The Australian fishing industry began to enter a new phase about 1958. The great advances in fisheries management, research and development which were made in the 1960's were preceded by a period of intense questioning which brought the post war period to an end. Many of the initiatives of the Controllers of Fisheries were re-examined and the role of the four partners - the Commonwealth Fisheries Office(CFO), CSIRO Division of Fisheries, State Fisheries organizations and industry organizations were substantially altered. The Commonwealth Fisheries Office lost influence and Commonwealth initiative reverted to CSIRO due to -
.... the failure of the Development Trust Account to have early success and the stigma of the heavy losses on the Southern Endeavour ;
.... the collapse of Australian Professional Fishermen's Association left the CFO without direct contact with industry. The support of the wartime consultative committees and later the APFA had given credibility to CFO claims to leadership of the industry;
.... the impact of Geoffrey Kesteven's return to CSIRO from FAO. The Division narrowed its programme providing the necessity for the States to build research units. This resulted in
consequential strengthening of their administration with a group of young professionals.
In June 1958 William McMahon, Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry, said he was "very concerned at the present economic conditions of Australian fisheries"The European and Japanese fishing industries had now recovered from the war and the new technology largely produced for the war had boosted fishing capacity. Imports of fish into Australia were rising largely due to higher quality and better convenience than the local product. Production per head of population had fallen from over 10 lbs pre war to about 7 lbs.The fresh fish and canning industries that had flourished under wartime protection wilted when the protection was removed and the customer had a wider choice. The industry had been rejected by the Tariff Board on several occasions but the Trade Minister offered them another hearing if they could make a prima facie case. McEwen acknowledged that import licensing records had shown an increase in frozen fish imports but he expected them to now fall back to the levels applying in 1957. Despite post war import controls canned fish imports had grown from 60 million lbs in 1945-6 to 180 million lbs in 1957-8 and fresh and frozen fish from 2.6 million lbs to 23 million lbs over the same period. The government assisted the industry by classing it as a primary industry for the purposes of taxation in the 1958 budget.
The anomaly facing the industry was that fishermen,particularly trawlermen were complaining that they could no longer operate at a profit but housewives now regarded fresh fish as a luxury. Despite the efforts of the Commonwealth Fisheries Office and the new Development Trust Account to extend and expand the traditional fisheries market forces were constricting the industry to those fisheries where Australia had real comparative advantage - the high value shellfisheries. Crayfish was the first fishery to expand under this new stimulus as overseas markets sent the prices up and the value of exports rose from US$1million in 1948-9 to US$8.5 million in 1958-9. The number of crayfish pots in use in Tasmania increased from less than 1000 in 1939 to over 6000 in 1959 even though the number of pots per boat was strictly controlled.
The questioning of the great optimism for a major fishing industry commensurate with the length of the coastline, first publicized by the Tariff Board in 1941, could no longer be ignored. The highly protected environment created by wartime controls had deferred consideration of the matter but in the freer market of the late 1950's Governments could delay no longer. In Tasmania the Benjamin Report stated "the fishing industry is passing through a crisis and the future is somewhat obscure"
The role of State Fisheries Departments was questioned in Victoria by a lengthy Parliamentary Enquiry and in Tasmania by the Hobbs Report into inland fisheries and the Select Committee into the scallop fishery. In Western Australia and South Australia the growing importance of crayfisheries promoted internal re-evaluations and Queensland appointed an Inspector of Fisheries on a permanent basis for the first time. The Hobbs Report was in turn reviewed by the Benjamin Committee and followed by another report by D D Lynch. The Licensed Fishermen's Association sought an Enquiry into the industry but the Government refused.
The role of the professionals in the administrations was firmly embedded by
the resolution of the Commonwealth/States Fisheries Conference held in June
1961. The policy change was profound but implemented without conscious consideration
of Ministers. It was a measure of the influence of the new professional leadership
that such a change came about without political debate. Nevertheless from this
point onward there was an expectation that management measures would be introduced
only after some quantitative assessment of the state of the exploited stocks.
They also decided that the universal objective of management will be to maximize
the yield from the resource and maximize returns to fishermen.
The Commonwealth responsibility for fisheries reverted to the Country Party in January 1959 when Charles Aderman from Queensland became Minister for Primary Industry. A succession of his colleagues, including Doug Anthony, Peter Nixon and Ian Sinclair, held the post in every subsequent non-Labor government .
It took several years for the practical impact of the proclamation of the Commonwealth Act (in 1955) to be felt by the industry and State administrations. Prior to 1955 States had a de jure responsibility for fisheries in adjacent waters offshore for as far as they could establish a nexus between the fishing activity and the peace order and good government of the State. The consequence of this situation was that fisheries management tended to be parochial and for fishermen to stay close to their home State. The crayfish debates over fishing in Bass Strait (go to) had established Tasmania's "authority" over the fishery but now that authority seemed to be confined to the territorial sea. Victorian boats with Commonwealth licences came closer to Tasmania than ever before. The refusal of the Commonwealth to register fishing gear added to the problem and the Victorian boats could use unlimited numbers of pots. Tasmanian fishermen felt the Fisheries Division was now powerless to protect "their fishery" and questioned whether the Tasmanian case had been argued forcefully enough with Canberra and the other States. As all the State Fisheries Departments began to experience these and similar problems the need for regular consultation with the Commonwealth became imperative.
Cedric Setter a chemist who had worked in the CSIRO Division of Food Preservation before joining Thompson's group during the War was appointed Commonwealth Director of Fisheries in February 1960. Whilst with the Controller of Fisheries he had been in charge of the Central Fisheries Office in Melbourne and had remained with the Fisheries Office under Anderson. At almost the same time Dr G L Kesteven returned to CSIRO as deputy to George Humphrey and to take charge of fisheries research. After working in the Fisheries Division of CSIR from 1942 and serving as a Assistant Controller to Thompson during the war, he had spent the past 13 years with FAO.
Hobart hosted the yearly conference of Commonwealth and State Fisheries Officers for the first time in December 1959 and urged that immediate steps be taken to establish an Australian Fisheries Council along the same lines as the Agricultural Council that had now operated successfully for 26 years. Other major decisions were a recommendation that all the south-eastern States and the Commonwealth introduce a 3.25 inch minimum mesh size for trawl net cod ends, the Commonwealth should allocate £100,000 from the Trust Account for loans to fishermen to improve boats and gear, and a film be made to stress the importance of conserving crayfish stocks
The next Conference was held in Canberra in September 1960 and formally recommended that an Australian Fisheries Council be established. In opening the Conference the Commonwealth Secretary for Primary Industry J V Moroney reminded the officers that "he had mooted" the formation of an Australian Fisheries Council in 1958 but that there were doubts about "sufficient policy matters requiring decisions at Ministerial level." New South Wales could not recall many problems which would need consideration by Ministers but it would be good for Ministers to get together. The Directors of Fisheries resolved that as the industry had expanded with greater need for Commonwealth/State co-operation in development and management the Minister for Primary Industry should invite State Ministers to an ad hoc meeting to consider the formation of a Council and Standing Committee.
During discussion of the other agenda items Tasmania raised:-
.... the need for more publicity on Commonwealth licensing;
.... the need for Commonwealth registration of gear, particularly craypots. (This was resisted by Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria as unnecessary and an undesirable extension of Commonwealth activities and by Commonwealth legal officers who said it was impractical;
... patrolling of Commonwealth waters to stop the sale in New South Wales of undersize crayfish caught in Tasmanian waters. This was supported by New South Wales and Victoria but Western Australia said all patrolling was a State responsibility.
The meeting heard the first discussion of export regulations initially to guarantee the quality of cray tails. Dr. Kesteven referred to a CSIRO review of its fisheries research activities and the need for information and to collate what had already been attained. He proposed a standing committee to form a co-operative programme in south-east Australia (later called the Southern Pelagic Project Committee). The meeting unanimously agreed. A Statistics Committee was formed with the responsibility for establishing a comprehensive and uniform system of fisheries statistics throughout the country. The Conference also moved to improve the quality of fisheries inspection by agreeing to run annual training courses for fisheries inspectors. The conference also discussed two matters which had already become regular items on the agenda and were destined to occupy many hours of discussion in succeeding years. The first was the threat to Australia's freshwater biota posed by the importation of exotic aquarium fish and the second was the desire for uniformity in the common names of fish. A list of "standard common names" had been published in 1947 after the 1960 conference another list of "uniform common names" for 60 species was published.
At the end of November 1960, three special conferences were held in Melbourne to further the matters raised in September. A meeting of the Southern Pelagic Committee recommended a market measure program and tagging programs for tuna, crayfish and barracouta. The Statistics Committee also met and recommended a uniform system of standard statistics. The third meeting was aimed at achieving greater uniformity of southern crayfish management measures.
As the 1959 and 1960 had not resulted in the formation of an Australian Fisheries Council and Standing Committee on Fisheries a special meeting of the Commonwealth and State Fisheries Conference was held in Perth on the 30th May 1961 primarily devoted to the matter. The Chairman, Mr. A.J. Fraser, began the meeting by inviting Frank Hicks to open the discussions in the light of his long association with the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Hicks concluded his comments by recommending that Fisheries follow similar lines to Agriculture in establishing a Council and Standing Committee. The meeting agreed that the Council should consist of the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and the six State Ministers responsible for Fisheries with the Commonwealth Minister having the power to co-opt the other Commonwealth Ministers with some responsibility for fisheries matters.The functions of the Council were again spelt out and that it should meet every two years in each State and in Canberra by rotation. The meeting suggested that Standing Committee should consist of the Chief Fisheries Officer in each State and the Commonwealth Director for Fisheries, the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography and a representative of the Department of Territories. The Standing Committee should have the same functions as the Fisheries Council but in addition it should secure co-operation and co-ordination in fisheries development, management and research throughout the Commonwealth. It should advise the Commonwealth and State Governments directly or through the Council on matters pertaining to the initiation and development of research on fisheries problems and to secure co-operation between the Commonwealth and States with respect to quarantine and disease control. The meeting also recommended that the Standing Committee should meet annually and that the Chairmanship should be rotated in the sequence of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania but in recognition of the role of F.W. Hicks in the Standing Committee on Agriculture he should chair the first meeting.
This conference considered a paper by Kesteven on the nature of fisheries management and the role of regulations agreed :-
-to repeal obsolete regulations,
-that stock assessment is a pre-requisite to management,
-that Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) is the agreed objective of fisheries management together with maximising returns to fishing.
Some Departments had already implemented the policy the remainder accepted the direction without demur. The requirement to seek maximization of production as the principal objective of fisheries management and to require objective research as a prerequisite for changes to regulations had far reaching repercussions for the nature and cost of Australian fisheries management. Tasmania's style of management was reflected in the State's view that such prerequisites were not necessary. The new policy was apparently not discussed by Ministers and whilst readily agreeing that officers should discuss such matters at a seminar in1962.
When Ministers met in August 1961 they agreed to the officers resolution and it seemed that after many years of struggle, principally led by Tasmania, a Fisheries Council along the lines of the Agricultural Council would be established. The Commonwealth Minister, Mr Aderman, said: "The responsibilities of the States and the Commonwealth are clear in such matters as the management of fisheries and territorial and extra-territorial waters.". However Federal Cabinet vetoed the proposal on the 22nd May 1962, nevertheless Ministers would now begin to meet regularly and when the Council was eventually established almost a decade later there was little change in the nature of the Ministerial discussions.
When the officers next gathered they did so believing they were now the Standing Committee on Fisheries. In March 1962 , with F.W. Hicks of Tasmania as Chairman, they agreed :-
-to uniform common names for another 40 species of fish,
-that CSIRO should narrow its research program and concentrate on tuna, crayfish, Australian salmon and whales.(The CSIRO Executive had visited Cronulla and formed the decision to cease research in other areas which included barracouta and trawl fish. See section 7. Research)
Fisheries officers met for the second time in 1962 in Sydney in September and again discussed uniform statistics and a range of other matters. In 1964 the Ministers were asked to expand the terms of reference of the Southern Pelagic Project Committee and to rename it the South Eastern Fisheries Research Committee. New South Wales interpreted the changes as an attempt by CSIRO to direct its research and influence its management. They vigorously defended their independence
"We are not agreeable to submit, and have our research programmes directed by this proposed centralised control" T P Murphy MLA.
and despite support from other State Ministers, the Conference allowed the matter to drop. But NSW were sufficiently flexible to allow Conference to accept the inclusion of scallop research under SPPC - NSW had no scallop fishery. Another attempt to reform SPPC failed at the 1968 Conference.
After 1964 meetings were held annually until 1968. The Conference was provided with an opportunity to discuss the new management technique of limited entry licensing in 1965 when South Australian fishermen requested it for the tuna fishery. However the Ministers confined their discussions to whether there was enough known about the fishery to be concerned for its future.In 1967 and again in 1968 State Ministers pressed the Commonwealth to establish a fund for research education and development along the lines of those operating in several States. Such funds were generated from licence fees and financed special research projects. These discussions were part of general campaign by the States to get the Commonwealth to shoulder a fairer share of the financial burden of management of fisheries. By 1968 the Commonwealth had agreed to reimburse the States for the actual costs associated with licensing and patrolling and had established the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account by matching the amount the States raised form the industry for research.
After many years of trying and one false start the Federal Cabinet finally agreed to form a formal Australian Fisheries Council and Standing Committee in November 1968. Ministers had been meeting regularly since 1962.
The Victorian Cabinet instructed the State Development Committee, consisting of six members of the Parliament, to conduct an inquiry into the State's fishing industry in July 1959. A four-man commission was recommended to control fisheries in Victoria consisting of two government representatives, including the Chairman, and professional fishermen and a nominee of fish merchants. The Chairman would be a full time position, the others part time. Would be oriented towards development including fish farming. The recommendation suggested that "Research should be increased and accelerated". In April 1961, the Victorian Government enacted legislation based on the report. It established a four man commission but gave it only advisory powers. The Commission was to consist of two officers of the Fisheries and Wildlife Department, including the Chairman, one fisherman and one wholesaler.
The Licensed Fishermen's Association under the leadership of Louis M. Shoobridge and Reginald M.P. Roberts began to pressure the Government to reform the commercial fishing licence system late in 1959. Their objective was to make fishing a full time professional occupation (part of this scheme depended on the success of the newly formed Eastern Tasmanian Fishermen's Co-operative). J.J. Dwyer was in poor health and was unable to undertake official duties towards the end of the year. Doug Cashion, as Acting Minister, referred to the Government's fulsome support of the industry and "the future of the fishing industry was bound up with the success of the Co-operative" in addressing a Co-operative meeting in September 1959.
The Licensed Fishermen's Association were disgruntled with the reliance of the Fisheries Division on the CSIRO and the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board - the former because it was not "local" and the latter for its independence from Association policy. The annual meeting of the LFA in June 1959 called for an Enquiry claiming certain species were over exploited, that there should be a reduction in the number of licences, that the quality and quantity of enforcement was inadequate and there should be an examination on the sale of the vessel "Liawennee". The vessel had been neglected for some time and in need of substantial refitting.(Dwyer believed that the "Liawenee" "was a burden" due no doubt to the government's discovery that it could not operate as a quasi research vessel and pay its own way.)
D.F.Hobbs was a New Zealand administrator of trout fishing invited by the Government to enquire into the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Commission and "the methods of managing and developing the fisheries under their control". The enquiry was sought by the Commission itself in 1955 and conducted with their support. Substantial sections of the angling community wanted Hobbs to take charge of Tasmanian inland fisheries even before he was asked to report. The Government deferred action for financial reasons but finally arranged with the New Zealand Government for Hobbs to spent two weeks in Tasmania during his holidays in March 1957. He records (page 7-8) that "doubts and uncertainties" about the administration of inland fisheries began in 1932 and despite the reconstitution of the Commission by the Act of 1935 continued for more than 20 more years. As the number of licensed anglers had increased more than four fold since the War further action could no longer be delayed.
In recommending a new form of administration Hobbs set out seven characteristics of "any competent fisheries administration:-
(1) Authority
(2) Understanding of and sympathy with the interests to be served.
(3) Technical competence to use authority wisely.
(4) Positiveness of outlook.
(5) Appreciation of limitations of knowledge and the will and ability to foster research.
(6) Funds and the staff and plant they will purchase.
(7) A form which makes it clear where responsibility lies and which ensures confidence. "
He recommended the abolition of the Commission because of its "constitutional weakness". It had substituted "part time services of a skilled anglers for full time professional management. There was public uncertainty as to where responsibility really lies. "Delegation by the State involves the interposition of the Commission between the Minister and the public concerned. But there is a strong tendency to regard this statutory delegation, coupled with the retention of the nomination of the majority (of Commissioners) as a device to enable Governments to direct policy without accepting responsibility." Although referring to freshwater fisheries his comments are applicable to sea fisheries as well - the reliance on the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board and the weakness of the Fisheries Division.
To replace the Commission Hobbs recommended a directorship of inland fisheries within the public service. The Director to be "an officer combining relevant administrative and research experiences in freshwater fisheries"; and
" There is merit in maintaining the connecting link with marine fisheries and with agriculture which inclusion within the province of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries implies. Such an association should make it possible to effect economies by avoiding the provision of separate accountancy, clerical and records services. But the best solution might be to establish a combined directorship for fisheries and wildlife,"
Hobbs then proceeded to devote several pages of the report to describing and justifying the proposed amalgamated organization. The amalgamation issue was outside the terms of reference given to Hobbs but he elected to examine it after consultation with, and the support of, the Secretary for Agriculture F W Hicks.
When the Hobbs report was tabled a "diversity of views" prompted the Cabinet to appointed an Advisory Committee, under the Chairmanship of L.R. Benjamin, to consider its recommendations and report on "the suggested type of organization to achieve greater efficiency and better relations consistent with reasonable expenditure". The Committee consisted of representatives of the statutory bodies and departments who were involved - R.P. Furmage, a salmon and fresh water fisheries Commissioner, H.R. Reynolds, a member of the Animals and Birds Protection Board, V.V. Hickman of the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board, G.K. Meldrum of the Department of Agriculture and I.G. Inglis of the Treasury.
The Committee appointed a sub-committee consisting of Hickman, Benjamin,Meldrum and Inglis to examine alternative styles of organization. The Sub-Committee concluded that only two could be seriously considered either a Fish and Wildlife Service or a professionally directed Inland Fisheries Commission of three members. They "strongly favoured" the former with safeguards to ensure the application of angler's licence fees to inland fisheries. The representatives of the statutory bodies sought and received approval to discuss the sub-committee's report with their organizations: those discussions confirmed that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Commission, the Animals and Birds Protection Board and the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board all wished to retain their independence. The "Committee felt that its terms of reference did not extend to 'selling 'the idea of a combined service".
The final report recommended a three man Commission - a full time professional head or Commissioner and two Associate Commissioners one nominated by the Government and one by anglers. It also recorded the dissenting view of Furmage who wanted a five member Commission to allow an Associate Commissioner from each of the angling bodies. The Commission should be financed by anglers. Benjamin's covering letter to Hicks attached to the report suggests that Hobbs should be considered as the chief executive and includes
"The principal objection to a commission of more than three is that the major objective of professional direction of inland fisheries would be placed in jeopardy and one of the most unsatisfactory features of the present regime would be perpetuated, viz., direction by amateurs through their capacity to over-ride the Director's recommendations. The risk of this would be far less with a three member Commission. In fact, it is very doubtful indeed whether the right type of man for the chief executive job would be obtainable with a five member Commission....Another point should be kept in mind is that although the Angling Associations are influential bodies their total membership is only a fraction of all the people who take out licences to fish in inland waters. The appointment of a single representative to the new Commission nominated by the combined Associations and one appointed at the Minister's discretion to represent all other interests of the people is, we think, entirely reasonable."
When D D Lynch reviewed the question eight years later he said "The Committee reported that a majority of its members strongly favour Hobbs' suggestion for amalgamating the three bodies under a competent professional full-time director. It was not disposed to recommend that this action be taken at the present time. The Committee considered it would be inadvisable to abolish all three bodies simultaneously and then to expect cooperation from the groups who oppose the amalgamation. The Committee suggested that the proposal should be set aside and re-examined in two or three years time in the light of experience of professional direction of Inland Fisheries".
A measure of the influence that Benjamin mentioned was quickly demonstrated when Cabinet agreed with the Committee's recommendation but added another Associate Commissioner which effectively ensured that each Association would have a representative. When the Bill to replace the Salmon and Fresh Water Commission with the Inland Fisheries Commission was introduced in Parliament the amalgamation was advocated by the former leader of the Opposition, Tim Jackson, and supported by the Government.
Following the report by Hobbs and the 1959 Bill to establish the Inland Fisheries Commission "under an officer trained in fisheries administration and research" the commercial sea fishermen sought a similar upgrading of their administration . The Mercury followed up the call with an editorial which claimed to reflect public concern that "all is not well in the Tasmanian fishing industry and that steps should be taken to protect the industry."
The Premier met with the Executive of the Association and with the Minister for Fisheries, Alec Atkins, and the Chairman of the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board, Frank Hicks. Reece was armed with a detailed defence to the call for an Enquiry and was able to assure the Association that his Government would improve liaison between the Department and industry and that this should resolve much of the problems which led to the call for the Enquiry.
The Premier's expectation was not fulfilled and when Alec Atkins replaced J.J. Dwyer he inherited the problem but the transition delayed matters coming to a head until 1961. The Association met for their annual conference in September 1961 and in a closed session and resolved to seek "a complete reorganization of the industry" and renewed the call for an official enquiry. The Department's response was defensive:
... in reply to the fishermen's claims that the industry "is of tremendous economic importance" - it advised the Minister that it accounted for "less that 1% of the production value of Tasmania"
... there are no problems of over exploitation that is not being "properly investigated"
... the Government had appointed a Committee chaired by "Mr. Benjamin" in 1958 which recommended "that there should be no change in the administration of the Fishing Act relating to Sea Fisheries
... it is the policy of the Minister to accept recommendations from the Sea Fisheries Advisory Board
... we have no evidence of the membership of the State's fishermen in the Association but statements have been made that not more than 10% of the licensed fishermen belong to the Association"
... Government had spent £250,000 since 1941 financing fishing and virtually given the new Co-operative its assets.
The Association commissioned its President,L.M. Shoobridge, and its Secretary, R.M.P. Roberts, to prepare a detailed case for submission to the Premier. In fact the case had been prepared in advance of the meeting and received the strong support of members of the Association. After consideration by Cabinet the Premier, together with Atkins and Frank Hicks (Director of Agriculture and Chairman of the Sea Fisheries Board) met Shoobridge and Roberts in August 1962 . The Government had judged the request for an enquiry "as unreasonable" and this view was made clear in the meeting but the Association requested a further meeting. The Minister met a deputation from the LFA on 7th September 1962 when they pressed the Fisheries Division to assume leadership of the industry. Urging the Minister to create a separate Department of Fisheries if he was not prepared to form an autonomous Commission.
At the second meeting Atkins more firmly resisted the Association:
... we have limited funds and the cost of an enquiry could not be justified
... "the Government feels that at least for the present no good purpose would be served by building up a large staff whichwill add to our overhead expenses"
... "as a Government we have rather felt that we should concentrate what moneys we can provide for fishermen on the present activities and leave most of the research work to the
CSIRO who have the staff, funds and laboratories necessary for such work."
When opening the LFA annual conference the next day Atkins again pursued the line that the Commonwealth should increase funds for fisheries research and management. Whilst publicly acknowledging that the Association represented the industry he backed the Advisory Board as the major source of fisheries policy.
Although the matters raised by the Fishermen's Association tended to be swept aside by Government, the Select Committee into the scallop fishery and the Hobbs Report on inland fisheries were all pointing in the same direction. There was now irresistible pressure for the Fisheries Division to improve its standards and for the Government to allocate greater resources in the administration and conservation of fisheries. T.G. Pearsall MHA led an opposition attack on the Government - particularly referring to inadequate policing and the absence of a research capacity.. He moved to reduce the Department of Agriculture estimates for 1963-64 for the Minister's alleged mismanagement of the scallop fishery particularly because Atkins refused to extend the scallop season in 1964. Southern fishermen (particularly from Pearsall's Franklin electorate) wanted more time to exploit newly discovered beds off St. Helens.
Later in 1963 Bushby (MHA Bass) attacked the Government over alleged malpractices by crayfishermen on Flinders Island. (Illegal fishing, inadequate policing and rivalry between two groups of fishermen had led to violence and piracy). The Government avoided a vote of no confidence by promising an enquiry. Bushby was strongly supported by the "Examiner". Following a report from Government backbencher, Walter Frazer MHA (Bass), the Government instituted a police enquiry. The enquiry failed to substantiate the allegations of widespread violence and intimidation.
Whilst the LFA were not successful in convincing the Minister that the Government should finance a bigger role for the Fisheries Division the Legislative Council Select Committee on the scallop fishery had more success. Atkins told the next (1963) Annual Conference of the LFA that the Fisheries Division hoped to appoint its own marine biologist "in conjunction with the CSIRO." He began his address by declaring that "in spite of many recent criticisms from fishermen and newspapers I submit the industry has never been in a more prosperous condition." With the advantages of hindsight it appears that the Minister was quite correct and possibly the very prosperity of fishermen gave them the time and incentive to vigorously question the Government over industry policies. Nevertheless Shoobridge used his Presidential Report to further attack the state of fisheries administration and the attitude of CSIRO. This time he urged the amalgamation of the Sea Fisheries Division, the Inland Fisheries Commission and the Fauna Board.
(The high profile of the LFA did not engender overwhelming support from all fishermen - in May 1964 fishermen at Bridport left the Association to form an independent body. This brought renewed pressure on the Government not to exclusively recognize the LFA. Atkins wrote to Shoobridge seeking reassurance that this body was widely representative of all member of the industry and a list of members in the category of boat owners, boat operators and licensed fishermen. Roberts responded evasively by declaring that 60% of the fishermen licensed by the Division are not true professional fishermen. He was not able to give a list of members names but they had 170 members at the 1st June 1964 - estimated to be "60-70% of the professional fishermen registered with the Department.")
Relations between the leadership of the LFA and the Government reached a nadir at the 1964 Conference held at Eaglehawk Neck in October. By now the Conference had become a major media event with continuous reports by the three newspapers and the ABC. The publicity raised the temperature of exchanges and encouraged the naturally dramatic style of Shoobridge's oratory. In his Presidential Report he revealed that the Minister had told him in confidence that there would be a joint inland/sea fisheries administration and in return he had agreed to cease public criticism. He had then led the organization to a public endorsement of this course of action. Confident that an amalgamation was the Government's policy Shoobridge announced that on calling the acting Inland Fisheries Commissioner he found that Mr. Terry knew nothing about it. Atkins was acutely embarrassed when Shoobridge discussed the chain of events on television and the scheme collapsed when the anglers marshaled widespread opposition.
Notwithstanding his embarrassment Atkins agreed to open the Eaglehawk Neck Conference and on completing the task was aghast when Shoobridge read a twelve page Presidential Report which described in great detail his "betrayal" by the Minister over the amalgamation affair. In a dramatic conclusion he said:-
"The Association has been misled. As President I have given you false hopes. Our original request for an enquiry should have been pursued with greater vigour. Subsequent events have fully substantiated our claims.
I asked you to have faith in me in our efforts to gain our objective for amalgamation. My efforts have failed and in this failure I have probably weakened and lost ground for the Association. It leaves me with little alternative but to offer my resignation to the Association."
Smarting from the ambush Atkins lashed out at Shoobridge in a press statement:
"The Tasmanian Government has done relatively more to assist the fishing industry than any other State, but no amount of assistance could satisfy the President of the Licensed Fishermen's Association.....
Since I have taken over the position of Minister for Fisheries Mr. Shoobridge has constantly produced destructive criticism."
Atkins referred to "woolly thinking" by Shoobridge and described in detail the Association's deficiencies. Despite the reference to opposition to amalgamation by Liberal Leader Angus Bethune the Minister's explanation for the set back to his scheme to appoint D.D. Lynch as head of a combined fisheries organization was not convincing.The Northern Tasmanian Fisheries Association vigorously opposed the appointment of Lynch and the amalgamation in a letter to the Minister on the 10 November 1964. The Association's Secretary, D.G. Gilmour, said "we consider any amalgamation a retrograde step requiring very drastic act action we, and similar trout organizations, can devise to thwart and end it; the Association could conceive of no matter where commercial sea fisheries and an amateur sporting fishing Commission could meet" Gilmour reminded the Minister that for over 100 years they had managed and financed "our own affairs".
"We consider the priceless heritage of trout filled waters which we have built up should remain our exclusive project, not to be confused with money making commercial fishing." "Amalgamation of any other interest with it (trout fishing) is beyond conception and a firm definite assurance from you as Minister for Inland Fisheries repudiating amalgamation would be the only way of stopping the huge public demonstrations and publicity which is being rapidly organized."
The Northern Tasmanian Fisheries Association led the attack against the proposed amalgamation. They began by lobbying Cabinet to further strengthen angler membership of the Commission through the appointment of Deputy Associate Commissioners and secondly by requesting that the Act be amended to require the Minister to consult with the Associate Commissioners (that is, anglers) before the appointment of any future Commissioner. Cabinet rejected both recommendations on the advice of the Minister. Cabinet's thinking on the second proposal was influenced by their knowledge that on the death of Hobbs one of the Associate Commissioners wished to be appointed Commissioner.
Having received the Lynch report Atkins made further attempts to win over support of anglers and the Animals and Birds Protection Board but he was now also opposed by the Opposition and the Leader, Angus Bethune, attacked the administration of Inland Fisheries and the proposed amalgamation in an article in the "Mercury" of the 16 May. Finally Atkins went back to Cabinet late in May of 1966 recommending that the amalgamation proposal be dropped. His submission concluded "that in the early stages of the matter I felt there were advantages in considering amalgamation but in the light of reaction to the appointment of the Inland Fisheries Commissioner and the opposition of at least some members of the Animals and Birds Protection Board and the Tasmanian Farmers Federation that the project should be abandoned." His submission suggests that the Professional Fishermen's Association which had previously strongly supported the proposal had joined the opposition.
The 21st annual conference
of the Fishermen's Association, now known as the Professional Fishermen's Association,
provided the opportunity for Shoobridge to turn his sights from Tasmania to
the national fisheries scene. In July he had published in Australian Fisheries
Newsletter a call for a new National Fishermen's Federation
•
• "The Australian Constitution never envisaged strong and active marine
fisheries. There is no national fisheries policy and fishermen could and must
play a leading part in its formation"
His Presidential Report at Eaglehawk Neck included the announcement of a National Fisheries Policy. The policy was adopted (with the help of substantial rewording by senior Commonwealth public servants) by the Australian Fisheries Development Conference in Canberra in February 1967. The Conference was the high point of Shoobridge's career as a fisheries politician.
The conference was attended by only one parliamentarian, not even the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry could find time to attend, and Shoobridge returned with the notion that members of parliament needed education in fisheries matters. He wrote to the Deputy Premier seeking permission to address members of the House of Assembly (preferably before the beginning of the crayfish season) on current matters of concern to fishermen. The Minister declined his offer but suggested discussions with a Government Sub-Committee at an appropriate time. Not deterred Shoobridge contested and won the Legislative Council seat of Queenborough at a by-election in September 1968 and on one occasion he received the President's approval to bring a blackboard into the Council chamber to better explain the intricacies of fisheries management. He was not re-elected at the expiry of his term in 1971. Shoobridge resigned the Presidency on election to Parliament and Roberts resigned in September 1967 when his involvement with the secondary sector of the industry began to conflict with his role as Secretary.
Prompted by the growing public profile and influence of the LFA the processors and buyers of fish formed an association in 1962. The well known Triabunna fish processor Albert Thompson and Stan Haward of Hobart convened a meeting of fish dealers and formed the Tasmanian Fish Merchants Association with the avowed purpose of "protecting and furthering the fishing industry of Tasmania." Present at the first meeting in addition to the covenors were W Roche, H Watt, Bern Cuthbertson, and Gregory Casimaty. The association quickly became a cohesive group well organised to negotiate with Government on matters affecting the secondary sector generally. The Government readily recognised the new Association as speaking for the sector and henceforth sought nominations from it when a representative was needed. Later the Association widened its mandate and became the Tasmanian Fish Processors and Exporters Association.
In June 1958 the Fisheries Act was amended by a Bill introduced by the Opposition. W.C. Hodgman moved that the Act be amended to increase the fishermen's representatives on the Advisory Board from two to four. Hodgman's justification was that it was "a matter of great importance that practical advice should be receivable by the Board - the proposal will not disturb the balance of power." The Government supported the Bill.
Towards the end of 1958 the Minister had recognized that a firmer hand and stronger regulations were required to control the crayfishing industry and in October the Act was amended with the intention of giving Tasmania control over fishing in all territorial waters and to regulate the taking of crayfish beyond the three mile limit. The Opposition urged Government to institute a thorough investigation of all fishing areas with a view to extending the industry and not to continue to rely on fishermen to find new grounds.
The Government took the opportunity of a Bill introduced into the Parliament in July 1959 to the establish the Inland Fisheries Commission to give to fisheries inspectors the power to confiscate illegal fishing equipment and that Courts power to levy heavier penalties for fisheries offences. Much of the debate on the legislation was concentrated on the new Inland Fisheries body and the Opposition was successful in passing an amendment that would ensure that all three of the regional anglers' bodies were represented on the four man Commission. The nature of the legislation and the debate in the House clearly determined that the Inland Fisheries Commission would be a body oriented towards recreational fishing. The continued separation of Inland and Sea Fisheries required the line of demarcation between inland waters and tidal waters to be precisely defined and less than three months after the new Act was proclaimed the Minister found it necessary to bring in another amending Bill to more clearly define the meaning of tidal waters. Nevertheless this measure proved to be inadequate and in April 1963 the Government further amended the legislation which extended the control of the Inland Fisheries Commission over certain estuaries and allowed the demarcation between inland waters and tidal waters to be fixed by regulation. The Bill also provided legal support for the operation of commercial trout farms and it was necessary for the Legislative Council to adjourn during its consideration of the Bill in order that the Inland Fisheries Commissioner, D.F. Hobbs, could explain some of the provisions. This legalization of fish farms was the beginning the modern history of aquaculture in Australia.
The struggle to establish commercial freshwater fish farms in Tasmania is further testimony to the power of the trout anglers. Early in 1962 the Minister for Industrial Development and Deputy Premier R F Fagan supported a proposal from J B Meling Co. to begin trout culture in Tasmania. Whilst there was some doubt as to whether legislation was needed to authorize the venture the Company and Government were anxious to insure against actions by the IFC that would harass the operation. When the Government announced that it would introduce a Bill to legalize fish farming the angling associations, through the Associate Commissioners demanded that "controls were such as to make practically impossible the substitution of poached fish for farmed trout."They later threatened the Government with frustration of the development if the proposed legislation did not also include a cessation of whitebait fishing, the banning of netting in tidal rivers and the transfer of jurisdiction over tidal rivers to the Commission; all of which they had been seeking for some time. Atkins took offence at the threat and Hobbs was delegated to "clarify matters" with the Minister. At the December meeting of the Commission "Members expressed regret that it had not been possible to obtain necessary legislation". They considered "that there could be no possible justification for further deferment of the adjustment of jurisdiction in portions of tidal rivers and lagoons and that such matters should be settled promptly". It appears that Hobbs attempted to restrain the extreme views of the Associate Commissioners and still ensure that the control of trout farming remained under his control. He sought the Commissioners' firm assurance that if the Government gave them the responsibility for regulating fish farms they would "act fairly and justly in the spirit of the legislation and that no member would submit to dictation or pressure from any quarter including angling associations". Whilst keeping them away from the drafting of the Bill Hobbs was able to reassure his Associate Commissioners that he was being fully consulted on the legislation and that it would "be strictly limited to proposals requested by the Commission". In order to achieve fish farms the Government was forced to concede further authority to anglers in the management of estuaries and the closure of what had been a small but lucrative fishery.
In March 1962 the Government refused to restore confiscation of vessel regulation revoked in 1949 despite the recommendation of the Board.
In January 1961 the Scallop Select Committee brought down an interim report. The report included the following:-
a) that entire catches of scallops containing illegal scallops could be confiscated,
b) that boats and gear could be confiscated,
c) licences could be refused, suspended or canceled,
d) the Fisheries Department should have its own research staff and first priority
should be given to the appointment of a biologist,
e) there should be a system of rapid closing of scallop beds,
f) there should be research on dredges,
g) there should be a separate licence,
h) provision should be made for Master Fisherman's licences.
The "Sputnik" dredge was banned in the Channel for the 1961 season
but allowed elsewhere. The Legislative Council rejected a regulation banning
scallop fishing on Fridays and Saturdays which had been proposed by the Sea
Fisheries Advisory Board.
Robert Cosgrove retired in 25 August 1958 and Jack Dwyer became Deputy Premier to Eric Reece and remained in that position until 12 May 1959. (Dwyer remained Minister for Agriculture from 29 Jun 1948 until 19 Sep 1961). Dwyer's illness and the appointment of an inexperienced successor, Alec Atkins, contributed to to the difficulties encountered by the Government in the fisheries area and to the decline of the Fisheries Division. During Dwyer's administration the Division operated as an extension of the Minister's persona, implementing his views and those of the Advisory Board which he selected.
When Hobbs died the longtime Secretary for Fisheries Leo St Leger was also nearing retirement. During the Dwyer administration St Leger had lost influence as the Minister preferred the company and advice of fishermen to public servants. The appointment of Atkins as Minister improved the chances of professional administration of sea fisheries. E.J. Balfe reported that Cabinet was considering amalgamating the administration of inland and sea fisheries in a story in the Mercury on 8 October 1963. In January 1964 the Government appointed D.D. Lynch, head of the Victorian Marine Fisheries Division and Chairman of the Commercial Fisheries Council, to succeed D.F. Hobbs. The Mercury regarded it as a step towards co-ordinated administration and predicted that "should the Government be returned to office after the elections it is likely that legislation to bring this about will be submitted. Lynch recalls that he was interviewed by Atkins and Fagan but neither made any suggestion of a possible amalgamated administration. His appointment was not linked to a combined Department and the Government appears to have embarked on this course only after having decided that Lynch was the best of the applicants for the position of Inland Fisheries Commissioner. Lynch's background probably prompted Atkins to reactivate the concept and it is likely that Hicks reminded his Minister of the Benjamin Committee's report.
When the appointment of Lynch was announced the Inland Fisheries Commission immediately met and carried a motion of no confidence in their new Chief on the grounds of his lack of knowledge of inland fisheries. Atkins rejected the views of the Associate Commissioners and the Mercury continued to support amalgamation. When Lynch was appointed he was requested to prepare a proposal for amalgamation. (This was presented to the Minister in January 1966. )
By mid year Atkins was being attacked from all sides:-
... the opposition attacked him over scallops where the Channel beds were declining and a competitive fishery began in Port Phillip
... the police investigation on Flinders Island had failed to put to rest disquiet over the alleged lawlessness
... the anglers were vigorously and effectively resisting the appointment of Lynch in the belief that the Government was trying to bring them under the control of a commercially
oriented fisheries department
... the Government was forced to liquidate the Eastern Tasmanian Fisheries Co-operative following substantial losses.
The Government responded by appointing E.E. Andrews as a specialist extension officer and announcing a new fishermen's dock for Stanley. The only tenderer for the Co-operative's assets were the South Australian Fishermen's Co-operative but they proposed to operate in Tasmania as a private company, not as a co-operative. Despite industry calls for co-operative basis the Government had no choice but to accept the offer and the depots at Triabunna, Dunalley and Margate were reopened in mid-October in time for the new crayfish season.
The Sea Fisheries Advisory Board continued to be the major policy determinator throughout this period. With the retirement of V V Hickman Dr W Bryden of the Museum became the Board's scientific officer. The scientific input to the Board since the War had, in practice, come from CSIRO. A M Olsen was still based in Hobart and was active in scallop, crayfish and shark research but the new policy of Kesteven was to concentrate activities and with the exception of an office in Melbourne for the Southern Pelagic Project Committee officers returned to Cronulla. When Olsen resigned in 1961? the Board was deprived of its research based advice.
The Division purchased the new fishing boat Penghana in 1960 to strengthen enforcement and appointed another inspector ( a fisherman, J C Woods) late 1959. New "high speed" patrol vessel was acquired a little later. The Regulations were also amended to increase the craypot allocation scales to a maximum of 40 per boat in response to the construction of larger vessels to fish the west coast.
Between 1961 and 1965 all the States appointed university trained Directors. Tasmanian Government had appointed a marine biologist D.D. Lynch to be Inland Fisheries Commissioner (with a view to an amalgamated fisheries organization) and the Sea Fisheries Division had begun a programme of biological and economic investigations to support fisheries management. New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia had established Fisheries Departments built around research groups to provide stock assessment and to calculate the maximum sustainable yield that might be harvested from their important fish stocks. In Tasmania, whilst commercial fishermen readily supported research based management and the trout anglers had pressed for a professionally trained director of freshwater fisheries, the latter group was determined that the Government retain an independent inland fisheries organization devoted to the sport of trout fishing with a major policy input from anglers. Commercial fishermen vigorously demanded leadership from the Fisheries Division.
By the end of 1964 the Fisheries Division began to recover:-
... Roy Scott resumed responsibility for the Division following the retirement of Leo St Leger.
... it began an independent research programme following the appointment of a marine biologist
... the jointly funded tuna survey began
... it announced a special licence for crayfishing to fewer full-time fishermen and prohibited commercial diving for crayfish.
... and it raised the minimum size of abalone
After the war St. Leger continued as Secretary for Fisheries and retired on the 30th April 1964. Roy Huon Scott was born 23rd February 1907 and first appointed to the Department of Agriculture on the 11th May 1932 as a temporary fruit inspector at 2 shillings and 6 pence per hour. Appointed to the permanent staff on the 18th July 1936 at £273 per annum. With the loss of staff from the Department at the outbreak of war Scott commenced clerical duties in 1940 and when Leo St. Leger was seconded to other duties Scott was exempted from military service to become Acting Secretary to the Minister. He subsequently replaced St. Leger as Acting Secretary for Fisheries at the end of 1942 when the Commonwealth Government decided to include fisheries under the Department of War Organization and Industry. Scott was appointed by Cabinet to be Deputy Controller of Fisheries in Tasmania. At the end of the war he returned to clerical duties as an Administrative Assistant to A.R. Mead and F.W. Hicks both of whom were to become head of the Department in later years. Scott had a short period of Acting Secretary of Fisheries again in 1947 but predominantly spent his time in the administrative area being steadily promoted through the positions of Chief Clerk in 1950, Executive Officer in 1955 and later Administrative Officer. He also maintained his interest in fruit inspection and in 1953 spent some months in London studying the quality of Tasmanian fruit. Late in 1963 when St. Leger was about to retire and consideration was being given to the amalgamation of Inland and Sea Fisheries it was decided that Scott should be appointed Acting Secretary for Fisheries pending the amalgamation. He assumed responsibility for the Division on the 6th April 1964 .
In 1965 the Division strengthened the inspection force and began a programme of improving the quality of fisheries law enforcement by acquiring its first high speed patrol boat.
Shoobridge praised Acting Secretary for Fisheries, Roy Scott, for "the sincerity of the manner in which he is dealing with administration problems" and new biologist Harrison "his work will be of great value". Towards the end of 1965 the Government excluded the owners of vessels less than 20 feet long from the crayfishery, required all vessels to have a certificate demonstrating their seaworthiness and allowing the Minister to refuse to licence applicants who were "not a fit and proper person". The Minister could henceforth decline to issue licences "in the public interest" or in the "interest of the fishing industry"
Biological and economical research by the Department into the crayfishery led to a Cabinet submission to restrict crayfish licences. This measure meant further progress towards the LFA objective of a smaller number of truly professional fishermen to be achieved. In January the Government appointed a joint industry/government committee to determine which fishermen should be licensed. Substantially increased prices for crayfish and the opening of factories under SAFCOL management also combined to give the industry confidence in the future. In his opening speech to the 21st Annual Conference of the Professional Fishermen's Association of Tasmania (PFAT) Atkins said "Research is the key to the future of fisheries." The industry supported this policy and agreed to a substantial increase in licence fees for 1967 to allow an expansion in the research budget.
When the Government's attempted amalgamation failed Scott was appointed Secretary for Fisheries on a permanent basis in 1967. During the preceeding decade the Fisheries Division had been increasingly strengthened in its capacity to carry out sciantific research and to enforce fisheries regulations. The industry had been transformed from a low technology small boat fishery largely devoted to scale fish to a very much smaller fleet of newer largervessels with fishermen largely dependent on crayfish and scallops. Whereas any person had previously had a prima facie right to be a commercial fishermen the Minister now had the power to refuse commercial fishing licences in the interest of the public or the industry.
CSIRO appointed Dr. A.G. Nicholls to lead the joint research programme Known as the Southern Pelagic Project and at a meeting of Tasmanian fishermen Kesteven indicated that the research would concentrate on the habits of tuna, salmon, barracouta and pilchards from the south east coast of New South Wales around Tasmania to South Australia. This ambitious project made slow progress and in February 1962 the Premier Eric Reece sought the assistance of Prime Minister Menzies in obtaining funds from the Fisheries Development Trust Account. Reece followed up his request with a visit to Canberra to press Tasmania's case for additional funds.
CSIRO resumed tuna research in Tasmanian waters and the Derwent Hunter started tuna longlining in April 1962. However the vessel was judged to be no longer suitable for CSIRO research in Aug 1962 and sold. The South Australian government bought another Tasmanian fishing vessel Weerutta for research and surveying. This vessel had previously been used for similar work in Tasmania.
The restructuring of CSIRO brought to an end thirty years of active collaboration between the Organisation and the Department of Agriculture in which CSIRO scientists exclusively carried out fisheries research around Tasmania and advised the Government. A M Olsen remained in Hobart until April 1963 undertaking crayfish investigations and an underwater photographic survey of scallop beds in D'Entrecasteaux Channel. With Olsen's departure to become Harvesting Manager with a new company harvesting the seaweed Macrocystis off the east coast, the state was left without an active fisheries research programme for the first time since before World War II.
A J Harrison was appointed as Marine Biologist to the Fisheries Division of the Department of Agriculture in 1964 and began a programme of investigation into the scallop fishery. He had previously done post graduate research on scallops at the university of Tasmania. As the Division had no research facilities he was initially located in the Zoology Department at the University. In March 1966 the Department of Agriculture announced that it would build a fisheries research laboratory on the old Quarantine Station site at Taroona. The patrol vessel Penghana was modernised for research and equipped with underwater TV for scallop research in Sept. 1966. A technical officer previously employed by CSIRO joined the Division and experiments to culture abalone began in 1967. Another biologist and second technical officer were appointed early in 1968 to begin crayfish research. The contract for the research laboratory was let in September 1968. In June 1967 the Division began the first journal for the publication of fisheries research findings - Tasmanian Fisheries Research. The publication provided preliminary results of current research and reported survey results and findings that would not otherwise be reported in the scientific literature.
With the departure of Kesteven CSIRO fisheries research programme began a long slide. (The February edition of Fisheries Newsletter carried an advertisement for the sale by tender of the Warreen). George Humphrey was blamed for diverting the Division's attention towards oceanography. The 1968 Commonwealth/States Fisheries Conference drew to the attention of Ministers " the fact that the expanding State expenditure and activity in fisheries are not being matched by an equivalent increase in CSIRO's fisheries research."But as that organization declined the volume and importance of fisheries research being conducted by the State Departments was rapidly increasing.
By 1958-9 tuna had supplanted barracouta as a canning fish with over 2000 tonnes being landed. Australian salmon landings were almost 4000 tonnes but still well behind the top fish, mullet at almost 6000 tonnes. Whilst the total catch of fish grew slowly reaching 62,000 tonnes worth £12.5 million in 1959-60, imports grew much faster exceeding 30,000 tonnes and costing £8million a rise of 33% in one year. Tuna moved to second behind mullet in the table of national fish landings by 1960-1. But the crustacea were growing in importance -prawn production increased by 43% in 1961-2.
In the House of Assembly on the 11th June 1958 Mr. Pearsall the Liberal Member for Franklin, urged the Government to assist the development of Fishermen's Co-operatives. At this time the canneries operated by Fish Canners of Tasmania were in difficulty and Pearsall was of the opinion that this was due to the effect of the "Japanese Trade Treaty". The Premier, Robert Cosgrove, responded by indicating that the Government was considering assistance to maintain the canneries in operation after their sale at the end of June. The Department of Industrial Development was examining the matter. The Premier indicated that the industry had been in difficulties for a long time "more than 3 years ago a proposition was put up to the Government that a co-operative organization should take over the works but it was impossible to get any agreement - when we talk about a Fishermen's Co-operative managing these things I am a little bit doubtful about their capacity to do the job - it has to be a keen business man to make these things pay." There were however questions in the House of Assembly on the 21 July when it was revealed that the factory at St. Helens had been sold for £950 after being bought by the Co-operative for almost £7000.
Despite having urged the Government to support Co-operatives in June when the Government introduced a Fish Canners Bill in November, some members of the Opposition attacked the move. Mr. Marriott regarded the Bill as deceitful and attacked the concept of Government ownership on the grounds that "if private enterprise could not run the canners he was certain the Government could not." The Leader of the Opposition considered that the Government was being over generous in paying £58,000 for the canneries at Dunalley, Margate and Bridport which included £2,000 for the right to continue to use the trade name "Flair". Tom Pearsall was more consistent in supporting the Government's move suggesting "because the men handling the proposal had their livelihood at stake" the project had a fair chance of succeeding". When the measure reached the Legislative Council again there was considerable debate. In addition to the matters raised in the House of Assembly, Councillors suggested that the fishermen had not funded enough of the venture compared with the Government. (In the Legislative Council the Government's commitment was set to be £88,000). Another Councillor prophetically remarked that the Co-operative would depend on the loyalty of fishermen noted for idealism. However, the Council agreed to the measure but successfully amended the Bill to appoint a Government representative to the Board of the Co-operative. The short lived Eastern Tasmanian Fisheries Co-operative came to an end in the middle of 1964. The Attorney General admitted to the House of Assembly on the 2nd July that although "the Co-operative had looked like succeeding it had sudden fallen on evil days. There was clearly now no hope of salvaging it. .
During the 1960's the crayfishery was transformed by several technological innovations particularly - synthetic ropes, hydraulic line haulers, echosounders and radar. This new equipment allowed fishing in deep water and the industry quickly moved to fully exploit new crayfish grounds of the west coast. C G Setter pointed to the growing demand for quality supplies of fish for the Australian consumer and cautioned that whilst growing exports are "a pleasure to record" the costs of imported fish was growing at an even faster rate. The pattern of an important export trade in crustacea and molluscs balanced by a high level of imports of fish was firmly established. For the year 1965-6 exports were worth $24.6million but imports were $29.5 million. Crayfish was now worth almost half the value of the total Australian fishing catch as the catch of true fish fell.
The Tasmanian Crayfishery 1941 -1968
YEAR Catch Catch Boats
Potdays no/pd Price Price Value Value
tonnes thous thous c/kg 84 c/kg $'000s 84$'000s
1941 750 668 84 108 1205
1942 759 678 83 100 1200
1943 772 512 84 16 189 123 1460
1944 1018 795 94 16 189 163 1920
1945 741 663 145 16 189 119 1400
1946 987 881 210 16 184 158 1820
1947 1268 1103 225 188 5.87 16 178 202 2260
1948 1448 1327 210 307 4.32 16 163 232 2360
1949 1348 1284 207 320 4.01 19 168 251 2269
1950 1295 1257 165 357 3.52 34 265 435 3430
1951 1000 1010 222 266 3.80 34 225 336 2251
1952 1104 1104 242 274 4.03 35 216 391 2380
1953 1197 1197 220 409 2.93 39 228 469 2734
1954 1381 1501 265 390 3.85 39 219 541 3023
1955 1281 1281 260 383 3.34 39 208 502 2670
1956 1118 1189 254 321 3.70 49 244 543 2727
1957 1258 1245 306 278 4.48 56 281 704 3536
1958 1350 1406 275 411 3.42 56 277 756 3738
1959 1611 1751 237 437 4.01 63 305 1010 4906
1960 1688 1779 292 486 3.66 76 351 1286 5920
1961 1738 1801 298 524 3.44 94 430 1635 7478
1962 1705 1776 323 507 3.50 101 461 1719 7860
1963 1817 1873 329 370 5.06 99 446 1791 8107
1964 1554 1602 337 596 2.69 125 551 1949 8564
1965 1913 2057 384 930 2.21 110 465 2100 8904
1966 2014 2427 357 840 2.89 116 483 2346 9732
1967 2038 2370 330 738 3.21 148 588 3013 11980
1968 1733 2038 345 760 2.68 190 746 3300 12928
The growth of the crayfishery can be seen in the previous table. The value of
the catch rose by 500% between 1958 and 1968 although the number of vessels
inthe fleet increased by about 50. In the figure below the value of landings
is in thousands of 1987-8 A$ and includes all fish,shellfish and cultured species.
The development of self contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) fostered
the sport of skin diving. These sport divers provided a ready source of fishermen
when it was discovered that the "mutton-fish" was a valuable asian
delicacy. The abalone fishery grew quickly early management by regulation of
minimum size supported by a ban on landings of shucked animals, licensing of
divers and later limiting the number of divers ensured the fishery developed
rationally.
In 1967 the Fisheries Division became a programme to reactivate oyster farming which had failed to capitalize on the CSIRO work in the 1950's. A survey of resources in the Tamar estuary was the initial step.
Infrastructure work continued with the completion of the Stanley Fishermen's Dock in 1967 and the construction of another slipway at Bicheno.
T.W. Burdon and G.L. Kesteven were the principals behind the major industry/government discussion on fisheries development held in Canberra in February 1967. The 1965 Ministerial meeting readily adopted a pro development strategy and fully supported the Conference. The key -note paper written by Burdon and Kesteven canvassed the state of Australian fisheries and the opportunities for development and how the Government might assist. Kesteven also arranged for a comprehensive set of background papers to be written on each major Australian fishery providing inventory of the state of the industry at that time. Shoobridge was able to engender support for both his initiatives, the national fisheries policy and a national industry organization. While the national policy document was prepared and endorsed by the conference no one was charged with its implementation and it quickly faded from sight. However the national organization project led to the formation of the Australian Fishing Industry Council with branches in each State and the objective of representing all sectors of the fishing industry. Unfortunately in Tasmania it was not able to gather the support of the dominant body, the Professional Fishermen's Association. The Association promoted the view that AFIC was a processor body and did not properly represent fishermen, thus Tasmania acquired a third industry organization which always remained a 'lame duck'. However the national body was more successful as it received strong support from Western Australia and South Australia.
The report of the conference recommended an intensification of biological research, particularly to more accurately understand the behaviour of Australian exploited fish stocks. Additional research effort should also be directed at fishing boat design, food technology and fisheries economics. The report recommended the establishment of a gear research unit and expansion of extension services and vocational training for fishermen. Development of fisheries in northern Australia received special attention and the conference recommended that the Government should provide at least half of the investment capital needed to develop northern fisheries. Fishermen should receive direct assistance by extending the boat building subsidy to vessels of less than 200 tonnes and the removal of import duty on equipment used for fishing or on fishing boats.
Burdon expanded his examination of the fisheries development question in a paper to 13th session of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council in Brisbane in 1968. Where he identified the Australian problem as "A two economy industry in the context of a single national policy".
Soviet fishing vessels conducted exploratory fishing off southern Australia in 1967 and 1968 and whaling fleets called at Australian ports for provisions. A French research vessels investigated fisheries in 1967. Japanese tuna longliners began to regularly use Hobart as a port from 1966.
Japan and Australia began negotiations for access to the new 12 mile zone for tuna vessels in February 1968. Australia legislated in July 1968 to declare territorial control over the Gulf of Carpentaria to forestall foreign exploitation of the developing prawn fishery. The agreement was signed in November and guarantied access by their vessels to some parts of the 12 mile zone and to certain ports including Hobart. The agreement was to last for 7 years.
J D Anthony the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry announced guidelines that will be used in considering applications for joint venture arrangements between Australians and foreign fishing companies.
- All applications to treated on their merits and must be approved by the Commonwealth and relevant State Minister.
- As a general rule joint ventures will be confined to fisheries not yet adequately developed by Australians.
- The use of foreign vessels and crew will be temporary and plans must be announced to replace both within 5 years.
- Approval to import boats must be obtained from the Minister for Shipping and Transport and crews will be treated as migrants.
- The effect of landings from joint venture vessels will be monitored to ensure the interests of Australian fishermen are preserved.
Joint venture guidelines were needed to cope with a rush of applications to use foreign vessels, crews and expertise to exploit the northern prawn fishery. The Government stopped further such ventures in October 1968.
The 1968 meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers confirmed the policy of excluding foreign fishing vessels from Australian ports "except in special purposes". The ban was gazetted to apply from 31st Jan 1969.