PARTNERSHIPS - CONSENSUS ADMINISTRATION
DPI Looks Outwards
The Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industry remained small in the 1960's. It had established the role in fisheries administration and economics which had been planned in the 1940'sbut its developmental activities were confined to the administration of the Fisheries Development Trust Account and to a small extension section on fishing gear technology. Its administration of the Trust Account was constrained by membership of an inter-departmental advisory committee which contained representatives of both CSIRO and the Treasury.
The Commonwealth involvement in whaling led to its membership on the International Whaling Commission which in turn stimulated a continuing and growing interest in international fisheries bodies. Cedric Setter was a very regular participant in international meetings of the Whaling Commission and FAO's Committee on Fisheries. Later he played a leading role in the establishment and operation of a regional FAO Committee - the Indo Pacific Fisheries Committee. The Department of Primary Industry expanded and jealously guarded its right to represent Australian in all these international fora. The Indo Pacific Fisheries Committee, was followed by the Indian Ocean Fisheries Committee and subsequently the South Pacific Fisheries Commission,South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency . Notwithstanding that expertise in many fisheries activities resided outside DPI this expertise was rarely represented at international meetings. Dr Humphrey was equally zealous in developing a similar role in international oceanography.
The Impact of Foreign Fishing
The growth of foreign fishing provided another area for an expansion of Commonwealth activity. Between 1977 and 1981 the staff of the Fisheries Division of DPI increased from 94 to 144. Following the lifting of total prohibition on foreign fishing vessels several States, particularly Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory sought to utilise foreign vessel and foreign companies to kick-start new fisheries. The need to obtain Commonwealth approval for each of these ventures created tension between those States and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth was caught in the middle of a three cornered contest between the pro-development States wishing to utilise foreign vessel, other States, particularly New South Wales, which vigorously opposed foreign fishing and the industry which strongly resisted foreign activity which it perceived as competition.
Whilst Australian ports were regularly visited by foreign whalers up to 1950 there had been little foreign fishing in coastal waters apart from Japanese in the north mainly seeking pearls. As northern hemisphere fishing industries expanded after World War II ocean going fleets of freezer trawlers spread out in search of new grounds. 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 guide-lines 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 guide-lines 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.
Australia was not the only country struggling to deal with foreign fishing fleets and in 1960 the United Nations held a second conference to reform the International Law of the Sea. The failure of the second conference to agree on extending controls over foreign fishing to 12 miles triggered a series of unilateral actions to extend the offshore jurisdiction of coastal states. In 1968 Australia declared a 12 mile fishing zone. The numerous sessions of the third UN conference on the Law of the Sea culminated in a new text creating the concept of extended jurisdiction out to 200 miles. Australia elected not to declare a 200 mile exclusive fishing zone but to establish an Australian fishing zone covering the same area in 1978. The zone was declared around all the Australian territory other than the Australian Antarctic territory and requiring all foreign fishing vessels operating in the zone to hold authorisations from the Australian (Commonwealth) Government. A joint State and Commonwealth 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 Australian Fishing 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" Uninformed observers referred to the area of the zone as being equal to the area of the land mass of Australia inferring that this political act magically created vast fish resources. Politicians of all parties embroidered a story and on the back of this enthusiasm the Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industry enjoyed a very substantial period of growth. The uninformed expectations following the declaration of the AFZ exceeded those which had occurred more than half a century before. When conservative elements in the industry expressed concern at the expected flood of foreign companies that would operate in the AFZ the Minister for Primary Industry, Ian Sinclair, urged them to build bigger vessels and compete with foreign companies. Many accepted this advice and with the assistance of a shipbuilding subsidy there was a substantial injection of capital into the Australian fishing fleet. After 1975 builders of fishing vessels over 21 metres in length or 150 tonnes displacement received a subsidy of 27.5% of the cost of construction. This tended to encouraged fishing replacing moderate sized vessels to to build bigger, subsidised, vessels with corresponding increases in the fishing power of the fleet and the total cost of operations. In 1978 Cabinet agreed to allow fishermen to import up to 20 second-hand foreign vessels for periods of up to 5 years.
Research and Commercial Development
The Fisheries Development Trust Account declined in the mid 70s until $1million from consolidated revenue was added to it between 1976-7 and 1979-80. Declaration of the Australian fishing zone created not one more fish nor did it make the capture of fish easier or more profitable, thus it was most unlikely that foreign fishing vessels would suddenly flock into the new zone and pay a licence fee - they have not been there previously. Nevertheless the management plan created the frame work which joint ventures could be established and trial fishing of new resources could be made using foreign ships. A number of Australian companies, some of them with no previous experience in the fishing industry, took the opportunity to evaluate prospects for squid fishing in southern Australia, deep water trawling in the south and west and gillnetting in the north. In the first two years 11 projects involving 87 foreign vessels were approved to operate in waters off south eastern Australia. The growing demand for the Department of Primary Industry to evaluate applications for foreign fishing again highlighted the difficulties of the arrangement whereby the administration of fisheries for the Commonwealth was entirely separate from research and the store of information relating to resources.
In 1961 the annual meeting of State and Commonwealth fisheries officers had again defined the division of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the States. This definition confined CSIRO to biological, oceanography and food technology research. Responsibility for the commercial development of fisheries rested with the Department of Primary Industry in co-operation with the States, this time there was unanimous agreement. Under Geoffrey Kesteven CSIRO began a programme of quantitative stock assessment of a number of important fisheries. This stock assessment provided the only information available on the size of commercial fish resources until State research units became effective at the end of the 1960's. Despite the 1961 definition of responsibilities, probably the most successful fisheries development initiative by Government, occurred after 1961 and by CSIRO. This was the 1963 to 1965 survey of the prawn resources of the Gulf of Carpentaria.( The survey was supported by the Department of Primary Industry and the Queensland government) This initiative by CSIRO and a private company can be credited with the development of one of Australia's major fishing industries.
Kesteven brought to Australian fisheries the new science of quantitative stock assessment and whilst this was resisted by senior biologists in his own Division he found ready disciples in the young scientists in State fisheries departments. He also introduced a somewhat academic analysis to fisheries development itself. This led to a major Government/Industry Conference in February 1967 where industry and government representatives spent three days examining Australia's fish resources and prospects for development. T.W. Burdon (of DPI) and Kesteven were the principals behind the Fisheries Development Conference 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.
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".
A National Fisheries Policy?
Louis Shoobridge,President of the Tasmanian Professional Fishermen's Association, was able to engender support for both his initiatives at the Development Conference: the national fisheries policy and a national industry organization. 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"
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 proposal 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'. A similar attitude was exhibited in some other States but the national body received strong support from Western Australia and South Australia. "It is doubtful if the organisation is as representative as envisaged in the original concept....The Council has been less effective than hoped"
The 1967 Development Conference called on the Government to formulate a national fisheries policy or implement the policy endorsed by the Conference and when another industry/government seminar was held in 1971 C G Setter acknowledged the criticism that "nothing had been done towards developing a national policy." Setter rejected the criticism claiming official statements "have from time to time expressed the Commonwealth Government's views on fisheries and broad elements of police have already been established." He suggested that these elements include:
... securing for Australia as wide a jurisdiction as possible in relation to the Law of the Sea;
... securing the greatest possible state of the resources adjacent to Australia for exclusive use by Australian fishermen;
... "the rational utilisation of all fisheries resources";
... recognition of the Australian Fishing Industry Council as the official industry body and supporting regular consultation between the executive of AFIC and Government officers.
Despite Setter's view the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce report on the fishing industry in 1982 again found no national fisheries policy during their inquiry and in their report urged that one be prepared.
The Commonwealth Recognizes the Need for Continuous Research Support.
With the departure of Kesteven CSIRO fisheries research programme began a long slide. George Humphrey was blamed for diverting the Division's attention towards oceanography. Although Kesteven left CSIRO in 1967 the Division remained a depository of most of the data on Australian fish resources for several more years. After the appointment of George Humphrey as Chief of the Division oceanography had become a major component of the CSIRO programme. 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." For as CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography declined (in a fisheries sense), the volume, range and importance of fisheries research being conducted by the State Departments was rapidly increasing. Humphrey was held responsible for downgrading fisheries research in favour of oceanography. Walter Ives,formerly the Executive member responsible for the Division at the time of Humphrey's appointment, now Secretary of the Department of Primary Industry,made a determined effort to save Humphrey. In 1969 he convinced his fellow members of the Standing Committee to set aside half a day of their annual meeting so that CSIRO could demonstrate the worth of their current programmes to Australia's commercial fisheries. But Humphrey capriciously threw away the opportunity mischievously attempting to trick the Hansard writers recording his speech. The chance to impress the Standing Committee and rebut the growing criticism of the Division was lost before his senior scientists had a chance to describe their programmes. Humphrey relinquished the position as Chief of the Division early in 1971.
The appointment of K. Radway Allen in place of Humphrey signalled a short period of expansion in fisheries research as the CSIRO Executive acknowledged the demands by industry and government for better scientific support for fisheries. Allen had a notable record in quantitative stock assessment and was committed to a research programme in support of fisheries management. His recruitment of G.R. Murphy, an American expert in the field, boosted the Division's credibility. Since the departure of Kesteven the capacity of CSIRO to conduct fisheries research declined sharply and despite the expansion following Allen's appointment were still limited. Thus when the AFZ was declared and Commonwealth funds were available for management, DPI looked to enter into a formal agreement with CSIRO to provide the information the Department required for its management and administration purposes. DPI arranged for additional finance allowing CSIRO to create 24 new positions for AFZ research and to charter a 50 metre stern trawler. The agreement between DPI and the Division led to a period of closer co-operation as the Australian Fishing Zone Management Plan began to take effect.
Unfortunately both Allen and Murphy were nearing retirement when appointed and following their departure fisheries research again slumped. CSIRO desired an internationally recognised (and foreign) Chief for the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography but none would accept the position. Eventually David Rochford an oceanographer who had joined the Division in the 1940's and had been Deputy Chief under Allen became Chief of the Division. Under his administration oceanography resumed its dominant position and the Division was again widely criticized for ignoring fisheries research in favour of marine biology. This time the criticism was supported by the industry, the States and the Department of Primary Industry.
The importance of integrating research during policy development in fisheries management which was fundamental to the fisheries administration of the States and had been so strongly advocated by Fowler in the 1930's and by Thompson and Kesteven in the 1940's, became obvious to the Commonwealth.In response to the situation the States assumed prime responsibility for stock assessment and advice on fisheries management and the Department of Primary Industry began to recruit some biologist in an endeavour to meet the need for immediate advice. The failure of CSIRO to fulfil its role in providing research support to the Department of Primary Industry between 1975 and 1985 led in part to a fragmentation of Commonwealth fisheries activities. Notwithstanding the additional 24 positions they had arranged DPI told the Senate Inquiry they had " a continuous need for biological advice and no other organisation is in a position to respond quickly to their requirements". (page 112). At first the CSIRO Executive acted in splitting the Division into two and relocating them in a new facility in Hobart. Thus 60 years after Sir Frank Heath's report Commonwealth fisheries research was located in Tasmania. The new Division was thus able to recruit an eminent British biologist, Roy Harden-Jones, to take over the new Division. However the relocation caused staffing disruptions and recovery is not yet complete. The next step was the relocation of the economic research unit in DPI to the Bureau of Agriculture and Economics in February 1982, followed by export fish inspection to a new export Inspection Service the next month. This created a better environment in which the fisheries economists could operate but created an independent voice on the appropriateness of management measures which had now become very must orientated to economic objectives. Finally the Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin, established a Bureau of Rural Resources to provide research advice to his Department in the same way as the Bureau of Agriculture and Economics provided economic advice. Biologists which DPI had been recruiting for some years were transferred to the new Bureau, thus by 1988 the Commonwealth now had four independent agencies all providing policy advice, with the Bureau of Rural Resources and the CSIRO Division of Fisheries Research having overlapping roles.
A New Type of Commonwealth Administration
Problems with CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography was not the sole cause of this fragmentation. The Senate Inquiry was critical of the Fisheries Division of DPI questioning its high staff levels, its emphasis, its failure to establish priorities and the qualifications and expertise of its staff. The Senate Committee found that "the industry is less critical of State Fisheries officers than officers of the DPI, This is because they have more relevant experience and qualifications. Legal challenges to the validity of State fisheries legislation in offshore waters also contributed to a review of the role of DPI in fisheries.
Since 1981 there has been a view in some segments of the fishing industry that the Commonwealth role in fisheries should be conducted by a statutory authority. The original proposal for the AFIC to the Senate Committee sought an authority on the grounds that "Government intervention is contrary to the principles of private enterprise." (Page 67). The Senate Committee supported the proposal "there was some substance to claims that Government has generally obstructed the private sector of industry; participation in management." (ibid). The Tasmanian Fisheries Development Authority was held up as an example of what might be achieved. (Despite the fact that the TFDA had no statutory role in fisheries management.) The Senate's Authority would have had nine members - three from the fishing industry, two from processing and marketing, a consumer, a specialist, a representative of DPI Fisheries Division and a Chairman appointed by the Minister.
The Government ignored the recommendation but not the industry. AFIC's successor, the NFIC, revived the concept in 1987. The Government responded by calling an enquiry into the future role of AFS to be conducted by consultants.
The Offshore Constitutional Settlement
During the 1970's the question of fisheries jurisdiction in the territorial sea was the major topic of discussion between the Commonwealth and States in fisheries. When the prosecution of a fisherman, La Macchia, for allegedly illegally fishing off New South Wales in 1967 was challenged on the basis that the States had no jurisdiction below low water mark it triggered a series of legal arguments and political discussions on jurisdiction which lasted until 1985. This co-incided with a desire by the Commonwealth Governments to centralise to themselves greater powers and with the need for fishermen to seek every avenue to avoid prosecution for fisheries offences which now attracted heavy penalties. By 1970 State fisheries agencies were not only responsible for the administration and enforcement of State and Commonwealth laws but were well staffed with experienced and skilled officers at least the equal to those employed by the Commonwealth. The State Ministers on the Fisheries Council were also powerful political figures; E A Willis of NSW and R J Hamer of Vic., both later Premiers, led a vigorous defence of States rights. The Liberal/Country Party government led by John Gorton seized on decision in the Bonzer v La Macchia Case, and in particular the remarks of the Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, to declare that the States had no power to legislate over waters below low water mark. The defeat of Gorton by William McMahon resulted in a retreat from centralism and an agreement in mid 1972 to resolve the constitutional questions associated with managing offshore fisheries by political and not judicial means. The Whitlam Labor Government ,elected in December 1972 revived concern by State Ministers for Fisheries the centralist ambitions of Commonwealth Governments. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act of 1973 and the subsequent finding by the High Court of its validity continued the trend begun under Gorton.Thus at meetings of the Australian Fisheries Councils after about 1968 State Ministers of all political persuasion were united in their opposition to both Country Party and Labour Ministers for Primary Industry.
The Labour Government comprehensively revised the Commonwealth Fisheries Act in 1973 arming itself with greater powers with which to regulate fisheries. The amendment facilitated different management regimes in specified areas and redefined the purposes of the Act. The term "rational utilisation" as the prime objective of management was introduced. (Five years later "rational utilisation" was changed to "optimum utilisation" seemingly in an attempt to give Ministers greater latitude in defining management objectives.
The defeat of Labour in 1975 brought to power a Liberal Government under Malcolm Frazer with a promise of "new federalism". The agreement to retreat from centralism was strongly supported by both Willis and Hamer as Premiers of the biggest States. When the Fisheries Council met for its seventh meeting in Perth in October 1976 the States were prepared and united in their determination to apply the new doctrine to fisheries. The Standing Committee meeting which preceded the Council was heated and angry when Commonwealth officers responded to State proposals as though "new federalism" had never been mentioned. Ian Sinclair (Minister for Primary Industry and Chairman of the Council) opened the meeting with comments which confirmed that officers attitude was that of the Government. Despite having told the Executive of AFIC in February that
"it is my intention to initiate discussions with State Ministers to ensure that to the maximum their Departments will be responsible for administration of fisheries jurisdiction to the limit of Australian jurisdiction"
The Commonwealth began with an objective of taking total responsibility for fisheries and using the States as agents for administration and enforcement. The States countered the proposal that the Commonwealth should confine its activities to international matters and to fisheries of international importance such as tuna and whaling. The States found a way to their objective via the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and were able by this route to outflank Sinclair and the his department which resisted right to the end. Close collaboration between State fisheries and law officers exploited the more favourable attitude of Commonwealth law officers and the Attorney-General Nigel Bowen to achieve a rational allocation of offshore powers. After preliminary discussion at the Premiers Conference in October 1977, a special meeting of Attorneys-General met in December and requested a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Fisheries. The joint meeting in February 1978 considered a background paper prepared by the Tasmanian Solicitor General R C Jennings and the Tasmanian Secretary for Fisheries A J Harrison for a special meeting of the SCF in December 1977. Further discussions by fisheries officers and a joint meetings on 8th March agreed on the policy recommendations set out in the Tasmanian paper. The debate culminated in the Offshore Constitutional Settlement where provision was made for fisheries to be defined in terms of the species caught and/or the geographical area of the fisheries and/or the type of fishing and that these fisheries be managed either by the adjacent State, by the Commonwealth or by Joint Authorities. When the package was presented to the Premiers Conference in 22 June 1978 the fisheries element rated no discussion.
"There is no change in the Commonwealth's attitude to offshore fisheries. I understand that there is agreement there" - Prime Minister Frazer. The premiers agreed.
The concept of Joint Authorities was attached to the fisheries element of the Settlement at the last minute by the Prime Minister to conform with the pattern established for mining. (The administration difficulties of operating Joint Authorities have deferred their development. It appears that this category will not be employed.)
John Kerin
The current,and future, face of Commonwealth fisheries administration has been shaped by John Kerin, the Minister since 1982. His background as an agricultural economist has allowed economic philosophy to continue to be the major determinant of management policy. By coincidence the Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industry, now called the Australian Fisheries Service, was directed by a former colleague from the BAE, Robert Bain. Kerin found in Bain not only a former workmate and friend but an aggressive proponent of the application of economic principles to fisheries. Bain reactivated the Division which, under his predecessor the gentlemanly and respected lawyer E.A. Purnell-Webb had lost direction. The Division was renamed the Australian Fisheries Service to give it a somewhat separate image without acceding to the industry's plea for a separate department.
Prior to the 1982 election Kerin had visited most of Australia's fishing ports and recognised a widespread desire by fishermen to be more involved in policy development and a recognition that AFIC had failed in the eastern States. During his first term attempts were made to revitalise it without success. A further joint Government/Industry Conference in Canberra in January 198 resolved to replace AFIC with the National Fishing Industry Council (NFIC). NFIC is a federally based industry body with branches in each State with separate representation for fishermen and processors in each State and a range of bodies representing major fisheries. Kerin established a Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia (FIPCA) where he chairs meetings of executive members of NFIC. Recent meetings of the Australian Fisheries Council and the Standing Committee on Fisheries suggest that responsibility for national fisheries policy has shifted from them to FIPCA.
Kerin has been the most respected and committed Commonwealth Minister for Fisheries in history. His genuine consultation with all parties in the fisheries community has not only engendered respect but led to workable pragmatic policies. The reversal of the Government's policy (in opposition) to revoke the Offshore Constitutional Settlement was a major achievement. The early application of economics to fisheries management engendered whole-hearted support from fishermen as input controls restricted competition and boosted incomes and the value of having a licence. Recently fisheries economists, particularly in the BAE (now Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics), but also in AFS has promoted output controls (quotas) which limit fishermen's traditional opportunities to catch all the fish they could. A recent paper by ABARE found that the benefits of fisheries management accrues to fishermen and thus they, not the general taxpayer, should pay the cost of management. The Government's policy of partial cost recovery has been resisted by the industry. During 1988 Kerin has made two major speeches carrying the application of economics to a new area - the distribution of access rights to fishing resources. Traditionally such access rights have been viewed by fishermen as a form of property rights "owned" by fishermen. As some of these access rights are now worth up to $1 million and have been sold by fishermen with much success. Kerin's suggestion that these rights might be auctioned has drawn a violent reaction from NFIC. The Minister has also made it clear that whilst strongly supporting consultation with industry he will not "hand over responsibility for the resource to the industry."
Kerin has set Australian fisheries on a course which has diluted power and provides the opportunity for a determined government to control its destiny. The States will concentrate on management and development of those fisheries over which they have jurisdiction under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement including the growth area of aquaculture. Commonwealth public service input in policy has been weakened by the creation of four independent bureaucracies providing advice. He has strengthened the influence of the industry but subjected it to the discipline of making a single body, NFIC, work. He has hooked the industry with a clever doubled headed lure. The industry meets him directly through a joint body which must exhibit disciple in order to retain Kerin's attention and respect. In such a diversified industry this ensures a conservative approach and time for unsound proposals to be talked down. He has gathered their confidence by encouraging them down the road of economic management of the industry which in the early stages gives increased property rights to fishermen with the accompanying capital gains in well managed fisheries and a retirement golden handshake by the "sale" of limited entry licences. However the more "unpleasant" aspects of economic management is now appearing as "free market economists" now hold sway in Canberra. The second stage began with a study by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which demonstrated that all the benefits of fisheries management accrue to fishermen - thus the "user-pay" philosophy demanded that fishermen and not the general taxpayer should meet the cost. Cost recovery has now begun in some Commonwealth( and some State) fisheries. The third stage of economic management is the collection of the resource rent generated by management. From the introduction of limited entry management the resource rent has gone to retiring fishermen, and in some fisheries this has been substantial. Kerin's latest initiative will ensure that over a period of time resource rent will begin to flow to the owners of the resource - the community at large.
The new style of management gives the secondary sector of the industry a long denied say in policy and the opportunity to benefit under the free market system. The primary sector have received an unpleasant surprise from the flip side of fisheries economics in the hands of a Minister that understands it and a Government prepared to use it to justify an increased return to the community. Nevertheless the industry has a greater real say in the running of the industry than ever before and fisheries departments the least. The impact on Departments has been loss of morale and the resignation of many senior experienced mangers. The proprietary attitude of fisheries mangers which characterized their style up to 1980 are no longer appropriate - Fisheries Departments now administer and management responsibility is highly diversified.