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 Commonwealth Government set up the co-ordinating body of Controller of Fisheries within the Department of War Organization of Industry and seconded Thompson.

D'Alton urged the Premier to readily accept the proposal and that Scott should be Deputy Controller for Tasmania - Cabinet approved.

The wartime organization of fisheries provided a short period of total industry control by Government but more importantly in the long term was the springboard it gave to CSIR. Central control was firmly in the hands of CSIR scientists with Thompson as Controller of Fisheries and Geoffrey Kesteven as his deputy. Thompson was already unwell and left the running of the Controller's Office "pretty much" to Kesteven and Setter. By 1943 CSIR clearly saw their role as both the source of expertise and formulaters of policy. The Fisheries Division more than held their own with the other CSIRO divisions in power and influence when the organization expanded despite strong suggestions that the Executive neither understood nor cared for fisheries.

D'Alton's thirst for development of the State's natural resources and his unconventional, perhaps cavalier, approach was about to end his ministerial career. On the 9th November 1943 Cosgrove announced that the State had been paid a singular honour with the appointment of D'Alton as High Commissioner to New Zealand. Almost immediately allegations of illegalities in the Forestry Department were made public and two officers were charged with taking bribes. D'Alton defended them in Parliament but less than a year later he would face the same accusation made by a member of the Legislative Council. On a joint resolution of both Houses a police enquiry supervised by S C Burbury (later Sir Stanley and Chief Justice of Tasmania) found there was a case to be answered and the government appointed a Royal Commission. D"Alton returned to give evidence to the Burbury enquiry but refused to return for the Royal Commission despite agreement to reimburse his costs. D'Alton was vigorously attacked in the Commission, particularly over his refusal to give evidence and be cross examined, by R F Fagan (later Deputy-Premier and Attorney-General ) who appeared with R C Wright for the members of the Council who made the accusation. The Royal Commissioner found that D'Alton had accepted £300 from a forestry company and Huon Pine to the value of £94 from a sawmiller (for the construction of his boat) as bribes, but dismissed other accusations including that the acceptance of bribes was a regular occurrence. Although D'Alton later returned to the Tasmanian Parliament ironically as a Legislative Councillor, it is believed that Fagan was instrumental in determining that he rejoined the Ministry.

Had D'Alton not left the fisheries scene in 1943 CSIR might not have achieved such influence over Tasmanian fisheries policy during the next 20 years and a stronger independent Fisheries Division may have developed.

Thompson in the new role of Controller of Fisheries was required to establish production goals and to distribute fuel and manpower and other inputs which were both controlled and scarce. He would advise on prices, marketing, high priority was to be given to promote fishing co-operatives. Alec Frazer, Chief Fisheries Officer in Western Australia, was seconded to Thompson's office to take charge of the co-operative scheme. It demonstrated methods of disseminating information to fishermen and later a fisheries training scheme and initiated an Australian presence in the International Whaling Commission.

In Tasmania Roy Scott as Deputy Controller and Secretary for Fisheries received several reports from Blackburn assessing the industry, planning increased production and recommending the composition of the State Consultative Committee. Blackburn and Tom Challenger worked closely and happily together but there were inevitable tensions as the authority of the Tasmanian Fisheries Division was overshadowed by the Controller in Canberra. The State Consultative Committee tended to duplicate the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board. Scott first attempted to defer or at least delay the appointment of a Consultative Committee and then get two members of the Board onto the Committee; but the best he could achieve was one member (Dr.V.V. Hickman).

In November 1944 the Commonwealth Government extended its wartime controls to the marketing of fish and appointed F.J.Haase of Seafresh Seafoods to be Superintendent of Markets. The control of fish prices gave fishermen a real say in the marketing of their catch for the first time but other wartime controls over fishing operated for only a short time before the war began to draw to a close.

The first meeting of the Tasmanian Consultative Committee Committee, set up under the War Organization of Industry powers, was held on September 14, 1945 - days after the war had ended. Thus the Chairman, R.H. Scott, began the meeting by announcing that the Commonwealth powers under which they had been operating "will in time go by the board." He invited members to express their views on a proposal to establish a Commonwealth Fisheries Division. A.J. Frazer then outlined a submission being prepared for Federal Cabinet to establish a Commonwealth Fisheries Division to:-

and gear evaluation. The question of whether it would also conduct research "has not yet been determined."

Was the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries concept to be reviewed?

(CSIR would continue "purely scientific research")

The Daily Mirror in Sydney reported that the new Commission would "amalgamate the resources of the State fisheries administration and the Fisheries Division of the Department of War Organization." But R.H. Scott in a letter to the Secretary of Fishermen's Association on 7 Feb 1946 referred to the Commission working in "collaboration with the States."

The position was clarified by a Fisheries Newsletter editorial in April when it announced that the Commission would manage fisheries beyond three miles. "In all this work it is proposed to work as much as possible through existing State Departments of Fisheries." Perhaps some doubts lingered in the minds of the State Ministers.

3. Establishing the Commonwealth Role

THE 6TH NATIONAL FISHERIES CONFERENCE - FEBRUARY 1947

"A happy feature of the conference was the friendly spirit of co-operation in which all delegates approached the problems."

The Conference, convened as a result of the decision to establish the Commonwealth Fisheries Office, was held in Sydney but resembled the Melbourne Conference of 1927. Unlike recent meetings CSIR was not the dominant party nor the organizer - the meeting was chaired by Anderson. CSIR was represented by E.J.F. Wood - neither Thompson nor any member of the Council attended.

Anderson again reassured the Conference that the Commonwealth had no wish to "intrude in fields which were a State responsibility." However he "pointed out the difficulty of enforcing State laws (beyond three miles) and consequently the desirability of Commonwealth legislation." This may have been a problem elsewhere but not in Tasmania. The Commonwealth assurance "not to intrude" no doubt contributed to the co-operative spirit and agreement was reached to -

When legislation was enacted then:

Commonwealth Fisheries office would act, where practicable, through the State Department and would be responsible for -

CSIR would continue to be responsible where practicable for exploratory, experimental and research work alone or in conjunction with State authorities.

The State Fisheries Departments would :

3.1. A Change in Government but a Continuation of Policy

The election of the Liberal/Country Party Government in December 1949 resulted in the appointment of J J McEwen as Minister for Commerce and Agriculture with responsibility for fisheries matters. McEwen promptly reassured the industry of his "keen interest" in fisheries and the States that there would be no interference in the traditional areas of state responsibility. He believed that Australian families should be able to eat fish once or twice a week. The Commonwealth formalized the Commonwealth/State arrangements at a meeting of Ministers in Sydney on 23rd January 1952 -

McEwen announced that the long awaited Commonwealth legislation would be introduced in the next session. The Ministers decided that officers should meet to define "proclaimed waters", the mechanism for delegating Commonwealth powers and the management of pearling.

3.2. First Meeting of Ministers Feb 23 1952

State and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for fisheries did not meet as a group until 1952. The historic first meeting took place in Sydney under the chairmanship of Jack McEwen with the States being represented by the Premier of South Australia Tom Playford, the Chief Secretaries of Victoria and NSW C Dodgshun and C Evatt, the Attorney General of Western Australia A V Abbott and Charles Hand the acting Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in Tasmania. The meeting was confined to a general discussion with particular emphasis on the pending Commonwealth legislation, no resolutions were passed. The importance of fisheries in the national sense can be deduced from the timing and content of the meeting and the fact that another 9 years passed before they felt it necessary to meet again.

3.3. The 7th National Conference

July 30 - 31 1952- Another Friendly Meeting

The seventh conference was notable for several reasons

The Commonwealth was represented by J G Crawford (later Sir John), Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, who was Chairman. F F Anderson Director of the Commonwealth Fisheries Office and C G Setter, H Thompson CSIR, C W Harders (later Sir Clarence and Commonwealth Solicitor General) from the Attorney General's Department. The Tasmanian representatives were H C Smith and Leo St Leger. Thompson was impressed by the approach and efficiency of Crawford but not by Anderson. Crawford began by emphasizing the importance of conservation of fisheries and virtually assigned the chief interests and (raison d'etre) of his Division of Fisheries.... and the necessary concomitant role of CSIRO in providing recommendations for conservation measures."

Smith, as one of the more experienced participants at these meetings, played a prominent role and began by reminding the meeting of the virtues of a Standing Committee along the lines of the Agricultural model. However the minister's meeting in January had decided that for the moment ad hoc conferences should be held as necessary. (Two years later the Federation of Fishermen's Association also called for a "Permanent Fisheries Council" but again the Commonwealth rejected it - "all governments recognize the need for effective consultation ... but (the Commonwealth) is not convinced that this necessitates the establishment of a continuing organization.) As usual the conference discussed a comprehensive agenda covering the matters specifically listed by Ministers and most of the fisheries areas. The conference completed its task and determined that fishermen applying for the new Commonwealth fishing licence should first have a licence issued by a State. The crucial requirement held until the Whitlam Government ruled that such a policy was "unconstitutional".

Development was a prominent subject for discussion and John Crawford remarked that "industry seemed unable to find the money to develop without government aid". The Commonwealth recognized the need to promote food production, Thompson reported that "canneries wanted assistance". Setter commented that the 80% cut in imports had severely restricted the supply of fishing equipment. Crawford gave Andersen the opportunity to open the discussion - Thompson was not impressed. "As his Division was established primarily with the view of relieving CSIRO of any responsibility it might have, or thought it might have, in seeing that all possible measures for developmental progress are taken, one would have expected a fairly complete statement..... none was forthcoming and Mr Andersen immediately suggested that I be asked for my views". I first of all asked for confirmation of my understanding that his Division was responsible for Development and that the line of division between CSIRO's activities and that of his Division is to be drawn at the point at which CSIRO has established the fact that catches of commercial quantities of a species (chiefly pelagic species of course) can be made with reasonable frequency. As tuna catches had "fallen away badly. Mr Crawford stated that he had asked Mr Anderson to begin again from scratch, setting down the problems, with suggestions for solving them." Neither Crawford nor Anderson disputed Thompson's interpretation of roles.

One of the principle reasons for the Commonwealth Fisheries Act was to strengthen Australia's power to negotiate with the Japanese on the management of the tropical pearl shell fisheries. The Japanese resumed fishing in 1953 and delegation visited Canberra in April of that year to formalise their operations but no agreement was achieved. The Japanese the Pearl Fisheries Act was not in accordance with international law and temporary access measures were adopted to allow the Japanese to resume pearling whilst the matter went to the International Court of Justice. The Act was finally proclaimed on January 1 1954 and all fishermen taking fish outside territorial waters were required to pay 10 shillings a year for a licence and another 10 shillings to license the smallest boats. Boats more than 50 feet long and less than 100 tons displacement paid £1 and those larger paid £2.

3.4 National Conferences in 1954 and 1957

John Crawford chaired another meeting in Sydney on July 6 and 7 1954 with the same cast as in 1952. The conference recommended that the Commonwealth Act should be proclaimed as soon as possible and discussed the machinery measures for its administration. The Commonwealth agreed to reimburse the States for the cost of administration at a rate of £2 per valid Commonwealth licence. The meeting also resolved that state officers should attend international conferences and could represent the Commonwealth.

This meeting initiated the concept that future conferences should have a coordinating role by resolving that a further meeting be arranged by the Commonwealth "later this year or early in 1955" with the "objective of a review of States, CSIRO, and Commonwealth knowledge of fisheries and to consider the systematic dealing with conservation programmes" The conference was not held until 1957.

When officers from all States and the Commonwealth met in Canberra (for the first time) to address the "conservation programmes" it appears that the importance of the matter had faded in the intervening period and during the three years States had solved most of the problems without the assistance of the Commonwealth Fisheries Office. The only fishery discussed was the Bass Strait shark fishery where conference recommended that the four States involved and the Commonwealth "consider" a closed season in November or another month to be decided by consultation. The principle subject discussed was the new Fisheries development Trust Account (see later) where it was agreed that the expenditure should be confined to "major projects designed to open new fisheries and to expand existing fisheries"; and the States would be fully consulted on proposed projects in their States and invited to submit proposals. The meeting highlighted the following as areas that should be investigated "with the utmost expedition" - prawn resources, the economics and marketing if tuna and if they were satisfactory further resources of tuna and clupeoids.

The conference resolved that meetings of Commonwealth and State fisheries authorities should be held annually; this time the practice was adopted.

4. THE ORGANISATION OF INDUSTRY

4.1 The Tasmanian Licensed Fisherman's Association

Numerous reports had concluded that a fundamental problem thwarting the development of fisheries was the disorganized nature of the industry. The manpower controls of the Department of War Organization provided funds to encourage the establishment of fishermen's groups and cooperatives. The fostering of the co-operative movement was Labor Party policy and not just a war time measure. In November 1944 John Dedman used the Fisheries Newsletter to urge fishermen to organize:

Small boat fishermen in Tasmania read the statement with some scepticism as St. Helens fishermen were complaining that unless prices for crayfish, mullet, trevally and garfish were increased they would have to seek other employment. The wholesale price for Tasmanian crayfish were set at 6d./lb live and 1 shilling a lb cooked. Despite representation by Fisheries Minister, John Madden, the Prices Commissioner declined to act unless the fishermen provided further information. Southern and north-western fishermen were better off being able to supply barracouta to the canneries (price for barracouta increased from 3d. to 4d./lb in September 1944) and scallop fishing in D'Entrecasteaux Channel produced a record 500,000 lbs. in 1945. But in May 1944 Devonport fishermen "went on strike" because the Mersey Freezing Co refused to raise the price of the fish from 2d to 3d a lb. Scott recommended the increase to the Deputy Controller of Prices. The "strike" continued for nearly a month until the new price was gazetted.Although catches increased local supplies were short. Some blamed manpower restrictions but Cosgrove believed that until efficient trawlers were acquired fish would always be scarce. The next day he announced that the government would endeavour to overcome the problem by spending £10,000 to build three trawlers - one for experimental fishing and two to be made available to canning companies to ensure supplies. Again the Legislative Council defeated the move by refusing to agree to the funds. "No more trawlers should be built until it was seen what results were obtained with the one already built" (Lillico), "The industry should be left entirely to private enterprise" (Blacklow).

By early 1945 the stimulus from Canberra had resulted in organizations of fishermen at Dunalley (base on the old Tasmanian Fisherman's Association), Bellerive and Stanley. Frazer arrived to foster the administration of these groups and his enthusiasm produced sufficient state wide interest to allow Scott to chair a two day conference of fishermen on July 17 and 18. The conference supported a State Consultative Committee and asked John Madden, the first true Minister for Fisheries, to replace "the old Fisheries Advisory Board which had no function" with the Committee. The two day meeting was the first time that the Government could be confident that it was hearing a truly representative industry voice. The meeting established a Tasmanian tradition for such meetings of addresses by Commonwealth and State officials, a brief address by the Minister and an outline of research in progress.

Following the conference the fishermen's delegates formed a new statewide union - The Licensed Fishermen's Association. Membership was open to "bona fide licensed fishermen, scallop and oystermen resident or following their calling in Tasmania or in and about islands adjacent to Tasmania and being engaged either part-time or full-time in that calling." .

The first meeting of the Consultative Committee resolved to support the continuation of price control and control over the importation of nets and fish should be included in a new Act to regulate marketing: the Marketing of Primary Produce Act. In a discussion of the prices to be paid for fish they recommended to the Prices Commissioner that the price of barracouta should remain at 4d/lb. Other recommendations were :-

The Committee also discussed research and the initiative of Hobart fish processor Watt who had paid paid £1000 to import a 200 fathom head line purse seine from California to use from the "Mary". A rival processor, A. Thompson, expressed concern that its great fishing capacity would put small fishermen out of work. He was supported by fisherman E Sward. Fishermen wanted to know if CSIR would get nets for them. Thompson - CSIR is trying to create a monopoly detrimental to the fishing industry. (The net proved too big for the Mary and was later used by the Liawennee.)

The 1947 Annual Conference of the Tasmanian Licensed Fishermen's Association endorsed the concept of a national Federation. But after the surge of support for development during the war the fishermen were again seeking protection. The Conference adopted motions:

In 1948 they sought a restriction of scallop vessels to 2 dredged per boat and expressed concern about overfishing of barracouta. Not for the first time, Tom Challenger strongly disputed the fishermen's view "without hesitation that every branch of the fisheries in this State is in a much healthier condition than it was before 1922." But he Fisheries Division acknowledged the positive impact of price control in a memo to the Prices Board in August 1948. It recommended a continuance of control -

Production had increased from 6.2 to 14.3 million lbs. from 1942-3 to 1947-8. The memo included a suggested price schedule for wholesale and retail prices. Some examples -

The Tasmanian Licensed Fishermen's Association was now well established and at the 1948 Annual General Meeting appointed a full-time Secretary. They pressed to retain price control, for the right to nominate fisheries members of the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board and urged the Government to appoint its own scientific staff. But the loss of their Secretary E E Andrews to take Tom Challenger's place as Inspector of Fisheries resulted in problems for the Association. Administrative difficulties combined with a slump in the economics of the industry threatened the Association and they were forced to default on payment to the Federation. After a short period of instability the Association regained composure with the appointment of a professional secretary and the 1953 annual conference initiated a survey of the industry by a committee of three members. There was extended discussions about prices and the Minister to chair a meeting with buyers in an attempt to lift the price of crayfish from 1/5 to 1/7 a lb. The conference also voted to press the Minister to refuse licences to part-time fishermen and to support the Advisory Board recommendation to institute certification of fishing vessels for seaworthiness and skippers for competency to command them.

4.2. The First National Industry Organization

The successful work of the Controller of Fisheries during the war to organize fishermen had been established commercial fishermen's associations in every State and this, combined with the improved affluence of fishermen, stirred the idea of a national fishermen's federation in mid-1947. The Secretary-Manager of the South Australian Fishermen's Co-operative Society, L.R. Cornu and the President of the Queensland J Lihou were the initiators. The newly found involvement of the fisheries organization established later in the war reached a peak with the formation of the Australian Professional Fishermen's Federation at a meeting in Melbourne in August 1948. The organization was a federation of the State bodies and Tasmania was represented by Ernie Morris of Dunalley. But the founding Chairman, veteran Queensland fishermen's representative, J. Lihou prophetically stated "Most delegates were, I think, disturbed at the lack of interest by fishermen in some States" The fledgling Federation was strongly supported by Governments, particularly the Commonwealth Fisheries Office and the Federation attempted to have the Commonwealth Fisheries Office act to force the States to address long standing "grievances". There was also a move to bring all fisheries under Commonwealth control but Anderson firmly reminded the fishermen of the Commonwealth's limited role.

As the privileged and protected position of fishing began to fade with the removal of wartime regulation of the economy the State fishermen's bodies found it more difficult to support the Federation. The Tasmanian situation worsened when E E (Dick) Andrews resigned as Secretary and the TLFA were forced to default on their payments. First South Australia then Queensland followed Tasmania forcing Lihou to despair. "We did what we could and are only sorry we did not have better results." The Federation limped along for awhile proposing a new scheme to raise finance at the end of 1952 but New South Wales and Tasmania were still not represented. The sixth annual general meeting in 1954 only just managed a quorum and government guests outnumbered fishermen. Only Queensland, NSW and Western Australia were represented and the Fisheries Newsletter reported that the Federation was "facing collapse". In an attempt to solve its financial position the Federation agreed in August 1956 to form an Australian Professional Fishermen's Co-operative no doubt encouraged by the success of SAFCOL which by then was handling half of the South Australian catch. Tasmania was again not represented and thus not included amongst the proposed foundation members but on hearing of the developments the new LFA Secretary D D Willis signified Tasmania "was anxious to play its part". R M Fowler was appointed first chairman and shares were issued for £1.

The Federation was finally dissolved at meeting in Adelaide in September 1957 with a decision to use the new Cooperative as a replacement. The Australian Fishermen's Cooperative Ltd was formed but did not meet in 1960 or 1961. In January 1962, the Cooperative met for the first time in two years and Tasmania was represented by the Eastern Tasmanian Fisherman's Cooperative, this seems to have been the end of venture.

5. THE FISHERIES DIVISION

The budget for the Fisheries Division for 1945-46 was reduced by 50% amid continuing controversy over the operation of the Liawenee and the sale of its catches in New South Wales and a growing list of criticisms.

The appointment of J.J. Dwyer VC as Minister for Fisheries in June 1948 restored some of the activism lost when D'Alton left. He was anxious to support fisheries and fishermen and received early praise by rescinding the regulations allowing the seizure of fishing boats and proposing a £250,000 scheme to develop harbour facilities. The 1950-1 budget allocated £8,000 for port development. The TLFA felt confident enough to suggest the formation of a Tasmanian Fishermen's Cooperative at the 1950 Annual Conference. Dwyer assured them that "the Department would give every assistance possible. Although the "Liawenee" had not provided the fishermen with useful information in the past the vessel would shortly be put to work gaining information which would definitely prove an advantage to fishermen." Dwyer responded to the LFA complaint of a lack of policing by acquiring another patrol vessel - "Fiona" in November and appointing the Secretary of the Association, E.E. Andrews, in Challenger's place.

The "fish market" at Constitution Dock, established by a private fisherman during the Depression (see p. ) was demolished and the Government gave up direct management of the Triabunna Cool Store to a Board similar to that managing the Stanley facility. The Triabunna store had been built with war time materials and by 1953 was somewhat dilapidated causing the Leader of the Opposition Rex Townley to chide Dwyer who responded with a promise to provide £5,000 in the budget for 1953-4 for repairs. During Dwyer's administration the Government began a program of building specifically for the assistance of the fishing industry. Jetties,slipways and even navigation lights were financed and managed from the government monies allocated to the Fisheries Division. In 1956-7 £890 were spent on a slipway at Bicheno and £3500 on another at Lady Barron. A breakwater was built at Binnalong Bay (£750) and approval given for a jetty at Wynyard and a dock at Stanley.

5.1. Sea Fisheries Advisory Board Resumes

After the lifting of wartime controls the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board took back the role usurped by the State Consultative Committee. It met in Hobart on the 17th June 1947 with H C Smith in the chair and Commissioner of Police Hill, Prof Hickman and W A Hill and R P Harvey as industry representatives. (another fisherman S Dale sent an apology). A M Olsen the CSIRO scientist in Tasmania and Tom Challenger were inivited to participate in the discussions. The Board resolved to meet quarterly and proceeded to an immediate review the Sea Fisheries Regulations. (The last review took place at the previous meeting of the Board 5 years before)Thereafter the Board continued to confine itself to the operation of regulations until 1956 when consideration was given to providing some improved facilities for fishermen -

In 1957 the Board agreed to allow some harvesting of seaweed (Macrocystis) under certain conditions and to set a 5 inch minimum size for abalone if current negotiations led to commercial exploitation. The Sea Fisheries Advisory Board assumed the role of examiner of the impact of regulations on fishermen and fish processors. Most of its deliberations centred on the acceptability of new rules proposed by the Division or modifications of existing rules to better achieve their objective or to ease the burden on fishermen. The Board rarely considered broad strategy or policy and operated independently of the Licensed Fishermen's Association. Annual conferences of the Association, usually accompanied by widespread publicity were the venue for discussions, or confrontations, with the Minister on major policy matters. Whilst the Division lacked its own scientific advice it was dependent on the scientific member of the Board and the CSIRO for this input to policy: the advice was mainly sought and given at Board meetings. For some years the pattern of quarterly meetings persisted but by 1951 biannual meetings were the norm.

5.2. New Faces in the Fisheries Division

The resignation of Challenger in September 1950 "to enter business as a fish buyer for a major concern." was as controversial as the rest of his career. He had turned 65 in June but continued to work and in July sought an increase in pay. When he transferred from the Police Department in 1941 the Attorney-General included in the instrument of appointment an assurance that he would retain his rights of service and promotion that would have accrued had he not resigned from the force. Being to old to be appointed a public servant he was recruited to the Fisheries Division by special Ministerial order. Having discovered that he had passed the mandatory retiring age further difficulties were encountered in paying his accrued leave and overtime entitlements. Eventually a special Governor-in-Council Minute authorized a gratuity to cover his dues. Unfortunately he died soon afterwards in April 1951 - Stanley Fowler wrote a glowing tribute in Fisheries Newsletter (August 1951).

When Tom Challenger retired policy development devolved to his replacement E E (Dick) Andrews. Challenger had never been a fisherman and had developed his ideas on fisheries from contact with a succession of scientists - Flynn, Fowler, Hickman et al: on the other hand Andrews had been a commercial fisherman all his life (much of it under the not very friendly eye of his predecessor). Andrews was assisted by a young biologist M M Hodgson who was appointed to the Fisheries Division in 19 . Hodgson was a keen colleague of Olsen in the diving investigations and in December 1953 Dwyer and Smith proudly watched Hodgson test a self contained diving unit in the Education Department swimming pool in Hobart. This was reported to be the first use of SCUBA equipment for fisheries research in Australia.

5.3. Victorian and Tasmanian Cooperation

The importance of the shark and cray fisheries prompted an interstate meeting with Victoria in Melbourne in August 1948 to promote uniformity of regulations, conservation, measures, statistics and the licensing of Victorian boats operating in Tasmanian waters. The Conference agreed on closed seasons for crayfish in October and November, some conservation measures for sharks and reduction in the minimum length of shark (so they could be packed in existing boxes!). Tasmania declined to support the closed season due to objections from northwestern fishermen that they would be unacceptably be affected.

The shark and crayfisheries were again the subject of interstate discussions in January 1953. This time NSW and Sth Australia joined in and Blackburn and Olsen from CSIR had some success in getting agreement to management measures. The meeting followed recommendations from CSIRO for a three month closed season,the closure of nursery areas and a minimum legal size foe school shark. A minimum size was approved but there was no agreement on a closed season. Further discussions took place in 1954 when all but South Australia agreed on the closure, discussions throughout the next year finally lead to an agreement to prohibit shark fishing in December each year; but in November Tasmania decided to defer the closure until 1956. No agreement could be reached in 1956 but in June the next year Dwyer announced that he would agree to the closure, now to be the month of November.

Further discussions on crayfish were held in Melbourne in February 1958 which recommended a minimum legal length regulation in Commonwealth waters adjacent to Victoria and Tasmania, and a closed season in the same waters from September 1 to October 15 each year and to complement the closed season for females. The meeting also discussed pot allocations per boat and the research by A M Olsen of CSIRO in Tasmania.

In June 1958 the Fisheries Division prosecuted crayfishermen for having female crayfish in their possession during the closed season but the case failed on the grounds that the fish were legally taken in Commonwealth waters where no closed season had been declared. The Commonwealth amended their legislation in 1959 to enable them to apply similar regulations to those being applied by the States in adjacent waters. "The legislation was designed to protect fishermen from such ('fish piracy') nefarious practices" In May 1959 a further meeting on crayfish confirmed the minimum size of 4.25 inches rostral carapace length and that the Tasmanian measurement and enforcement methods be adopted. The meeting asked the Commonwealth to consider a different closed season for the King Island area

6. RESEARCH

Tom D'Alton's last act as Minister was to officiate at the launching of the Liawenee. The ceremony was held on 20th October 1943 at Prince of Wales Bay near Hobart and Mrs D'Alton sent the 66ft vessel down the slipway of the builder McKay, it was typical of the Minister's current fortunes that his pride and joy failed to take to the water. There was insufficient depth of water for it to clear the cradle.

The Liaweneewas completed in February 1944 and began its program of experimental work under Captain H. Johnston an experienced New South Wales danish seine fisherman. The first trip resulted in a very satisfactory catch of more than 9 tons, mostly flathead. The subsequent program outlined trawling grounds from Bruny Island to Schouten Island, particularly with outstanding catches of flathead. The regular weekly Danish seine tests also demonstrated that fish disappear from the grounds for periods of each year. Despite the intentions of Fowler, Reynolds and D'Alton to concentrate on pelagic fish the Liaweneespent most of its time on demersal fish. This appears to have been largely due to the degree of control given to Johnston. But the demands on the vessel to pay its way meant that the success of the initial 5 trips, 30 tons of flathead, tempted the new Minister to expand the commercial side of the operation; but in the first five months of operations time at sea was split evenly between commercial fishing and experimental work. A report in Fisheries Newsletter refers to its construction "to determine finally whether danish seining could be carried out profitably in Tasmanian waters", and "for a number of reasons it was not considered desirable to use the Liaweneefor surface fishing until about mid-April". When large schools of jack mackerel were found the net proved unsuitable. A report in 1946 refers to "the great importance ..... of the experimental use of the purse seiner" but rough weather had thwarted the work. As the vessel had to spend sufficient time as a commercial vessel to cover its cost of operation limited time was available for scientific research; this eventually lead to conflict with CSIR. Eventually more time was made available to CSIR when they agreed to reimburse the State for the cost of the vessel when engaged in such work.

The demands to cover costs immediately lead to controversy when the flathead catches could only attract 5.5d a lb.in Hobart. The Government reached agreement with Luke Wright to market half the catch in Sydney for 9d a lb. Opposition members demanded that "taxpayers who paid for the vessel should get the benefit from cheaper fish"; the Government declared it would not enter the retail trade. The Mercury joined the criticism ,following a number of letters to the editor, but the Premier denied that Hobart fishmongers were prepared to offer "reasonable prices" and have refused to tender for the fish : he quoted a price of £112 per ton for flathead in Sydney compared to £14 a ton in Hobart. The Liaweneecontinued to land catches and in May the Government did decide to set aside a portion of catches for Tasmania. Later the Government did "enter the retail trade" and advertised fish for sale directly from the Liaweneein Hobart ("bring own wrapping material". More than 1000 people bought barracouta on the first day at 1/- each or 5d.a lb.

The Minister announced new research objectives in August 1946 "to localize the area of consistent catches each week danish seine tests will be conducted but many years of research work will be necessary in order that definite information can be given to fishermen".Madden defended the programme against attacks by J. MacPhee in the House of Assembly on 10 September 1946. Despite the direct sales of fish the Division found the Liawenee very expensive to operate and it required continuing subsidies until finally the Government decided it should be leased to CSIR for mackerel trials. The formal charter began in August 1948 with Roy Downie, a former Mate of the Wareen, as skipper, and Blackburn and Olsen as the scientists in charge of a program covering barracouta, shark, and crayfish. The CSIR also commissioned two other research vessels, the Stanley Fowler committed to pearl shell research, and the H.C.Dannevig for oceanography. Together with the Wareen now in Western Australia the organization had a fleet of vessels that would not be exceeded. The Liaweneecharter proved successful and was extended for another year. CSIR published an important consolidation of these pelagic fisheries investigations entitled "Measures of Abundance of Pelagic Fish". During the time the Liawennee was on charter to CSIR jack mackerel were unusually scarce and the first truly commercial scale catches of pelagic fish by a surface net in Australia were made in April 1947 by the Eden Star near Maria Island. The CSIR purse seine net used on the Liaweneewas lent to a New South Wales fisherman, Bill Warn who sailed his vessel Eden Star to Hobart to collect it and made the first large catches of mackerel - 16 tons. This was also the largest catch of any fish anywhere in Australia to that time. Warn later reported that with a better net even larger catches could have been regularly made.

When Dwyer replaced Madden he insisted on a program for the Liawenee which directly assisted fishermen. At the LFA conference in 1950 he acknowledged that the vessel had not assisted fishermen but it would now be refitted and start to survey crayfish grounds. Under Dwyer the vessel would never have any research plan but be sent to follow up each "new" prospect that was reported. Thus it spent some time on crayfish then followed up the Senibua tuna work, when Harold Rattenbury landed a ton of deep sea trevalla in May 1951 it was sent to explore those grounds (repeating some earlier work done by Roy Downie for CSIR).

In 1950 fisheries research lost three major figures Prof.Dakin died in April aged 67, the young research officer Wolf Fairbridge died suddenly in May, and Fowler retired through ill health after 21 years in fisheries.

In conjunction with CSIR the Fisheries Division undertook intense studies of the scallop. This work, began by Alan Tubb and continued by Wolf Fairbridge and Mick Olsen involved tagging and later diving and underwater photography and continued for over 20 years. In February 1947 CSIR began study of water movement in D'Entrecasteaux Channel and started hard hat diving for underwater observations. (AM Olsen CSIR and Tom Challenger did the diving. Olsen later claimed that his diving on the scallop beds began in 1947). Scallop work included a transplant of 80,000 juveniles in an attempt to restored depleted beds. Scientific assessment of the size of the resource and the effects of dredging began with the use of underwater photography in 1953.

The whitebait fishery in northern rivers was also investigated.

Following comment in the newspapers Tom Challenger blamed pollution for loss of fish in the Derwent.

7. DEVELOPMENT

The figures below indicate the rapid growth in Tasmanian fisheries stemming from the impetus of war time demand. The prohibition on importing fish provided the degree of industry protection necessary to trigger the development of canning. The guaranteed demand provided by the armed forces assisted also the canners and their suppliers. By the end of 1946 the processing sector had decentralized and established export links such that 90% of the production was sent to Melbourne or Sydney. The lack of refrigerated space (locally referred to as Cool Stores) that had inhibited development early in the war had been overcome.

7.1. CANNING

By the time fish canning became firmly established in Tasmania it was not tuna or jack mackerel but barracouta. After so much research and surveying tuna was never canned in quantity in Tasmania, instead the industry was centred in Eden, Melbourne and Port Lincoln. During the war and immediately afterwards catches of barracouta, by fishermen with the most primitive fishing gear in small boats, soared. By the end of the war the catch had increased from 4.5 to 14.5 million lbs. it was the most important fishery. Canneries were established producing a cheap Australian canned fish product - the humble barracouta under a masquerade of a number of market names. The species was a traditional target of Tasmanian fishermen from settlement and ignored for almost all of the research and development programmes. A major State and Commonwealth Government programme stretching back to Flynn's project 25 years before had sought almost every other pelagic fish but finally the industry naturally ended.

On the other hand the wartime demand for a local replacement for cod liver oil, as a source of vitamin, spawned a major fishery for small sharks. Australian Fisheries Derivatives Pty. Ltd. operated a major factory in Melbourne processing shark livers.

The war stimulated a 45% increase in the catch of fish between 1941-3 and 1942-3. Blackburn and Scott recommended a production goal of 4 million lbs in 1943/4 but expected 5 million lbs. They also estimated that Tasmanian domestic requirements were 1.78 million lbs. The Mercury reported on 7th November 1942 that the "acute shortage of fish on the mainland" had prompted D"Alton to encourage the development of an export fishing industry for Tasmania. In October the same newspaper announced that several mainland companies were making preparations to engage in this trade." CSIR had loaned two purse seine nets to Tasmanian companies (H. Watt was one). An export based fishery demanded improved preservation and provided justification for the Government to proceed with "Cool Stores" at Triabunna and Stanley and to consider another for Devonport.

In May the new purse seines had proved their worth with catches of jack mackerel in Storm Bay and sprats and in October D'Alton paid a public tribute to the combined efforts of CSIR and the Fisheries Division in demonstrating the effectiveness of modern fishing techniques.

By mid 1944 the Government was completing the fish factory at Triabunna and the State Government was pressing Canberra for approval for a new factory at Margate for Fish Canneries of Tasmania Limited equipped for freezing, fish meal and oil production and canning. Capital of £15,700 was available but approval from the Capital Issues Board was required. Scott pressed Thompson to support the proposal and John Reynolds wrote privately to Charles Frost (MHR for Franklin) and Minister for Repatriation. In July J.J. Dedman advised Madden that the proposal by could proceed. Madden had negotiated a better shipping service to assist the export of fresh fish to Sydney and Melbourne.

The total catch in 1943/4 reached 7.7 million lb. - well above the production goal. But Blackburn identified problems on the horizon.

On the other hand a warm season in 1944-45 had resulted in an unusual abundance of barracouta and a profitable jack mackerel fishery was available at least from February to June.

Barracouta catches had risen to 5.8 million lbs. by 1944-45 pushing the total State fish production to 11.2 million lbs. At this time there were still only two fish canneries - H. Jones (in the off season from fruit) and the Flinders Island Cannery.Henry Jones had been canning since 1906 and that time barracouta was very cheap - much was sold for fertilizer in apple orchards at £2 per ton. They also canned a full range of seafood particularly whitebait, mackerel, mullet, Australian salmon, crayfish and scallops. The unfortunate experience with tuna (Section 1.5) confirmed their policy to can fish as a supplement to fruit and jam.

The Flinders Island cannery was now owned by Wm. Holyman and Sons and J. Gadsen Pty. Ltd. and known as Fish Canners of Tasmania Pty. Ltd. Under the protection of price control, the demand of the company for canned food and the prohibition on imports the formerly struggling pioneer was expanded. Firstly freezers at Devonport, Dunalley and a freezer and cannery in Launceston in 1942, an expansion of the freezing and a canning line at Dunalley in 1946 and a very modern integrated plant at Margate was opened in 1947. By 1948-9 they also extracted oil from shark liver in Launceston and operated a fleet of 20 vessels worth £20,000: the company then employed 300 people. A new company Darvel Product Pty. Ltd. opened in Ulverstone in March 1947 and in the next year canned 1500 tons with a work force of 150. Anxious to expand they conducted a large, but unsuccessful, survey for tuna in 1948.

At the end of the war barracouta accounted for over half the total fish catch - most was canned but some smoked and the remainder sold fresh. But crayfish and scallops were beginning to assume importance and an increase in price. "The scallop was a favourite winter counter lunch (free) in Hobart hotels in days gone by, there are many who are optimistic enough to think that this will return once again." During the war the industry had prospered under price control and St. Leger warned that reducing the cost of production would be important when price control ended. He doubted whether this would happen as he predicted that the prosperity of future of fishing would rely on the luxury trade of crayfish and scallops with some "optimism" for the "smoked and fresh fillet trade." Freezing facilities were available at Stanley, Wynyard, Burnie, Devonport, Launceston, Triabunna, Dunalley, Margate and Hobart. But the practice of bulk freezing and subsequent transport in insulated (but not refrigerated) crates to Melbourne and Sydney did not produce a high quality product (particularly as fish from St. Helens and Bicheno were transported to Launceston, before freezing in 1946).

The Government arranged a joint venture to manage the Stanley Cool Stores but operated the Triabunna fishery itself. Accusations that the Manager and Sgt. Challenger had favoured the fishermen supplying one processor over another forced the Government to hold another fisheries enquiry in October 1946 to investigate the matter.

The barracouta catch declined in 1946-7 by almost a million lbs. but CSIR were confident that the catch would be considerably increased. Canning reached a peak in 1947-8 when 12.2 million lbs. mainly barracouta was produced but catches of the fishes rose again in 1948-9 to 7.7 million lbs. 68% of the total State's fish catch; an increase of 500% in six years. But imports were now offering strong competition drawing the claim that "unrestricted fish imports are crippling the entire fishing industry" from the Federation of Professional Fishermen in February 1949. J J Dwyer chaired a meeting between fishermen and canners at Launceston in June at which the canners claimed that high production and consumer resistance to canned barracouta had left a carry over of 187,120 cases at the end of 1947-48. Export markets were shrinking and canned barracouta from South Africa was under cutting local production.The Tasmanian Government lifted price control on September 21, 1949 "as a result of difficulties caused by decontrol in Victoria and some other States . The price paid to fishermen for barracouta was then 3 and a half pence a lb. Blackburn published a major paper on the fishery in 1950 and warned that although landings could be increased competition would force canners to seek "better types of fish", presumably tuna and Australian salmon. He urged large scale publicity "to break down the prejudice and ignorance about the product" - echoes of the 1941 Tariff Board report.

Tasmanian canners were forced to slash the retail price of canned barracouta in 1950, from 18/- to 12/- case. They dropped the price to fishermen to 2 and a half pence a lb. The Secretary of the LFA E.E. Andrews claimed that half the ''couta boats had given up fishing and fishermen were forced to take up shore jobs. Agriculture Department statistics show that the number of licensed fishermen fell from 1655 to 1082 between 1949 and 1950 and the boats from 1215 to 890. Australian fish consumption had recovered from the war to 1615/head/year but below the 1916/head/year immediately pre-war and the peaks of 22 lb. in 1929; but much of the consumption was again imported as it had been pre-war.The Federal Government expressed concern at the plight of the new canneries and asked the Tariff Board to examine "the impact of duties applying to canned fish" : the hearings began in February 1951.

The Commonwealth decided that imports would be cut by 80% on the value of 1950-51 to correct overseas trade balance; for fish this would mean a reduction in the value of imports,which were mainly canned from £4 million to £800,000 . G.M. Carr, Secretary of the Fish Canners Association greeted the news thus -

The Fisheries Newsletter underlined the decision in May 1952

Whilst the Government's policy to slash imports was very beneficial the canners were disappointed but probably not surprised when the Tariff Board again rejected duties on imported fish "There seemed little possibility of increasing Australian production for the authorities had stated that the fishing grounds were restricted and in some cases overfished." (CSIR had just proposed a limit of 13 trawlers for New South Wales fishing). Not to be denied the Federation of Fishermen's Association, in October 1953, supported another approach to the Tariff Board for an increase in the duty on canned fish imports. The request was not acted on but two years later the Board again addressed a claim from the Fish Canners Association for a 2 shillings a pound duty on imported canned tuna and 1/6 a lb on canned salmon, barracouta and other solid packed cans. The tuna fishery became firmly established in 1956-7 when landings exceeded 1000 tonnes.

CSIR published a comprehensive report on barracouta in Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research in 1955 which predicted that the present catch of 9 million lbs could be safely increased 10 times. Baracouta catches in Tasmania steadily declined to reach 600,000 lb. in 1953-4 - 8% of the peak in just 5 years. CSIRO diagnosed the fall as being due to natural, not fishing, causes largely on the basis that of the 4600 barracouta they had tagged fishermen had only returned seven. Tuna began to take its place but from canneries in South Australia and New South Wales and not Tasmania. Despite the views of Tom Challenger "I can now record with pleasure and satisfaction after some eight years tuna fishing is again being discussed (Fisheries Newsletter December 1948) but the price of 3d./lb was far too low to attract fishermen." For many years the Commonwealth had been promising to bring American tuna fishing expertise to Australia. The vessel "Senibua" with an American crew arrived in 1951 and fished off Tasmania in October. Despite poor weather the results "were optimistic" and the "Liawennee" was fitted with live bait tanks to continue the work.

The declining nature of canning was reflected in a Mercury report of the 15th January 1954 reporting that the Margate factory of Fish Canneries of Tasmania "was a white elephant" due to its bad location. The company proposed to sell the factory and if successful would build a new £40,000 plant at Dunalley. The curtain fell on this chapter of fish processing in December 1957 when the Margate cannery ceased accepting fish. The Managing Director stated that they could not compete with imported canned fish but they would continue to accept table fish, crayfish and scallops. He expressed concern "for the hundreds of barracouta fishermen who had sunk their life savings in small boats". The premier suggested that the factory might convert to canning small fruit. Worse was to follow as the Company called tenders for the sale of its canneries at Dunalley and Bridport as well.

7.3. Crayfish

The development of air transport during the war provided unexpected benefits for the Tasmanian fishing industry. ( The air freighting of fish to the mainland had first been contemplated in June 1944 when Edward Brooker, Minister for Lands and Works contemplated building an airstrip at Triabunna.) At the end of the war the wholesale price of live crayfish was 5 pence/lb and production was less than 2 millions lbs. (900 tonnes). In May 1946 St. Leger referred to crayfish as making up 18% of the total catch.. The first crayfish season after the war saw the first "all freight flight by Australian National Airways ..... one and a half tons of crayfish to Melbourne . By October 1946 air freighting of crayfish (and scallops) extended overseas when an ANA DC4 carried a trial consignment to San Francisco.

In September 1947 plans were announced for a company to operate three Catalinas(amphibians) from Port Davey to air freight fish to Melbourne. The company planned to provide huts or hostels for fishermen and "50 Victorian fishermen intended to operate" along the south west coast.

Crayfish catches did not immediately rise after the war but exports grew steadily, doubling between 1949-51. Fishermen expressed concern at the failure of catches to increase claiming serious depletion of the east coast and the inability of the west coast grounds to sustain heavy fishing. They urged a reduction in pots to not more than 30 per boat. Dwyer authorised a transfer of 1560 crayfish from Bass Strait "the depleted grounds east of Bruny Island in October 1949. When theLiaweneereturned to exploratory fishing major new grounds were discovered off the south coast from Maatsuyker Island to SouthWest Cape and New Harbour in early 1953; on the same cruise the reef area between High and Low Rocky Points were also found. Later in the year the search was centred on the deeper water off St Helens.

By 1953-4 the industry was providing valuable foreign currency (US$3.5 million) and Tasmania's share exceeded over 100,000lbs and fishermen from Stanley were about to begin fishing off the west coast. Exports grew steadily an exceeded US$5 million three years later and Tasmania's share had more than doubled.

7.4. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

The shark liver oil industry had a short life terminated by the development of artificial vitamins but with the restrictions on imports fresh shark fillets gained acceptance in the "take away fish and chips" market. When the "Liawenee" discovered shark fishing grounds 8 miles off Port Davey in early 1953 southern fishermen were able to join the fishery which had previously been largely confined to Bass Strait.

The D'Entrecasteaux Channel scallop fishery quickly recovered after the war time restrictions assisted by export markets. Fishermen successfully defeated a move by major processors in 1950 to lower the price from 1/6d to 1/3d by supplying minor wholesalers. However catches had gradually declined since 1947 prompting increases in price. By the beginning of the season in 1953 reports of 2/9 a lb wholesale and 3/8 a lb retail were said to be deterring buyers. Following the decline of the D'Entrecasteaux Channel beds fishermen looked further afield and catches began to be made in Great Oyster Bay off the East Coast. The second year of fishing in this area resulted in heavy landings for the season. The expansion alarmed some fishermen and Dwyer called for a report on the season which had seen a total catch of 384 tons and 77 boats licensed. Fishing in Norfolk Bay pushed the catch to a new record of 525 tons in 1956.

Fisheries Newsletter carried an article in April 1957 describing a new British scallop dredge which featured a sledge design with a depressor plate. Early use of the dredge revealed damage to scallops caused by the row of spikes mounted on the lower bar. These reports lead to the banning of the new dredge on June 18th 1959 after just a few months trial; thus began the great scallop debate on "Sputnik Dredges". The new dredge was at least 50% more efficient and allowed dredging in deeper water which brought into production the whole of the east coast out to the 70 metre isobath. However it also allowed faster towing and whilst that was an advantage at high speeds it moved across the sea floor in shallow leaps spearing scallops when it returned to the bottom. Its ease of use allowed many inexperienced fishermen to enter the fishery causing even greater damage through their lack of skill but swamping processing facilities with scallops. The dredged was opposed by traditional Channel scallop fishermen who treasured their previously exclusive fishermen, small boat owners who could not pull the new dredge and those genuinely concerned about the increased damage. The supporters included large boat owners, east coast fishermen and experienced scallopers who could use the new dredge at optimum speed and cause little or no additional damage. The new dredge boosted the catch to almost a million lbs (cleaned weight) in 1959. Following trials and modifications during the summer the dredge was authorised for use in the 1960 season,fueling further controversy which lead to a Legislative Council Select Committee being established on the initiative of R H Brown the Member for Huon.

In 1949 CSIR decided to import the Pacific oyster from Japan to restore the oyster fisheries of Tasmania and Western Australia. The first consignment of 50 cases from Matsushima Bay left Japan on HMAS Kanimbla on 4 November. The oysters were "held in quarantine" in Pittwater near Cambridge Airport and survived well, growing to 30 cms in length by 1954. Further importations were made in 1951.However whilst spawning in this area they failed to settle and were moved to Port Sorell in the hope that the warmer water of the north coast would lead to a self sustaining population. Little settlement occurred in the new location nor in Mallacoota in Victoria where some had been transplanted in October 1955 but in 1958 large numbers of spat were discovered seven miles from the parent stock in Port Sorell and in the nearby Mersey Estuary and the Tamar. The sizes of the young oysters suggested that spawning had been successful in 1956,57 and 58. CSIRO had now achieved its objective of laying the foundation of a new oyster industry in Southern Australia based on the Pacific Oyster.

Dr. Thompson also announced a program aimed at developing the production of alginate from Macrocystis beds off eastern Tasmania. (Tasmania had also sought the Division's assistance in evaluating the trout fishery and the state of the mutton bird stocks).

Deep sea trevalla were caught by J.H. Blackstall skipper of the Pacific Pride in 70 fathoms of water off the east coast. The fish had not been seen since Thomas Maddox caught several specimens in 1917. The "Liawenee" conducted a year of surveying of the new fishery in 1952 under the direction of Michael Hodgson, the area covered extended from Tasman Island to St Helens in water from 200 to 400 fathoms. A report published in Fisheries Newsletter described good catches of Deep Sea Trevalla, Ling and cod with smaller amounts of gemfish and other species. CSIRO repeated the survey in 1955 and extended the research along the slope from southern Tasmania to the Great Australian Bight. The new fishery seemed so promising that the CSIRO research vessel master Roy Downie resigned to build a boat to enter the fishery.

The Government considered a proposal "from an influential group of Tasmanian businessmen" to revive the whaling industry. A plan had been put forward in 1939 and deferred by the war but reconsidered in June 1945. The proposal was taken up by Senator McKenna who made submissions to Dedman as Minister for Post War Reconstruction in October 1945. Dedman announced plans to seek a whale quota and although this lead to a Commonwealth Government Whaling Commission the venture was not based in Tasmania.

7.5. Another Development Debate

In November 1953 Tom D'Alton, now back in Tasmania and a member of the Legislative Council, briefly re-entered the fisheries scene with the statement "there are a lot of loafers in the Tasmanian Fishing Industry". He complained that one could not get a decent meal of fish, prices were high, and the industry offered no competition to imported fish. The remarks were widely reported and brought a storm of rebuttal in letters to the newspapers - the Mercury published 17 over the next few days. Ernie Swards,President of the LFA, indignantly denied the charge and invited D'Alton to have the Government establish an enquiry. Harold Solomon, President of the Liberal Party, attacked D'Alton and called for an investigation of the industry. However the correspondents to the Mercury, whilst vigorously contesting that fishermen were lazy, rarely suggested that D'Alton's facts were wrong. Many complained that whilst they received low prices, such as 31/2d a lb for barracouta the shops sold the same fish for six times that amount.

D'Alton was not alone in questioning the performance of the industry. In a major editorial the Fisheries Newsletter, October 1954, asked "How can we develop the Australian fishing industry?" The article was triggered by the release of a survey which revealed that whilst Australians ate an average of 11.2 lbs of fish in the three years before the war consumption had now fallen to 7.8 lbs. Import cuts had reduced foreign fish from 30.6 to 17.6 million pounds but had not stimulated local production, now imports were again rising almost equaling domestic production. The editor proposed that the answer to his question required:

and that Australia should have a Fisheries Development Corporation similar to that operating in South Africa and along the same lines as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The article stimulated a vigorous debate possibly the first thorough evaluation of the "great Australian fisheries dream".

Prior to the publication of the article Anderson had written to all State Departments and CSIRO seeking comments "as a contribution towards achieving a programme which will be generally acceptable."Some of the responses were predictable - the NSW Fishermen's Association called for a national conference; there was also apathy - the only official government response came from the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture, perhaps the others had tired of the debate. H C Smith responded that there was little scope for expansion unless the cost of fishing gear could be lowered to allow a jack mackerel fishery to develop. Australian salmon and dropline fisheries on the continental slope may have some potential. This response contrasts with the optimism of the D'Alton years of 10 years before and were symptomatic of the prevailing view lead by the LFA. The General Manager of the South Australian Fishermen's Cooperative (SAFCOL) R M Fowler, the most influential fish processor in Australia from 1960 to 1980, generally supported the editorial. He highlighted the lack of capital as a major problem and gave as the reason the uncertainty of the industry which frightened private investment, therefore developmental capital must come from the government. As a processor his identification of poor processing, poor marketing - stemming from irregular supplies, and poor distribution or raw and processed fish as major problems warranted consideration. Fowler supported the idea of a Corporation and estimated that it would require capital of £1 million.

The most perceptive contribution to the debate was by Maurice Blackburn, although a senior CSIR scientist, his views were personal not those of his organization. Blackburn began with an examination of the question "Why Develop?". He dismissed the common justification of increasing food production on the grounds that Australia was not short of high quality protein like some other fishing countries, but argued in favour of fisheries development to generate overseas credit balances, security and for "national development". He reminded readers that the NSW trawler fleet had usefully contributed to the naval effort during the war and that fisheries could support communities in under populated areas. Having justified a developmental effort he then examined possible fisheries to meet the need. He suggested

He firmly rejected whaling, then the first priority of the Commonwealth Fisheries Office, on the grounds that the stocks were already over exploited. Blackburn maintained that CSIR had now provided the basic information for development, now capital had to be found. He also commended the Corporation as the source of the finance.

The editor summarised the debate in the August edition expressing disappointment that despite invitations Tasmania was the only government to respond. There was overwhelming support for the idea of a Development Corporation to utilize government capital and general concern that poor quality and marketing was inhibiting development. Despite the debate being conducted in the official publication of the Commonwealth Fisheries Office it appeared to be officially unresponsive to the suggestions and it was left to the Australian Fish Canners Association to host a conference to further the idea. The Association hoped that the Corporation would promote the tuna industry.

Unattracted by the concept of a corporation the Commonwealth established a Fisheries Development Trust Account with £750,000 obtained from the sale of the Australian Whaling Commission to Nor'West Whaling Co. In introducing the Bill to establish the Account McEwen,now Minister for Trade, again stressed the "overseas payments' position as the justification for fostering the development of the industry. Again the value of fish imports, now £5.6 million,compared to exports of £1.9 million, was the centre-piece of the case. McEwen acknowledged that large scale investment was required but seemed to accept that the Government's role was as a provider of information not financier despite the fact that the funds to establish the new Account came from the sale of an asset where Government finance had developed a large profitable fishing industry. Yet his speech included

Lihou, still President of the Australian Professional Fishermen's Federation, had a jaundiced view of the situation: "There is no doubt that fish stocks are dwindling all over Australia," on the new Trust Account: "I know nothing of what is intended, but I feel that if the plan is to be worked out by Public Servants alone, we cannot expect too much."

In its first year the Trust Account established a pattern of expenditure of funding a series of exploratory fishing surveys generally designed and supervised by Commonwealth officers. £260,000 were allocated to buy the trawler,£30,000 for a prawn survey off NSW and Queensland, £10,000 for the pilchard survey, and an economic survey of the tuna fishery. "The constitutional limitations on expenditure from the Trust Account and the Commonwealth's broad concept of developmental projects were explained to the State officers (at a conference in May 1957), who expressed agreement with the policy adopted by the Commonwealth." The new fund allowed the Commonwealth Fisheries Office to conduct the kind of work proposed by Stanley Fowler between 1930 and 1940 but they made no attempt to provide entrepreneurial capital.