THE TFDA

Despite the healthy state of the Tasmanian fishing industry in 1976 described in the previous chapter and the commitment of the Government to the stimulation of development there was still a widespread public perception that much more could be done. Several factors contributed to this perception.

Importantly this perception was much more firmly held in the general community than in the industry. An examination of press clippings and the discussions at PFAT Conferences reveals little pressure for the accelerated development of new fisheries.

The Labour backbencher Andrew Lohrey was a fervent advocate for fisheries development. On visiting Ireland in 1973 he was greatly impressed by the achievement of the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM) in dramatically increasing the landings of fish and on returning unsuccessfully approached Minister Costello with a proposal to seriously examine a similar development body for Tasmania. Costello and his Director, Mead, concluded that the similarities between Ireland and Tasmania, which was the basis of Lohrey's case were superficial. After Costello resigned Lohrey resubmitted his idea to the new Minister Eric Barnard with greater success.

In 1963 the BIM chairmanship passed to a Harvard Business School graduate Brendan O'Kelly and using a policy of government subsidised loans and grants for new vessels, factories and infrastructure together with training and market promotion the Irish fishing industry boomed. The example of the BIM had previously attracted the attention of New Zealand and was the model for the Fishing Industry Board later established in that country. Lohrey, and O'Kelly, saw much similarity between Ireland and Tasmania that the BIM model was just what the Tasmanian fishing industry needed. Lohrey placed great stress on the similarity of population , the area of the country, climate and fisheries; in addition O'Kelly saw similarities in the state of the Tasmanian industry and that of the Irish industry a decade earlier. Barnard accepted Lohrey's argument and agreed to consider inviting O'Kelly to the State to "examine the State's fishing industry and report on ways the industry can be revitalised". Barnard telephoned O'Kelly in August 1976 to invite him to visit Tasmania and review the fisheries. Cabinet confirmed the invitation on the 17 August and O'Kelly arrived on the 6 September and stayed for almost four weeks. Announcing the visit on his arrival Barnard said "Mr O'Kelly had lifted the Irish fishing industry from subsistence level to an industry with the modern management pattern of high capitalisation and high turnover....He sees the Tasmanian industryas being at the level the Irsh fishing industry was 13 years ago."

During O'Kelly's short visit he reviewed the Division's programme and the written material on the industry and its potential. He visited a number of fishing ports and fish factories and attended one day of the PFAT Annual Conference. O'Kelly was impressed by the absence of trawlers and purse seiners and the limited facilities for processing scale fish, but wrongly interpreted this as indicating a primitive fishery. Despite the appellation of "international fisheries expert" O'Kelly's expertise was in accountancy, business management and marketing and he failed to were technologically far ahead of those in Ireland and had evolved to suit market opportunities. Neither did he did not appreciate differences between the ecology of coastal waters of Ireland and Tasmania. The differences between the fisheries of Ireland and Tasmania were real and important but perhaps not very obvious to a non-fisherman or non-specialist. But it is much less easy to explain why both O'Kelly and Lohrey seemed to ignore the importance to fisheries development of Ireland's position in the EEC. Ireland's proximity to the vast European market and the protection offered by the Community's fisheries policy was crucial to the success of the Irish fisheries development programme and no equivalent was available in Tasmania. In other circumstances the professionals in the Fisheries Division may have more critically commented on this aspect of O'Kelly's report but they were seduced by the prospect of an organisation of their own .

The progress made in research and enforcement over the past eight years had kindled a desire for an expansion in the Fisheries Division and in particular an universal belief that its activities should be broadened. The young staff felt shackled by the demands of the Department of Agriculture that the Division conform to the style of the rest of the Department's divisions. They wanted independence and a diversification in the industry and that is what O'Kelly offered. The limitations in the assumptions for the argument that justified it were forgiven. In addition O'Kelly's charm, confidence and enthusiasm were intoxicating to the staff long frustrated by the conservatism of the Department. Equally importantly the Cabinet appeared prepared to back the proposal. The Premier and Minister for Agriculture discussed the visit with O'Kelly and the Chief Fisheries Officer on the 1 October. O'Kelly's report arrived a month later.

The 1977 change in the administration of Tasmanian fisheries bore some similarity to establishment of the Sea Fisheries Board half a century earlier. The establishment, life and death of the TFDA is well documented with he concept and justification is set out in the original O'Kelly Report, a mid-term review was prepared by the staff in 1981 and O'Kelly returned in 1984 to undertake another review and recommend the abandonment of the experiment. In addition annual reports recorded progress and the magazine, Fintas produced by the Authority with input from the industry, provided a contemporary commentary on the Authority and development in the industry.

The O'Kelly report, as it has come to be known, examined the problems of the industry under five key headings: Policy; Administration; Marketing; Production and Investment, and concluded that the developmental requirements of the Tasmanian sea fishing industry would be best served through the establishment of a Sea Fisheries Development Authority. Such an Authority would be charged with the specific responsibility of the development of the industry. O'Kelly stated the Authority would be a "commercially oriented organisation" - "an agency for action rather than administration".... which "should operate on line management principles in the development areas of production and marketing". As a minor division in the Department of Agriculture the Fisheries Division could not adequately foster development.

O'Kelly's examination of the industry in 1976 lead him to recommend for Tasmania an almost identical administrative structure to that operating in Ireland - a development agency and a separate regulatory body within the Department of Agriculture. The proposal to split the administration of fisheries was immediately rejected by the Department of Agriculture. The Department advised the Minister of unfortunate consequences of divided responsibility exemplified in the Commonwealth areas and in Queensland and New Zealand. Barnard took these views to Cabinet in mid November with a formal submission endorsing O'Kelly's Report. Cabinet made no immediate decision as an election was pending but appointed a Sub-Committee of the Premier W.A. Neilson, Barnard and Brian Miller MLC. Nevertheless in Neilson's policy speech he announced that if re-elected in December his Government would establish a Fisheries Development Authority.

Safely returned to Government the Sub-Committee gave further consideration to the proposal discussing options with the Director of Agriculture, P.J. Fountain and the Chief Fisheries Officer, A.J. Harrison. By 20 February the concept was agreed to and drafting the legislation began.

The Premier was anxious to establish the new authority as quickly as possible and he Fisheries Development Bill was introduced into the House of Assembly in March 1977. Although it was four months since the Premier had announced it and five months since they had received the report the PFAT protested that it had no time consider the Government's proposal. despite being closely involved the Associatiion's executive had made no move to discuss the proposed changes. There was more than a whiff of politics in their position as the new Opposition spokesman on fisheries, Neil Robson, sensed an opportunity to establish his credentials with the industry. The Government agreed to defer further consideration and sent every fisherman a 10 page explanation of the Bill. The Australian Fishing Industry Council, through its Tasmanian Branch Chairman Geoffrey Stackhouse, was a vocal advocate for the Authority. "It would mean untold benefits" he told the Mercury. Despite a good deal of sceptism by fishermen in general and concern by the rock lobster group in particular who were to receive no assistance from the Authority, the PFAT Council approved the Bill in mid June. Notwithstanding that approval some executive members lobbied Legislative Councillors to oppose it when the debate resumed.

O'Kelly returned to Tasmania for two weeks in June and negotiated some amendments to the Bill. One was to allow the option of a part-time Chairman and a separate Chief Executive as well as the original suggestion of a combined Chairman/Chief Executive. O'Kelly told the writer that this was a result of discussion with the Premier where Neilson proposed that O'Kelly should become Chairman of a number of primary industry development authorities. Further amendment was made to meet the requirements of the industry but the Government declined O'Kelly's proposal to remove the Minister's right to approve grants and loans made by the Authority for industry development.

By the end of August the Fisheries Development Act had been passed by the Parliament and the PFAT Annual Conference resolved that O'Kelly should be invited to be the inaugural Chairman of the Authority; the Government had already reached an agreement with O'Kelly to do that. His appointment was essential to the success of the TFDA as only he knew how the concept was expected to unfold. The Act was proclaimed on 1 December 1977 and the Fisheries Division staff were transferred to the new Department in the Authority and moved into the former offices of H. Jones IXL in Old Wharf.

The Authority began work with great enthusiasm and dedication O'Kelly recommended to Barnard that from the nominees of the PFAT and Fish Processors and Exporters Association, C.R. Swards the former president of the fishermen body, and J. Jacobs the manager of Stanley Fish should join O'Kelly and the Manager of the Agricultural Bank, Bruce Connor, on the Authority. The organisation consisted of two Divisions, each headed by a Manager, and and administrative secreatariat. The Fisheries Development Division had four sectioins - Research and Resource Development, Advisory Services and Gear Technology, Resource Management and resource Assessment. Personal selection of staff was an O'Kelly trademark and his choice of a Melbourne fish buyer John Hill as Market Development Manager caused surprise in the industry. Hill and the former Chief Fisheries Officer Harrison, now Fisheries Development Manager, formed the executive of the organisation with the O'Kelly in his role as Chief Executive and the Secretary Kelvin Weston. Junior staff were also personally recruited by the Chairman.

O'Kelly was a devotee of management by objectives and immediately insisted that both the Divisions draw up objectives, targets and operational plans. The overall aim of the Authority was to diversify the industry and reduce dependence on the rock lobster and abalone fisheries. The initial targets, established at the beginning of 1978, were:

To achieve these objectives all the research staff of the old Fisheries Division plus newly recruited staff were committed to projects involving either demersal fish or aquaculture; all research on traditional fisheries ended abruptly as the Resource Assessment had no research staff.

The first major development programme was not in scale fish but with squid and primarily with foreign vessels rather than local fishermen. Several Australian companies had formed joined ventures with Japanese partners to take arrow squid. The Authority supported the joint venture as an interim step to a on the way to a possible major new fishery. O'Kelly received an early reminder of the Tasmanian fishermen's attitude to development when decision to approve the joint ventures resulted in a protest march through the streets of Hobart.

The Authority was shaken, but not deterred, by the reaction to the exploitation of the previously unfished stocks of squid by joint ventures, but the resignation of the foundation Chairman, and creator of the organisation, soon afterwards was a major and perhaps fatal blow. It is not clear why O'Kelly left so soon particularly in the light of the proposal made by the Premier mentioned above. It is known that his family wished to return home and O'Kelly found the role of chief adviser to government on all fisheries matters a far more stressful task than that of Chairman and Chief Executive of a purely development authority. O'Kelly's departure early in 1978 not only dented the confidence of the staff, the industry and the Government it left the organisation rudderless. The staff were further surprised to find O'Kelly had selected an accountant without any fisheries experience R.C. Shoobridge to be interim Chairman and Chief Executive. The first annual report of the Authority was written after O'Kelly left and makes no mention at all of him as Chairman and Chief Executive!

Although the operational targets had been set, neither the staff nor the members of the Authority had any experience of running a developmental agency and O'Kelly had left no plans or strategies. His initial report was only a broad statement and was by no means a blueprint for the fledgling organisation. The Government's attitude was to "leave it all to O'Kelly, we have faith in him even if we don't understand the detail"! Without O'Kelly financial support and staffing remained incomplete and when the new Chairman, R.T. Mackay, took up the reins in 1979 his policy was to reduce staff! As a consequence the economic planning and assessment unit which was crucial to O'Kelly's scheme was never established and after 1978 formal planning and market development, as O'Kelly envisaged it, ceased. In addition the Authority found that skilled staff with a background in the industry, particularly gear and food technologists could not be attracted to Tasmania. Partly in response to this the Training and extension branch of the Fisheries Development Division and the Market Development Division were amalgamated into an Industry Services Division.

Mackay arrived in Tasmania from New Zealand with no idea that he would be responsible for fisheries management and enforcement, he believed that the TFDA was an organisation similar to the New Zealand Fishing Industry Board. He was under no obligation to follow O'Kelly's lead and did not. In a letter to O'Kelly he said:

His attitude to development was quite different - whilst both supported joint ventures Mackay believed large integrated fishing and processing companies were needed whereas O'Kelly saw development flowing from the encouragement of owner operators and small processors and co-operatives. The Irishman believed that if supplies of fish were landed the development of the secondary sector would follow; Mackay, as an former manager of a fish processing factory, favoured encouraging fish processors to build factories and giving them preferential fishing rights to ensure supplies of fish. A further difference related to the potential of trawling where O'Kelly planned the development of substantial trawl fleet to meet the demand for fresh fish. O'Kelly imagined that he could repeat the expansion of trawling that BIM had achieved in Ireland and which had been the hallmark of their success. Immediately on arrival Mackay announced that based on his experience in New Zealand "Tasmania had a poor potential for trawling." With the benefit of hindsight it is now apparent that Mackay's predictions were the more accurate, but if consideration is given to deepwater trawling in waters outside Tasmanian jurisdiction, O'Kelly was also right. O'Kelly had envisaged an inshore trawl fishery where there was little potential but the TFDA, ironically under the chairmanship of Mackay, was largely responsible for the development of a substantial new deep water trawl fishery on the continental slope.

Both men were committed to pushing the reluctant Tasmanian fishing industry into development - "We cannot allow apathy and inactivity to hinder development." Mackay said in his first annual report, when commenting on industry resistance to development projects. Mackay, although trained as an accountant like O'Kelly, had specialised in the marketing of seafood and had little time for government marketing efforts. He appointed the manager of Northwest Frozen Foods, Ron Kenny, to the Authority as a marketing expert which further tended to take responsibility for marketing out of the Market Development Division. Thus the Market Development Division was discarded and marketing services in the Authority were reduced to one research officer, used for all kinds of purposes, a food technologist, a home economist and a small group engaged in extension work on fish gear.

In retrospect it is clear that Mackay returned the Authority to a role little different to that of the Fisheries Division. In the letter to O'Kelly referred to above he said

"I saw my first objective as

Eric Barnard was replaced by Dr Julian Amos, an agricultural scientist and brilliant debater, after the 1979 elections. Amos and Mackay had similar personalities and generally worked well together. The Minister introduced major changes to the Act providing for the application of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement and the management of marine farms. Amos was an activist and during his term restructured the Department of Agriculture and intended to amalgamate the administration of fisheries. However his enthusiasm for difficult tasks was limited and was easily dissuaded from the amalgamation by his cabinet colleagues.

The staff of the Authority reviewed their performances in 1981. They found that the target of increasing demersal landings to 800 tonnes had not been achieved, and although the two modest aquaculture targets had been easily reached the industry was probably less diversified than in 1976. Without the economic assessment it was not easy to evaluate whether the value of scale-fish had been increased by 25 percent or whether the domestic consumption of fish had increased by 10 percent, but it seemed likely that both targets had been achieved. In relation to the latter targets the review was careful not to claim all the credit, but did suggest that it had contributed to the increase in the public awareness of fish and the number of retail outlets and restaurants offering fish. A review of the industry across the country reveals that the increase in consumption and the price of fish was a broad development affecting all States.

The review concluded that the Fisheries Finance Plan - the centre-piece of the O'Kelly strategy, had failed to stimulate development because the interest rate subsidy was insufficient to entice fishermen away from the traditional fisheries. Surveys and research had shown that demersal fish were to be found in potentially commercial concentrations only on the continental slope and thus beyond the jurisdiction of Tasmania. Substantial stocks of squid were available but despite training, free loan of fishing gear and a direct price subsidy very few fishermen could be enticed to fish for them in the face of large imports or cheap squid. The review led to the development of a formal Development Plan which analysed the impediments to development and suggested strategies and incentives. Later Mackay and Tony Johnston prepared a marketing document to support it. Despite reservations from the Treasury Cabinet approved the Plan and it began to take effect in 1984. The TFDA also commissioned a comprehensive study of the fishing ports and outlined the justification for improvements, detailed the modifications needed and prioritised them in the light of likely fishery developments.

Several decisions of the Commonwealth Government also affected the role of the Authority. The increased commitment to regulating fisheries in Commonwealth waters by the Australian Fisheries Service led to a South East Trawl Fishery Management Plan under which access to the newly discovered slope resources of demersal fish was restricted. Secondly the establishment of National Maritime College in Launceston and Fishing Industry Training Committees (in Oct 1978 with branches in each state) under the auspices of the Commonwealth Department of Industry and Commerce severely limited the need for training through the Authority.

When the Gray Liberal Government was elected in 1982 some external changes occurred. The establishment of the Tasmanian Development Authority (TDA) created another organisation which assumed responsibility for developing fisheries. The absorption of the Agricultural Bank, which ran the Fisheries Finance Plan, into the TDA lessened the influence of the Fisheries Authority had over that plan. The former head of the Bank B.F. Connor remaining a member of the Authority. The Government did not spell out the role of the TDA vis-a-vis the TFDA, inevitably some conflict and duplication did occur. The Premier's office also became particularly active in the development of major fisheries initiative, and as a consequence tension between the Premier's office, the TDA and the Authority over fisheries development strategies. As previously mentioned Mackay believed that fisheries development could only be achieved by large integrated companies, thus the exploitation of the slope resource by Tasmania was to largely put in the hands of a new company Fishing Enterprises of Tasmania financed from Singapore. In order to negotiate access rights to the fishery it was necessary to almost abandon the prospective rights of all other Tasmanians to this fishery other than those held by the few fishermen then trawling. The establishment of this company and the negotiations with the Commonwealth were controlled by the Premier's office. As negotiations dragged on the Premier made a special visit to Canberra to press the case personally with the Prime Minister Bob Hawke. In a meeting with John Kerin which followed, the Minister told the Premier of the intense pressure he was under from fishermen in his home state and from Tasmania to reject this project. The Tasmanian opposition was led by the fishermen that had been assisted by the TFDA in 1978 to begin trawling. When Fishing Enterprises of Tasmania terminated these drawn out negotiations the access that would have gone to it was disseminated amongst fishermen in other States. As the Commonwaelth had previously conceded that Tasmania was a developing region for trawl fishing it is reasonable to believe that had not access to the Tasmanian area of the trawl fishery been clouded by the "foreigness" of FET then more Tasmanian fishermen would have gained access to it than ultimately proved to be the case.

4.1 Other Foreign Affairs

The fortunes of the TFDA were affected by the coincidence of its creation with the height of interest in foreign fishing. Australia elected not to declare a 200 mile exclusive fishing zone but to establish an Australian Fishing Zone covering the same area in 1978. A joint State-Commonwealth-industry Committee prepared a management plan for the AFZ which was endorsed by the Australian Fisheries Council at its 8th meeting in 1978. Declaration of the Zone created a public expectation of a substantial fishing development. The Senate referred to its Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce "The Commonwealth's responsibility for the development of the declaration 200 mile offshore sovereignty", and much was made of the area of the zone as being equal to the area of the land mass of Australia. The suggestion that this political act magically created vast fish resources encouraged foreign companies excluded from EEZs elsewhere to lodge development proposals. Tasmania received such proposals from the Soviet Union, Poland, both East and West Germany, Japan, Taiwan and Korea. The Soviet project in conjunction with Elders-IXL proffered considerable benefits for the Tasmanian economy. Similar arrangements had allowed the New Zealand fish processing industry to break out of the straight-jacket formed by intermittent supplies of mixed species to become a world force in high quality fish products. Catches from trawlers operating in the Southern Ocean would be processed in the State and a floating dock would be provided to refit these vessels, and others, in Hobart. Despite somewhat turbulent negotiations agreement had been reached but on the eve of the signing Soviet military forces entered Afghanistan and Prime Minister Frazer cut off all contact with the Soviet Union. Although many years had passed during which time the Soviet Union had distintergrated an almost identical venture with Russion vessels and two local processors, Tas Crays and Trident Seafoods was approved in 1991.

The squid joint ventures with Japanese grew from the well established tuna associations. Three groups of jiggers were licensed and each were required to equip and train local fishermen to exploit the squid resources inshore. Observers were hired by the TFDA to monitor fishing and collect scientific information for stock assessment. Catches were encouraging but the Japanese lost interest when the prolific resources available around the Falkland Islands swamped the world market. The Authority was very successful in creating a local demand for squid but quite unable to generate any real interest in local fishing. At one point a direct subsidy was offered for all squid landed but even this failed to provide local catches to satisfy the demand. The Tasmanians who had learnt to enjoy squid at the demonstrations run by the Authority bought imported product from the Falklands.

The only European proposal to reach fruition was Polish joint venture. The trawler Denebola conducted a number of exploratory cruises along the continental slope around Tasmania and across the Great Australian Bight. Although at this time no Australian vessel was capable of fishing in this depth, the local industry insisted that this vessel should not fish on or near the bottom. The TFDA accepted this restriction and so doomed the venture before it began. The industry and the taxpayer paid a heavy price for this short sighted decision for it delayed the discovery of the orange roughy fishery by at least five years. Instead of finding this most valuable resource for nothing in 1978 the Commonwealth invested a great deal of money in surveys by very much inferior vessels. Although the TFDA's own research vessel was the first to find orange roughy the resource was not fully utilised until after it had been disbanded. When one considers the transformation that this fishery stimulated to Australian fisheries and the Port of Hobart, it is probable that, had it happened earlier, the TFDA would have gained quite enough credit to guarantee its future. Instead the authorisation of joint ventures was a constant source of criticism from some quarters.

4.2 Developments

Nevertheless the Authority made some notable achievements. In the field of aquaculture it saved the oyster industry through the development and operation of an oyster hatchery. Despite research and monitoring by Authority researchers, continuing spat-fall failures in the Tamar had brought the oyster industry to its knees in 1977 and the farmers approached the TFDA for further help. The senior scientist, Dr T G Dix, decided that hatchery produced spat was the only solution to the problem and that a pilot scale hatchery should be built at the Taroona Laboratory. At this time there were no other such hatcheries in Australia and imports of spat were rejected because of the risk of introducing diseases. Dix and Sumner had produced spat on a laboratory scale but not in the millions necessary to save the whole industry, nevertheless they and their staff built the facility, developed the techniques and within one year produced 400,000 spat,enough to allow the farmers to survive. The next year the Taroona hatchery produced 2.2 million oyster spat. Later the TFDA financed a cooperative of farmers to build a commercial hatchery in 1979 under TFDA direction, at Bicheno. Authority scientists provided consultancy advice until the venture became fully commercial. A second commercial hatchery was opened later and all Tasmanian oysters are now grown from hatchery produced spat.

The success of the oyster project demonstrated that the TFDA was able to solve major commercial difficulties in aquaculture and provide direct benefits to the industry. It also developed and demonstrated the culture of mussels, abalone, scallops and rainbow trout in sea-water and initiated the work on salmon. The competence of the Authority scientists was a major factor in attracting the Norwegian assistance, and the cooperation of NSW Fisheries, which produced the Atlantic salmon industry. Large scale abalone culture was demonstrated in late 1980. A new management system based on leases and permits was introduced providing the legal basis necessary to ensure the capital investment needed for modern aquaculture. Subsidised funds were provided through the Fisheries Finance Plan to establish the oyster industry and codes of practice prepared by the TFDA ensured a high quality product. The bulk of the work necessary to adopt a "clean waters" policy and obtain a Memorandum of Understanding" with the USA for exporting shellfish was done under the TFDA. Scientists of the Authority conducted the most detailed resource surveys and assessments ever conducted in Australia; these discovered new resources including blue grenadier and orange roughy and stimulated development. Fishermen were trained in trawling while the surveys were conducted. Companies such as Petuna Seafoods - the major harvester and processor of scale fish in Tasmania received considerable assistance.

The Authority was also largely responsible for the rebirth of the jack mackerel fishery and fish meal industry. The Authority also arranged the first significant exploitation of squid resources, provided stock assessment and investigated alternative means of harvesting. Throughout 1978 and 1979 much of the market development effort was devoted to squid. This product promotion created real demand for and appreciation of squid in Tasmania. Unfortunately the failure of fishermen to exploit the resource resulted in an increase in the imports of processed squid. An octopus fishery in Bass Strait was developed together with the discovery of new grounds for deep sea trevalla and new fishing methods for that fish. Surveys for albacore tuna were conducted in an attempt to revive the enthusiasm created by Fowler and Challenger almost 50 years before. Quality control regulations for fin fish were developed and gazetted. A programme of developing infrastructure in fishing ports continued and an extensive promotion programme for quality seafood substantially improved the appreciation of the Tasmanian product. A number of modern fish shops opened, the first such developments since before the War.The Seafood Cookbook sold 50,000 copies and the book Fishes of Tasmania and a series of posters won prizes.

But the proportion of these achievements that were due to the nature of the Authority and would not have occurred under a traditional form of administration, is difficult to assess. Clearly the industry never felt any propriety interest in the Authority and the deliberate withdrawal of research resources from the major fisheries angered the majority of fishermen. The great increases in the value of the traditional fisheries in the first few years of it's life ensured that these fishermen were content to almost ignore the Authority. This apathy prompted the President of the PFAT, in his speech to the 1979 annual conference, and the chairman of the Tasmanian branch of AFIC, to take a greater interest in fisheries affairs. Gradually the PFAT began to disintegrate as those fishermen anxious to reform policy became fed up with the inertia of the Association. In September 1978 an Abalone Divers Association was formed, later scallop fishermen and then rock lobster fishermen formed "branches of the Association" which in practice were separate lobby groups. The internal problems in the Association was reflected in their showpiece, the annual conference. The editor of FINTAS reported the 1983 conference as setting " a new low for rudeness, particularly towards invited guests, divisiveness and a failure to come to grips with major industry problems..... It put the Minister of the day further off side and hammered perhaps the final nail into the coffin of the TFDA."

Mackay also drained the licensing and management sections of resources to such an extent that in the immediate period after the abandonment of the Authority the Minister was unable to assure the Parliament that the licensing system was accurate. Despite a decision following the 1981 to return resources to the management of traditional fisheries few changes occurred. So when the government finally announced that there would be an independent review of the Authority in 1984 it was received with considerable relief both amongst the staff and in the industry.

Following the election of the Liberal Government the reticent and gentlemanly John Beswick assumed responsibility for Agriculture and Sea Fisheries, the former shadow minister Neil Robson, an avid trout fishermen, was appointed Minister for Inland Fisheries. The concept of dual Ministers for Fisheries, initiated by the Bethune Government was repeated except that this time sea fisheries was given to the agriculture Minister and inland fisheries to the Minister for Small Business! The divided administration of the Fisheries Act again created difficulties, particularly when it became necessary to re-examine the jurisdictional boundaries in estuaries. After prolonged negotiations between the TFDA and the Inland Fisheries Commission, with the assistance of the Premiers Department and the Solicitor-General no the "seaward limits" of certain rivers could not be agreed upon by the officers so the two Ministers privately drew arbitrary lines. Despite persistent advice from two Solicitors-General the government refused to address the problems posed by the illogical and ambiguously worded sections of the Act which separated the responsibilities of the two Ministers. Beswick found the turbulent affairs of the fishing industry difficult to cope with and his nature was diametrically opposed to that of Mackay: this personality clash was perhaps the principle reason why the two failed to develop a satisfactory working relationship. Disagreement over the management of the scallop fishery in Bass Strait was a major problem for Beswick and the TFDA. A spectacular settlement of scallops around 1978 produced a major fishery overnight and drew capital from both traditional fishermen and non-fishermen in order to build larger vessels. Tasmanian scallop fishermen, located in D'Entrecasteaux Channel and along the east coast, used their rock lobster boats for a short season from May to August. The very large beds in Bass Strait could sustain full time scallop fishing as practiced in Victoria and needed larger boats than the traditional rock lobster vessels. Therefore the traditional Tasmanian scallop fishermen tended to be isolated from the new beds by both their location and the limitations of their vessels, nevertheless they were able to exert considerable pressure on the Minister in determining policy. The new scallopers wanted the Victorian style policy - limited licences, full time fishing and no minimum size. The traditionalists, supported by the TFDA biologists, recommended diversified(multi-method) fishing, the retention of the minimum size, and to retain control for Tasmanians. As the new beds were mainly beyond three miles the new scallopers were able to achieve their objective by urging Commonwealth management of the fishery. For a period the Commonwealth managed all the Bass Strait beds by the Victorian methods. Compounding the debate was the presence of a company, Allied Fisheries, based at Beauty Point which announced that it would lift the Tasmanian fishing industry from its traditional cottage basis by modern management. The company operated boats on behalf off investors by using employees as crew. The company quickly collapsed amid accusations that it was simply a vehicle for tax avoidance but not before it became a whipping boy for most of the problems of the industry. Although the original "investments" had been made under the previous Labour Government, Beswick was wrongly blamed "for bringing Allied Fisheries to Tasmania" and the TFDA for "giving it licences". Beswick vigorously fought to keep the fishery in Tasmanian hands but was undermined by the new scallopers who pressed for Commonwealth control and access for Victorian fishermen. "He told the industry"to get its act together and co-ordinate its views so that a united and continuing line could be put to Canberra, supporting Tasmania's case to manage and benefit from its fish resources". The bitter debate reached its peak at a public meeting in the Hobart Town Hall organised by a mixed group mostly members of the old Master Fishermen's Association, Nicholls, Parrish and Murphy, who had not been heard of for a decade. He told the meeting that the industry had let itself down telling the government one thing then changed its mind, then changed back. He identified two actions by industry that had crippled his fight to retain control of the fishery - the first the actions initiated by Geoff Stackhouse in September 1983 to recommend to John Kerin, the Commonwealth Minister, that the beds near Tasmania be jointly managed, the second the recommendations of the 1983 PFAT Conference criticizing the TFDA for alleged mismanagement and urging the Commonwealth to take over. "I find myself, therefore less than enthused by the nonsense the industry has gone on with, only now to revert it seems to the view I have held all along." Beswick was deeply hurt by the perfidious actions of the industry over scallops and published a detailed statement of the events which preceded the public meeting and fluctuating recommendations he had received. The 1983 PFAT Annual Conference carried a motion of no confidence in the TFDA, moved by the leader of the new scallopers John Hammond on behalf of the Flinders Island Branch. Despite the problems the Minister achieved his objectives in December 1986 when the agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania to give the State jurisdiction over all the scallop beds within 23 miles of Tasmania was gazetted. Shortly afterwards the industry adopted a management plan that enshrined diversified fishing as the cornerstone of the scallop policy. But the publicity surrounding scallop management in 1983 led to Beswick's replacement and the enquiry into the TFDA.

Whilst Beswick had decided on an enquiry before the end of 1983 the final decision and the selection of O'Kelly to conduct it was largely initiated by F.R. Groom who would shortly replace Beswick and act on O'Kelly's report. "I thought he was the logical fellow to review how his concept had developed". It is reported that the Government had already decided to return fisheries administration to direct ministerial control before the enquiry was announced and thus the choice of O'Kelly to conduct it ensured that it would appear that the concept of an Authority and the concomitant industry involvement had been given every chance to survive. O'Kelly was far too perceptive to bring down a report opposed to the government's wishes.

O'Kelly arrived in Hobart on the 24 April 1984 and spent 11 weeks on his review, it is perhaps relevant that he spent three times as long burying the Authority as he spent conceiving it. The 1984 review was more detailed and better supported by the Government than the 1976 exercise. His report was longer in the 1976 and whilst he again came to the "right", and popular decision, the net of justifications was of the same large mesh variety used on the earlier occasion.

In summary O'Kelly's finding for the failure of the Authority to achieve its promise was that his blue-print was not followed. He began in the foreword (p. 1) by referring to "anomalies in the legislation" as a cause of problem in the organisational structure without any acknowledgement of his role in either the legislation and the structure (see p.1.9.3). The foreword of the report sets the pattern for what evolves into a justification of O'Kelly's part in the establishment of the Authority. Throughout the early pages of the Report O'Kelly purveys the false suggestion that his 1976 Report was the agreed policy for establishing the Authority no mention is made of the role of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, nor of his correspondence with Fountain, nor his visit to Hobart in mid 1977 and the request from industry for changes. The section or changes beginning at page 23 often suggest that O'Kelly played no part in them and omits any reference to his early chairmanship, but accurately reflects the events and changes that occurred after he left the Authority.

Much of O'Kelly's criticism of the TFDA amounts to a difference of opinion with Mackay as to the way in which the Authority could best stimulate development. From page 73 O'Kelly reveals his change of mind since 1976 over the role of resource management in a development organisation acknowledging the influence of submissions that stressed the need for integration.

Here O'Kelly confirms the appropriateness of the modifications suggested by Fountain which he seemed to hold responsible for the failure of the Authority on page 23. Alternatively it might be interpreted as an expression of regret that the inclusion of the management responsibility with development in the TFDA in 1977 had not been better integrated. O'Kelly accurately deduced that the original structure lead to two organisations under one roof.

Finally O'Kelly recommended that the Authority should be replaced by a separate Department of Sea Fisheries incorporating all fisheries functions except enforcement which should go to the Police. His prime recommendation was that there should be a single fisheries Minister responsible for inland and sea fisheries. The Government readily accepted all but the prime recommendation but the Minister,Roger Groom "The TFDA had acheived considerable success in encouraging investment in major fisheries projects and did not accept Mr O'Kell's assessment of its overall development record". In announcing the Governments decision the Minister,Roger Groom, gave no reason for not accepting the major recommendation but said

He blamed the previous government for not implementing O'Kelly's original report in its first form. The perfidy of the industry that caused John Beswick so much concern was amply demonstrated when the 1984 PFAT Annual Conference. On the first day the conference narrowly defeated a motion put by the Hobart Branch objecting to the transfer of the fisheries inspectors to the Police. The following day they allowed the motion to be re-introduced, and this time it was carried 18 to 15. In the final act of the Conference it carried a motion put by the President Keith Cripps calling on the Government to retain the TFDA. "I believe Mr O'Kelly fell down in his assessment" Cripps told the conference. John Hammond said disbanding the TFDA would set the the clock back at least seven years! They intended to lobby the Legislative Council to block the replacement of the TFDA with a department. Coming from outside Australia, O'Kelly could be excused for failing to recognise that falling incomes was a major cause of discontent in the industry. Depressed prices for fish and record increases in the price of fuel in 1983-4 badly affected the traditional fishermen. Not until a devaluation the next year were fortunes restored and by then the TFDA had been saddled with part of the blame.

What ultimately sealed the fate of the TFDA was the demands of the Gray Government. At the time of its formation the Premier had publicly doubted the need for the TFDA in his column Talking Politics published in the Examiner . It was a creation of a Labor Government and its independence, limited though it was, did not now fit. But, whilst it retained the support of the industry it was safe, when it appeared that some sections of the industry would favour its end, the die was cast.The industry could have saved it and retained their direct voice in fisheries but their move was too late.

Mackay ended his association with Tasmania with the statement "The job I came to do six years ago is done. And if development initiatives taken during that time continue to be carefully nurtured during their early years, the prospects for the Tasmanian industry overall will remain bright." He went on to predict that in a few years only rock lobster and abalone fisheries would remain under Tasmanian control and issued the warning that "Tasmanian fishermen must abandon parochial thinking."

The decision to establish the TFDA marked the peak of Tasmanian Government commitment to fisheries development. The 1977 decision by the Neilson cabinet to accept O'Kelly's recommendation to administer the developmental organisation by an Authority rather than a department also gave the industry its greatest say in fisheries policy and administration. Yet the appointment of the Authority was in line with a series which created marketing and development boards for milk, potatoes and fruit. By 1984 only the Dairy Authority remained.

O'Kelly's 1976 Report did not detail why an Authority was superior to a Department other than the catch cry it should be "a commercially oriented" organisation. However in his review in 1984 he implied that the members of the Authority were expected to formulate and implement operational strategies but from 1977 to 1984 "does not appear to have initiated any real strategy or corporate planning". As O'Kelly found, it played a consultative role not substantially difficult from the old Sea Fisheries Advisory Board. The reason he gave to now choosing a separate department were

It also seems likely that his discussions with members of the Government and head of departments suggested that greater Ministerial control was the desired outcome.

Despite the critical review by O'Kelly the TFDA was at least as effective in the development and management of fisheries as any Australian fisheries agency and better than most. In Victoria, Queensland and Northern Territory deficiencies lead to new administrative structures between 1977 and 1984. Shortly afterwards the same happened in New South Wales and is now recommended by consultants for the Commonwealth. Tension over joint ventures, the conflict between southern diversified fishermen and specialist scallop fishermen in Bass Strait over scallop fisheries policy, the impact of the Commonwealth trawl fisheries policy and the consequences of the investment in vessels in the early 1970's all coalesced to produce a tumultuous period for industry/government relations throughout Australia. The unique nature of the TFDA did not seem to give it an advantage in coping with the problem. The reason may have been the assumption that the PFAT represented "the industry" and a nominee of that Association on the Authority would ensure that TFDA policies were seen by the industry as supportive and sympathetic to them. In fact there is no single "industry" but a number of industries and through the period these industries became more distinct and more frequently in conflict. In 1976 one could identify three industries - the diversified group based on rock lobster, abalone divers and oyster farmers by 1984 these three had been joined by specialised Bass Strait scallop fishermen, trawlers and full-time shark fishermen. With the Authority publicly and overtly favouring two of six, some industry dissatisfaction was almost pre-ordained.

Notwithstanding the turmoil the growth in the industry between 1975 and 1985 was unprecedented the gross primacy value of Tasmanian industry grew from $ 4 million to $ 10 million. Even after allowing for inflation the sustained growth rate over the decade was unprecedented. Prices of fish rose substantially and the value of an abalone licence approached $1 million. Retail outlets especially specialised punts in Constitution Dock and delicatessens in supermarket blossomed. Two new specialised fish shops were opened in Hobart in October 1979. Seafood restaurants proliferated as did the availability of seafood dishes in other restaurants.

It is not clear to what extent the expression of confidence in fisheries by the Tasmanian Government, illustrated by in the creation of the high profile TFDA, contributed to other government commitments. During 1979 and 1980 the Australian Maritime college was established in Launceston, the Antarctic Division was relocated in Kingston, a decision was taken to relocate the CSIRO Fisheries and Oceanography Divisions in Hobart and the Secretariat of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources was also established in Hobart. All these organisations are involved to some extent in fisheries and their concentration in Tasmania has substantially altered the national and international recognition of the State. It is also likely that the presence of these bodies drew public attention away from the TFDA and reduced its image.

Two major fisheries, the deep-water trawl fishery and the purse seine fishery mainly for jack mackerel were established. The Authority promoted a joint venture with the Polish fishing organisation Dalmor which resulted in exploratory fishing by the 88 metre trawler Denebola in the summer of 1979-80. Unfortunately the conservative attitude of local fishermen pressured Mackay into so restricting the areas where the vessel could operate that the potential value of the exercise. Consequently government funds were spent in later years attempting to delineate the slope trawl resources and the discovery of the orange roughy fishery was delayed.Oyster farming was consolidated and foundations established for mussel, abalone and salmonid farming. But apart from the aquaculture and the jack mackerel fishery the developments were consistent with those experienced in other States.

The creation of the TFDA did not slow growth in the industry but there is little evidence to suggest it helped it much. The growth in value during its years of operation was largely in the established fisheries not in those it was set up to help. The withdrawal of research and management resources from the traditional fisheries was a very high risk policy that was would have resulted in long term damage to the industry in continued any longer. It was an administrative failure and perhaps unproven as a developmental strategy. The expectation that it would involve the industry in the development of policy failed because the industry members had no mandate and little support from their constituency, they also failed to assist the staff to take advantage of the industry's practical knowledge. In the Australian environment the course of action followed in New Zealand when that country sought to follow the Irish model would seem to have been a far wiser policy. In New Zealand a development board was established without interfering with the established management and enforcement organisations and without hijacking the vital research support for management. The unthinking adoption of the commercial model that determines that the role of research is solely a support for development, appears to have been the cause. A development body not shackled to the demands of management, as in New Zealand and a management body with adequate research support were equally needed in Tasmania in 1976. The New Zealand model retained the support of the traditional industry by offering development opportunities without appearing to withdraw support for safeguarding Sustainability of the existing fisheries. By the late 1970s Australian fishermen well aware of the necessity to manage fisheries and, unlike the Government and the board of the TFDA, recognised the risk of not maintaining a credible scientifically based management effort.