherman's Cooperative at Dunalley and expanded the barracouta business. The State Government also invested; it called tenders for the construction on a Cool Store for fish at Triabunna in April 1943 and announced the intention to proceed with a similar facility at Stanley. Tasmania was seen as a prime source of fish to alleviate shortages in Melbourne and Sydney. Prices of fish rose in response to the demand of the new factories until finally controls were introduced. Accusations were laid that fishermen received only 30% of the controlled wholesale price, shortly afterwards retail prices of fish were also controlled.

In June 1943 D'Alton made another attempt to promote a joint venture, this time with three partners, ironically one was Fish Canneries of Tasmania P/L (the restructured Flinders Island Co). This time Government was prepared to commit its share, £15,000, as vessels and gear. D'Alton wanted to use the new Sea Fisheries Development Trust Account he had established but the Solicitor-General urged specific Parliamentary approval. A Bill to authorize the investment was introduced into the House of Assembly on 25th September but again failed to in the Legislative Council. Despite the wartime emergency entrenched conservatism could not be shifted and Commonwealth action was needed.

The impact of D'Alton and Reynolds effectively ended in July 1943 when Prime Minister Curtin advised the Premiers that

"During the war the fishing industry has been severely handicapped because there has been no central authority" .... to ensure "the most effective use of manpower, fuel, equipment and transport." The stage for this had been set the previous year when a Tasmanian War Industries Committee was appointed by the Commonwealth to survey and report on the economic position of Tasmania in relation to the War. It found "there is no doubt whatever of the value of the fishing industry in Tasmania' and recommended that 'Immediate steps be taken, compusorily or otherwise, to bring about a reorganisation of the fishing fleet in tasmania with a view to increasing the capture of canning varieties.'" To implement this, and related recommendations, the Commonwealth Government set up the co-ordinating body of Controller of Fisheries within the Department of War Organization of Industry and seconded Thompson.

"Hitherto, State Governments have assumed a major responsibility for the development of the fishing industry and should continue to do so. It is intended, however, the the Commonwealth Fisheries Authority should provide industry with one central reference point .... and work in close collaboration with and through State administrations .... It is suggested therefore that the principal fisheries officer in each State should be appointed as Deputy Controller for the State."