1964 WESTERN AUSTRALIA REPORT of the HONORARY ROYAL COMMISSION appointed to inquire into and report upon the FISHERIES ACT 1905-1962 in its application to the CRAYFISHING INDUSTRY in particular PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT By Authority I Alex. B, DAVIES, Government Prlllter 90666/11/64-700





REPORTof the

HONORARY ROYAL COMMISSIONappointed to inquire into

and report upon the


in its application to the


in particular


By Authority I Alex. B, DAVIES, Government Prlllter



Honorary Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the FisheriesAct, 1905.1962, in its application to the Cray Fishing Industry inparticular, and make such recommendations as are considered necessaryto safeguard the future of the fishing grounds and the industry generally.

To His Excellency Major General Sir Douglas Anthony Kendrew, K.C.M.G., C.B., C.B.E.,D.S.a., Governor in and over the State ot western Australia and its Dependenciesin the Commonwealth ot Australia:

May it please Your Excellency,-

We, the members of the Honorary RoyalCommission appointed to inquire into andreport upon the Fisheries Act, 1905-1962,have the honour to present to Your Excel­lency our report, as follows:-


1. On Wednesday, the 16th day of October,1963, the Hon. R. Thompson moved in theLegislative Council:-

That a Select Committee be appointedto inquire into and report upon the Fish­eries Act, 1905-1962, in Its application tothe Crayfishing Industry in particular,and make such recommendations as areconsidered necessary to safeguard thefuture of the fishing grounds and theindustry generally.

2. The Legislative Council agreed to themotion on Tuesday, 26th day of November,1963, and appointed the Honourable NormanEric Baxter and Reginald Clair Mattiske andthe mover as a Select Committee with powerto call for persons, papers and documents andadjourn from place to place; to sit on daysover which the Council stands adjourned; theproceedings to be open to the public andthe Press; and to report when the House re­assembles.

3. On 4th December, 1963, the Councilgranted a request from the HonourableReginald Clair Mattiske for leave to with­draw from the Committee, and on 5th Decem­ber, 1963, appointed the Honourable SydneyThomas Joseph Thompson to serve as amember of the Committee.

4. The Select Committee at its initialmeeting on Thursday, 5th day of December,1963, appointed the Honourable Norman EricBaxter chairman and resolved that evidencebe taken at various centres, commencing inGeraldton early in April, 1964.

5. Due to the possibillty of the prorogationof Parliament it was deemed advisable toapply for Honorary Royal Commission status.This was done in a letter to the Hon. Premierdated 13th February, 1964, and the membersof the Committee were duly appointed as anHonorary Royal Commission by Your Excel­lency on the 25th day of February, 1964.

6. The terms of appointment as publishedin the Government Gazette on the 28th dayof February, 1964, were as follows:-

ROYAL COMMISSIONWESTERN AUSTRALIA,} 8y His Excellency Major-General SIr Douglas

TO WIT. Anthony Kendrew, Knight Commander of theDOUGLAS ANTHONY Mosl DIstinguished Order of Saint MIchael and

KErJDREW, Saint George, ccmcantcn of the Most Honour-Governor. able Order of the Bath, Commander of the[LS.l Most Excellent Order of the British Empire,

Companion of the Distinguished servIce Order,Governor In and over the State of WesternAustralia and Its Dependencies In the ecm-

rnonv.ealth of Australia.

To Norman Eric Baxter, Ronald Thompsonand Sydney Thomas Joseph Thompson,Members ot tne Legislative Council:

I, the said Governor, acting with the adviceand consent of the Executive Council, dohereby appoint you, Norman Eric Baxter,Ronald Thompson and Sydney ThomasJoseph Thompson, Members of the Legisla­tive Council, to be an Honorary Royal Com­mission without payment of remuneration todo the following things, namely:-

(a) To continue and complete the in­quiries commenced by you, as aSelect Committee of the LegislativeCouncil, into the Fisheries Act, 1905­1962, in its application to the OrayFishing Industry in particular.

(b) Having completed those inquiries, tomake your report to me in writingand to make such recommendationsas are considered necessary to safe­guard the future of the fishinggrounds and the industry generally.

And I hereby appoint you the said NormanEric Baxter to be the Chairman of the saidRoyal Commission.

And I hereby declare that by virtue of thisCommission you may, in the execution ofthis Commission do all such acts, mattersand things and exercise all such powers asa Royal Commission or members of a RoyalCommission may lawfully do and exercise,whether under or pursuant to the RoyalCommissioners' Powers Act, 1902-1956, orotherwise.

Given under my hand and the Public Sealof the said State, at Perth, this 25thday of February, 1964.

By His Excellency's Command,




7. The Honorary Royal Commission metat 12 noon on Tuesday, 24th day of March,1964, to continue the inquiries commencedas a Select Committee.


1. Although the Commission under theterms of reference gazetted on the 25th dayof February, 1964, had decided to commenceits hearing in public It rapidly became clearthat important evidence would not be ten­dered by some individuals, and that it wouldbe desirable for all witnesses to be informedthat evidence could be submitted in camera.Sections 9 and 10 of the Royal Commission­ers' Powers Act, 1902-1956, were made knownto some witnesses who, prior to tenderingevidence, had expressed concern as to whatwould result from giving certain evidence.

2. Prior to the commencement of takingevidence, a series of questions were com­piled and it was agreed that each Witnesswould be asked such questions (see AppendixHA"), the idea being that a consensus ofopinions could be gained by the Commissionin regard to certain facets of the orav Fish­ing Industry. This proved to be quite asatisfactory method and has assisted yourCommission In making the recommendationsappearing at a later stage in this report.


1. Evidence was taken from 107 witnessescovering 1,053 pages of transcript and neces­sitating 16 sittings (including one as a SelectCommittee (see Appendix "B").) Severalexhibits were tendered by witnesses in sup­port of statements made, and after examina­tion by the Commission, were returned. Ona number of occasions, a party of witnessesappointed a spokesman who tendered evi­dence on their behalf. As referred to above,some difficulty was experienced in cases withcertain persons who were desirous of ten­dering evidence but were reticent aboutdoing so on the ground that they thought(whether rightly or wrongly we cannotjudge) that they might suffer some detri­ment as a consequence of their appearancebefore the Commission. This reluctance was,in the main, overcome when sections 9 and10 of the Royal Commissioners' Powers Act,1902-1956, were made known to witnesses andwhen the Commissioners decided to allowevidence to be submitted in camera.

2. Subpoenas were issued requiring theattendance of seven persons.


1. The terms of reference of this inquirycould be divided into three parts-

(a) to inquire into and report upon theFisheries Act in its application to theCray Fishing Industry in particular,and to make such recommendationsconsidered necessary to safeguardthe fishing grounds and the industrygenerally;


(b) to ascertain What steps should betaken to protect this extremely Im­portant industry in either the formof amending legislation or enforce­ment of the existing Act to ensuresuch protection; and

(c) to examine proposals submitted bywitnesses, obtain information on thefishing industry as a whole, considerthe possibility of establishing otherfishing industries in Western Aus­tralia and, if thought necessary,make recommendations to you.

2. Your Commission is of the opinion thatthe Orayftshtng Industry will deteriorate Ifits regulatlon and control remain in thehands of the Fisheries Department. Thespate of activity during the life of this Com­mission, resulting in numerous prosecutionsfor defaults, only emphasises, we feel, thatthe lack of appropriate action in the past bythe Department has been in no small measureresponsible for the chaotic conditions whichexist in the industry today.

3. As this industry is predominantly anexport one, we have reached the conclusionthat it should be strictly controlled by a bodythat is thoroughly conversant with all itsaspects to ensure its progress and survival.Evidence which has been tendered and theexamination of departmental files has con­vinced the Commission that penalties pro­vided for offences are, in the main, not asufficient deterrent to curb the activities ofunscrupulous persons who are Intent uponfinancial gain and who give no thought tothe protection and future of the industry.

4. Your Commission has not found anyevidence to justify the retention of the Fish­ermen's Advisory Committee provided for insection 5A of the Fisheries Act. It is con­sidered that this committee is not SUfficientlyrepresentative of the industry and as suchis not conversant with all the problems asso­ciated with crayftshing. The examination ofdepartmental files relating to the activitiesof the committee indicates that it has dealtin the main with trifling items rather thanwith matters vital to both the Orayftshingand Wet Fish Industries.



1. The Commission strongly recommendsthat new Iegtslatlon be enacted as soon aspossible to remove from the Fisheries Act allreferences in respect to crustacean fish andto appoint a new body to control and regu­iate fishing of this species of marine life inWestern Australia. It is recommended thatthe new legislation provide for an authorityto be constituted as the "Fisheries-Crusta­cean Species-Authority" of seven members,each to serve a term of three years and beeligible for re-appointment. The Authority


to hold an average maximum of twelve meet­ings annually every three years and the sevenmembers of the Authority to !le-

(a) three shall be fishermen actively en­gaged in commercial fishing forcrayfish-to be elected on the basisof one fisherman from each of thethree zoncs-i-by a ballot of licensedfishermen of the particular zone;

(b) two shall be persons nominated bythe Minister, selected from a panelof names submitted by the RockLobster/Crayfish Industry Develop­ment Association of Australia (Inc.);

(c) one shall be a person nominated bythe Minister to represent the con­sumers; and

(d) one shall be a person nominated bythe Minister, not being a personcommercially engaged in the Cray­fishing Industry, who shall be theChairman of the Authority and shallbe paid an annual remuneration.

2. The members of the Authority shall beentitled to be paid such remuneration andexpenses as are approved by the Governor.Such remuneration and expenses to be paidout of the administration funds of theAuthority.

3. The proposed Authority to be appointedby the Governor and responsible to theMinister and to have the following powers-

(a) appointment of officers (see Market­ing of Eggs Act, Section 17);

(b) co-opting of Government servants-Police, Factories and Shops In­spectors, Transport Board Inspec­tors-to assist in policing the indus­try;

(c) levying of up to one-halfpenny perpound on live weight to be paid byall shore-based processors acceptingdelivery of whole crayfish and up tolW. per pound on crayfish tails pro­cessed by freezer boats, to providefinance for the administration of theAuthority;

(d) establishing, reguiating, and main­taining markets overseas, interstate,and local, on behalf of the fishermenas shall be to the best advantageeconomically;

(e) restriction of fishing in accordancewith regulations approved by theMinister;

(f) upon apprehension for any offence,to suspend the fisherman's licenseuntil the case is heard;

(g) Issuing of licenses to-(i) crustacean fishermen;

(ii) crustacean processors;(iii) crustacean processors fac­

tories;(iv) crustacean fishing boats;


(v) crustacean freezer boats;(vi) cold storage freezers; and(vii) persons engaged in transport-

ing of crustaceans to shore­based processing factories.

With reference to the power toissue licenses, it is recommendedthat conditions be laid down In re­gard to who shall be licensed fisher­men and should include a provisionthat all applications be made In theprescribed form to the Authority atleast six weeks prior to the date onwhich the crayflsherman desires tocommence operations. The form tobe prescribed to provide for suchinformation relative to the appli­cant as the Authority requires andshould, in our opinion, require thatthe application be accompanied by acertificate as to the seaworthinessof the boat to be used for crayftsh­Ing by the applicant. It Is also re­commended that the Authority havepowers similar to those referred toIn Section 20 of the Marketing ofEggs Act in relation to the grant­ing and refusal of licenses and thatan annual license fee be prescribedfor crayflsherrnen.prawning Licenses.

It is recommended that the Issueof prawnftshing licenses in theShark Bay region be investigated bythe Authority. We feel that themethod used was wrong In principleand recommend that in future allapproved applicants shall be deter­mined by lot conducted by the Auth­ority; that PI'awning licenses berestricted to prescribed areas; andthat existing licenses be confined tothe Shark Bay area.

(h) Instituting action considered neces­sary to conserve the crayflshing in­dustry.


1. Your Commission has ascertained tromevidence tendered that the present penaltiesdo not deter persons engaged In the Industryfrom breaches of the existing legislation andstrongly recommend that very severe penal­ties be adopted.

2. With regard to cancellation of licenses,it is apparent that many are imposed to takeeffect in the months of February to Novem­ber which are off-season months and do notconstitute any real hardship. We there­fore recommend that all cancellationsapply between 15th November and 30thMarch in the following year.

Policing of Industry.

1. Your Commission recommends that thedepartmental policy of supplying large ex­pensive patrol boats be discontinued and theproposed Authority be empowered to provide


fast patrol boats that can operate in allweathers and waters, equipped to travel atspeeds of up to 35 knots. It is our opinionthat the existing fisheries inspectionlaunches have been unsuitable and far tooexpensive, catering 11lO1'e for the accommo­dation of inspectors rather than the purposefor which they are required. The limitedspace available for seized pots and the factthat no winch forms part of the equipmentonly serves to emphasise the impracticabilityof the existing vessels.

2. It is recommended that considerationbe given to using the type of vessel beingused In New South Wales as illustrated inthe Spring, 1963, issue of The Fisherman(official journal of State Fisheries of NewSouth Wales), pages 16 to 19. In ouropinion, this type of craft would be an ad­mirable replacement of the vessels now beingused In Western Australia for patrol work.

3. In view of our recommendation re­garding the replacement of floats (see "Mis­cellaneous: Float cutting by Inspectors") thenecessity for the provision of winches onpatrol boats will not be necessary.


1. It is apparent to the CommIssion, fromevidence tendered, that restrictions are neces­sary and with this in mind we recommendthat during the red crayfish season, withthe exception of the Abrolhos region,catcher boats are to fish in areas of not lessthan 16 fathoms depth and freezer boats inareas of not less than 20 fathoms depth.

2. Severe penalties must apply In respectof this matter and we feel that for a firstoffence, a penalty of three months cancel­lation should be imposed on the boat, theskipper, and any other offending person.Subsequent offenders should be severelydealt with by Immediate cancellation oflicense (boat, skipper and person) for life.

Under-size CraYfish.

1. Evidence was tendered to the oommts­sion regarding excessive over-fishing in theform of taking under-size crayfish. Althoughsuch practice is illegal and must be stopped,we feel that other steps are essential to theconservation of the industry. It is ouropinion that the stamping out of this"under-stze racket" by the imposition of verysevere penaities for offenders wiIi assist, butis not necessarily the complete answer. AI-­though research is bclng and has been done,It must be intensified to ascertain the breedinghabits of this species of marrne life. It isfelt that consideration should be given tothe establishment of an aquarium in a suit­able poaitlon-e-perhaps in the Abrolhos re­gion-which would assist greatly in re­search.


2. Considerable criticism of the mannerin Which Inspectors interpreted the use ofthe gauge used for carapace measurementwas submitted in evidence. It appears thatsome inspectors require the gauge to fit overthe back of the carapace In such a manneras to allow the fish to be lifted; others re­:<lulre it to fit snugly over the back, andothers say that a little play is acceptable.This controversy of opinion has led to muchdiscontent among fishermen due to the factthat deliveries of catches are made at vary­Ing points on the coast and it has occurredwhere catches of fish are acceptable at onepoint and considered to be undersize at an­other. Evidence was received from a seniordepartmental officer that all Inspectors wereinstructed in the method of measuring andit therefore appears that some Inspectors aremisinterpreting the instructions and caus­ing confusion.

3. To overcome the situation it is recom­mended that the gauge size be reduced to2-l5/l6th inches and that it be necessaryfor the measurement to be from between thecentre of the horns as described in SecondSchedule to the existing Act and to restupon the rear of the carapace. Should themeasure extend over the rear of the cara­pace the fish is undersize. The Commissionsuggested this as an alternative to manywitnesses who were unanimous in statingthat the proposal would be acceptable in lieuof the existing method. Many witnesses ex­pressed the opinion that the method ofmeasuring--gauge for catcher boats andtail-weight for freezer boats-was most un­satisfactory and that it should be one or theother. We realise, however, that such wouldbe impracticabie and consider that the pro­posed fathom depth restriction and the newmethod of gauging for catcher boats as out­lined above would ease the situation byallowing a slightly smaller carapace meas­urement and thus obviating the necessitywhich now exists of catcher boats havingto throw back slightly under-size fish whichin a very large percentage of cases werelegitimate catches for freezer boats andwould help to overcome the friction whichexists between catcher boats and freezerboats regarding the iatter being able to pro­cess five ounce tails of undersize fish dis­carded by the former.

4. Thanks to the co-operation of theFisheries Department In permitting Messrs.Wheeler Bros. and Anneal' of Fremantle tobring In a limited quantity of crayfish lessthan legal size for experimental purposes,we are convinced that in almost every caseWhere a crayfish is slightly under-size thetail has been a legal five ounces weight ormore. In a few isolated cases the tail of alegal size crayfish was found to weigh lessthan five ounces.

5. A further recommendation by theCommission in regard to this particular sub­ject is for all gauges to be manufacturedfrom stainless steel in lieu of the present


brass or brass alloy. It is recommended thatthe proposed Authority accept the responsi­bility of arranging for the replacement fora specific charge of the existing gauges withnew stainless steel ones of 2-15j16th inchsize, stamped as being correct by the Weightsand Measures Department. It is felt thatthe steel type would overcome the troublewhich now exists of damage being caused tothe soft metal gauges resulting in incorrectmeasurement and subsequent prosecutionfor under-size fish.

6. The Commission recommends the fol­lowing penalties for the catching of under­size crayflsh:-

Up to 5 per cent. of catch-Fine: Mini­mum, £20: maximum, £100

5 per cent. and over of catch-Fine:Minimum, £100; maximum, £250

for a first offence.

For a second offence, a minimum of £250and cancellation of license for threemonths; and

For a subsequent offence, minimum fine£500 and cancellation of license(boat, skipper, and fisherman re­sponsible for gauging and weighingof catch) for life.

Female Crayfish.

1. We strongly recommend that the catch­Ing of female red crayfish be prohibited be­tween the 15th August and the 1st Marchof the succeeding year.

2. It is our belief that the conservation ofthe industry can only be assured by the pro­tection of the female fish so that the amountof spawn thrown wili adequately ensure suf­ficient progeny to maintain a profitable andcontinuing industry.

3. The Indiscriminate catching of femalesis In our opinion the cause of the declineand if not stopped wlll ultimately ruin theindustry and we accordingly recommend thatpersons apprehended and convicted for acontravention of this rule shall have theirlicenses immediately cancelled for life. Thereference to license to include catcher boat,freezer boat, processing plant, or freezerunit.

Crayfish Tails.

We recommend that it shall be an offence-

(a) for any processor or freezer unit topurchase crayfish tails that have notbeen processed by a licensed proces­sor: Penalty for a first offence to be£250;


(b) for any processor to pack or offer forsale crayfish tails of less than fiveounce weight. It is the responsibilityof the processor to retain tails ofless than five ounce weight and for­ward a return to the authority show­ing the number retained. If, in theopinion of the authority, the percen­tage of tails of less than five ouncesis-

(I) in excess of a reasonable per­centage, the authority shallseize the tails and dispose ofthem for consumption in West­ern Australia and credit theproceeds to the funds of theauthority;

(ii) not in excess of a reasonablepercentage, the authority mayarrange for the disposal of thetails and forward the proceedsto the processor; and

until such time as the authority de­termines whether (i) or (ii) applies,the processor shall keep the under­size tails in a suitable container.

Recommended penalty for non-compliancewith regulations regarding returns and stor­age of tails-£250 minimum.

Identification ot Gear.

1. We recommend that all containers usedfor the conveyance of whole crayfish displaythe registered number of the licensed fishingboat in stencil lettering of at least four inchesin height, in addition to the label requiredto be fixed pursuant to section 24B of thepresent Act. The stencil marking wlll serveto identify the owner of the container shouldthe label be removed as witnesses claimed hashappened In the past. The penalties shouldprovide for a fine of £50 for each containerused that is not stencllled as recommendedabove. The reason for recommending aminimum fine is to deter persons who trafficin Illegal crayfish.

2. We also recommend that fish traps andcrayfish pots shall have a brand burned intothe neck or entrance of the pot showing thelicensed fishing boat number or amateurlicense number. Penalty for non-compliance-£10 per unbranded pot or trap.

Obstruction oi Inspectors.

It is felt that the penalty provided as adeterrent to persons resisting or obstructinginspectors in the course of their duty, pro­vided In section 44 of the existing Act isinsufficient. We feel that for a first offencethe penalty should be a fine of £250 or im­prisonment for six months and for a secondoffence a fine of £250, cancellation of licensefor life and twelve months' imprisonment.



Licensing of Freezer Units.

1. It is recommended that factories, pro­cessing works, and all persons processing,storing and selling crayfish be licensed bythe authority. At the present time it isapparent that anyone can establish a pro­cessing works or a receiving depot at willand it has got to the stage, in our opinion,where the quantity of crayfish being handledby the large number of established proces­sing works is such that it is uneconomicalfor this side of the Industry to be legallycarried out. The result is that to obtain aneconomical turnover, undersize crayfish arehandled by some processors in large quanti­ties. Limitation of the number of processingworks and control by license of freezer stor­age plants would enable protection to begiven to pioneer groups to open up new areas.

2. With reference further to processingworks, it Is recommended that earnest con­sideration be given to the establishment oftwo processing works In the Abrolhos IslandsGroup-perhaps one in the north group andone In the south group. It is thought thatthe fishermen concerned would give consid­eration to the establishments on a co-opera­tive basis. The reason for the recommenda­tion is the high mortality rate of crayfishhaving to be consigned from this region toprocessing works at Geraidton causing finan­cial losses to the fishermen.


Road Access.

After traversing some of the roads whichlead to the various crayfishing centres andover which It Is necessary to transport fish,we strongly urge both the Commonwealth andState Governments to give consideration toproviding financial assistance to localauthorities to provide roads that would In­crease the efficiency of the industry. It isfelt that better roads would allow fishermento venture away from the more establishedareas which are rapidly becoming over­crowded, and thus utlilse other fishinggrounds.

Primary Producer Concessions.

As this is Virtually a primary industry,perhaps some incentive could "be given tofishermen to benefit in regard to purchaseof equipment on a basis similar to that whichapplies to farmers In this State. This pos­sibly could be applied in the purchase offour-wheel drive vehicles.


Your Commission recommends that It becompulsory for all crew members of fishingboats to be insured and that it be the re­sponslblilty of the owner to ensure thatcoverage Is effected in the form of a com­prehensive all risk policy with benefits simi­lar to those included in the Workers' Com­pensation Act. It is felt that this wouldeffect a great saving to the State.

Float Cutting by Departmental Inspectors.

1. Numerous witnesses submitted evidencethat Fisheries Department Inspectors hadcut fioats and left pots in the water. Theevidence tendered has left no doubt whatso­ever in our minds that pot cutting has infact been carried out and this action, is inour opinion, very much outside the legitimateduty of departmental officials and the per­sons concerned are deserving of severe cen­sure for their indiscriminate action.

2. Your Commission recommends thatwhere pots are discovered by inspectors Inrestricted areas regulations should permitthe replacement of fioats with departmentalones and the original floats be Impoundedand used as evidence against the offenders.Additional penalties should be provided forfishermen who do not return the depart­mental floats within a reasonable time.

Prosecution for Defaults.

1. It is the candid opinion of your Com­mission that honest fishermen who havemade unintentional errors in respect ofundersize crayfish-due to the use of adamaged gauge or measuring fish at a timewhen rough conditions prevailing havecaused errors to be made-have been prose­cuted on the same basis as the Indtscrimtnateperson who deals in illegal crayfish-under­size, spawners, and cray meat-s-tu terrificquantities. It is felt that the existing legis­lation should have been framed in a mannerwhereby some leniency could have been ex­tended to legitimate fishermen who unwit­tingly have made mistakes as against thevracketeers'' who indulge in indiscriminatehandling of large quantities of illegal cray­fish to the detriment of the industry. Thehonest fishermen who have made mistakeshave been fined for having in some instancesa mere six or seven undersize fish in a catchof thousands. The law-breakers who havebeen caught with a total catch of illegalcrayfish have been fined similar amounts.

2. Evidence has been tendered indicatingthat many tons of cray meat have recentlybeen consigned to Eastern States cities andsold quite openly in large departmentalstores. A recent prosecution of a personfound to be in possession of undersize cray­fish In the form of cray meat resulted in afine of £10. From evidence tendered thisperson has apparently been trading illegallyfor a long period and it is not understoodhow he has not been intercepted on previousoccaslons. Another recent prosecution of aprocessor for having undersize crayfish re­sulted in a fine of several hundred pounds.This man appeared and gave evidence to theCommission and referred to the impendingcase and stated that everyone of the under­size fish was recorded by the Inspector asbeing of 4i! ounces weight. It seems remark­able to us that each and everyone weighedthe same. Another operator a few milesaway whom many witnesses referred to asbeing an undersize trader has not been pro­secuted for years. We would like to pointout that In view of the evidence tendered


in respect to this particular processor he wassubpoenaed to appeal' before the Commissionbut unfortunately, either by design 01' other­wise, he was overseas and not available forinvestigation. It is our opinion that possiblysome inspectors are more diligent thanothers. Wc are at a loss to understand howsome people are prosecuted and others ap­peal' to be immune.

Reciprocal Arrangement with other states.

We urge that the Government take thenecessary steps to ensure that Fisheries In­spectors in other States are empowered toact on behalf of the proposed Authority andthat reciprocal arrangements be made forlocal inspectors to act for other states.

The Fishing Industry.

1. Your Commission recommends thatserious consideration be given to the estab­lishment of a Fish Authority, similar to thatof New South Wales, to handle all facets ofthe Wet Fish Industry in Western Australia.(A copy of the New South Wales legislationis appended-see Appendix "C".)

2. Although evidence was not taken on abroad basis in regard to the Wet Fish Indus­try, sufficient was tendered by reliable wit­nesses in Fremantle, Mandurah, and Albanyto convince your Commission that manyaspects of the fishing industry were in achaotic state and organised marketing wasan essential requirement.

3. The Wet Fish Industry is, in ouropinion, at a very low ebb, as evidenced bythe following comments:-

(a) Marketing: There is a complete lackof organised marketing, the onlyavailable markets at present beingat the Metropolitan Markets, Perth,where the floor is very small andwhere refrigeration is not availablefor storage of fish. The FremantleFishermen's Co-operative and otherbuyers are only a haphazard methodof marketing and do not on theavel'age give an economic return tothe fishermen. Large quantities offish are being made available to thepublic by other than licensed fisher­men.

(b) Quanttty of Fish:(I) There is more than enough fish

to be caught on the WesternAustralian coast to completelyflood the market, If fishermenwere allowed to fish in areasonable manner, and pro­viding the fishing grounds areproperly controlled and nursed,there wouid be an abundanceof fish available at economicprices. This indicates thatthere Is a wide scope for snapfrozen fish, properiy processedand packed to compete withthe volume of imported snapfrozen fish which is on saleat present In the State.


(II) The Chairman of the Commis­sion made inquiries on thisaspect of the fishing industryin other States recently andfound that the same positionexists in Queensland, NewSouth Wales, and Victoria. Hewas given to understand frompersons in authority that thoseresponsible would co-operatewith any Authority establishedIn Western Australia so thatchaotic marketing conditionscould be avoided betweenStates in respect of snapfrozen fish if this were ap­proached in the propel' man­ner.

Complaints by Witnesses.

1. The control of fishing grounds, parti­cularly the closure of Inlets, bays, and estu­aries, was strongly criticised by witnesses whomaintained that there was a serious loss offish due to the present policy and provisionsof the existing legislation, which, in theiropinion, had in some instances been respon­sible for the death of large numbers of fish.Your Commission recommends that theGovernment give earnest consideration to therepeal of section 213 of the Local Govern­ment Act and investigate the restrictionswhich apply at present to estuaries on thesouthern coastline. It was also maintainedthat with proper research and control thelicensed fishermen could economically fishin a large number of the closed waters andnot affect fishing by amateur fishermen andtourists.

2. Photographs were shown to the Com­mission of thousands of fish that had diedIn some of the closed waters because suffi­cient interest had not been apparent andresearch had not been carried out, by whichsuch losses could have been avoided.

3. The evidence tendered by witnesses,particularly at Albany, provides a very goodprecis of the fishing industry and Is worthyof perusal as it indicates to a large degreethe unsatisfactory condition of the industry.

4. Numerous complaints were received re­garding the unavailability of copies of theFisheries Act regulatlons. Inquiries by yourCommission revealed that copies were un­obtainable and we consider this to be anextremely poor state of affairs.

5. As far as the Wet Fish Industry is con­cerned, it is our opinion that the Fishermen'sAdvisory Committee, which has operated forsome years in accordance with the provisionsof the Fisheries Act, has been almost a com­plete farce. A perusal of the general file ofthe Fisheries Department regarding Its activi­ties over the past 20 years clearly Illustratesthat a lack of interest is evident by theadministration in the major matters of


importance to the industry, and thus to theState. Since a conference in 1945 of personsinterested in the fishing industry, no import­ant decisions have been arrived at or putInto effect which would promote the welfareof the Industry and place It on a soundfooting.

Expansion ot the Industry.

1. Many witnesses advocated the expan­sion in the State of fishing industries otherthan crayfish. Fishermen with up to 40years' practical experience to support theiradvocacy strongly recommended that re­search into the tuna industry in particularbe carried out by the Government. Evidencewas tendered indicating that there are vastquantities of sardines and pilchard availableIn Western Australian waters. Several wit­nesses referred to catches of large deep-watercrabs which could develop into an excellentexport industry. We have been told thatthroughout the world Governments are play­ing an active part in developing their fishingindustries-if this is so, perhaps the StateGovernment could approach the Common­wealth for assistance.

2. We feel that the fishing industry is themeans of populating the north. At least tensettlements have come into existence duringthe past six years along the coast betweenLancelin and Dongara due to the develop­ment of the crayfishtng industry, at no appre­ciable cost to the Government. There is anabundance of fish in our northern waters,sufficient it has been stated in evidence tosupply the needs of the whole of the Aus­tralian market which at present is inundatedby imports.

3. Prior to the commencement of yourCommission, we believed that, generallyspeaking, Australians were not very keen onfish food. After hearing the evidence ten­dered we are now quite convinced that thereason for our belief is the unavailability ofthe fish at a reasonable price due to the factthat a very big percentage is imported. TheJapanese have been able to economically fishtuna off the Western Australian coast andit is our opinion that the CommonwealthGovernment could do likewise due to geo­graphic sltation and the fact that boats andfishermen capable of doing the work areavailable. This industry, which would re­quire a great number of persons, could be away of populating the north of our State.

CONCLUSION.1. May we conclude by stressing that the

Commission's task has not been an easy one.Your 00111111i88io11, however, has done its bestto appreciate the complexities of the situa­tion and the problems which existing legisla­tion has produced. It has endeavoured tomake recommendations that are considerednecessary to safeguard the future of thecrayftshing industry and has made recom­mendations regarding the possibilities which


exist for the furtherance of the I1shing in­dustry generally in our State. It is hopedthat the proposals contained herein will be ofassistance to Your Excellency's Governmentand also to the Legislature in consideringthe many problems associated with the in­dustry when further legislation is Introduced,and that this report will be printed and madeavailable to Interested persons.

2. The Commission would like to recordits sincere appreciation of the excellent andvaluable assistance rendered by the Secre­tary, Mr. J. G. C. Ashley, and by Mr. L. A.Hoft, who assisted in the Initial stages of theinquiry as acting secretary. These twogentlemen fulfilled a very difficult task withdiplomacy, courtesy, and efficiency.

3. The Chief Hansard Reporter and hisstaff carried out their duties In a most effi­cient manner with the utmost promptness,and this facilitated greatly the task of yourCommission, and to them our thanks areextended.

Dated the thirtieth day of July onethousand nine hundred and sixty-four.

N. E. BAXTER,Chairman.


S. T. J. THOMPSON,Member.


Honorary Royal Commission CrayflshlngIndustry.


1. Are you appearing on your own behalf,or for any organisation or group ofpersons?

2. Are you the owner, part owner, skipper,or crew member of a crayflshing boat?

3. What size is your boat, and what is thelicensed fishing boat number?

4. How many pots was the boat operatingwith? This season-and previous sea­son?

5. During what period have you been-orwere you-engaged in the crayftshingindustry?

6. At what points of the coast have youoperated?

7. Where do you operate from now?

8. What would be the average daily catchon your boat?

9. To whom do you sell your crayfish?

10. Is there any comment you would liketo make in connection with these ques­tions?


11. Have you ever been convicted of supply­ing or of having undersized or spawncrayfish in your possession.

12. In your opinion, does the average boattake too many undersized crayfish?

13. Do you believe that the amount ofundersize crayfish being taken will ulti­mately adversely affect the fishinggrounds?

14. Do you realise the impact on the indus­try and fishing grounds, also the ulti­mate financial result to Western Austra­lia, by the taking of more than areasonable number of undersized cray­fish?

15. Are you of the opinion that some personsare making a considerable amount ofmoney by dealing in undersized crayfish?

16. Do you think that the penalties providedunder the Fisheries Act are a sufficientdeterrent to the taking of undersizedcrayfish?

17. Have you discussed the taking of under­sized crayfish with other fishermen?

18. Have you also discussed with others anymeans of dealing with the problem?

19. And if so, have you any suggestions tomake in this regard?

26. Is there any comment you would like tomake in connection with these ques­tions?

21. What Is your opinion on having a closedperiod in the season while crayfish arein spawn?

22. Where do you believe crayfish breed andgrow?

23. Do you think craynshing should betotally prohibited inside of reefs, or pro­hibited for certain months of the year?

24. Do you think there should be shore­based factories along the coast, or else­Where, when the number of boats war­rant such?

25. Do you think that fishing boats shouldbe limIted to land only at certain baseson the coast, and that high penaltiesshould be provided for landing otherthan in an emergency?

26. Is there any comment you would liketo make in connection with these ques­tions?

27. What do you consider should be themintmum measurement and weight for(a) White crays (b) Red crays?

28. Are you satisfted with the manner inwhich F'isherles Inspectors carry outtheir duties?

29. Do you believe that all fishcrmen aretreated equally by the Inspectors in re­gard to their catch?

30. Have Inspectors been more active thisyear than previous years?


31. To your knowledge, have Inspectors cutfioats off pots in the area you are fish­ing?

(If so, could you name the Inspector orInspectors concerned?)

32. How many times have Inspectors inter­cepted you this year?

33. Is there any comment you would like tomake in connection with these questions?

34. Do you believe that the Fisheries Act, asconstituted, provides sufficient safe­guard to the industry?

35. What is your opinion of all crew mem­bers being registered to work on a parti­cular boat?

36. When prosecuted for breaches of theAct, do you think the entire crew andboat should be de-registered?

37. Would you favour a levy of up to onehalf-penny per pound to create a fundfor controlling and policing the industry?

38. What is your opinion of members of thePolIce Department, and Shops and Fac­tories Inspectors, being appointed In­spectors under the Act?

39. Is there any comment you would like tomake in connection with these ques­tions?

40. What type of bait do you usually obtainand from whom do you procure it?

41. What is the average price you pay forbait?

42. Do you consider the price too high?

43. Do you think the bait could be providedat a 11101'e reasonable price?

44. Is there any comment you would like tomake in connection with these ques­tions?

45. Have you any further evidence to givewhich you consider would be of benefitto the Commission and to the Industryif adopted?


Extract from the Minutes of the Proceedingsof the Legislative Council No. 45.

26th NOVEMBER, 1963.

14.-Fisheries Act-Appointment of SelectCommittee.

The Order of the Day having been read forthe adjourned debate on the motion of Hon.R. Thompson, as follow8:-

That a Select Committee be appointedto Inquire into and report upon theFisheries Act, 1905-1962, In Its applica­tion to the Cray Fishing Industry in



particular, and make such recommen­datlons as are considered necessary tosafeguard the future of the fishinggrounds and the Industry generally.

Debate resumed.

Question put.

Minutes of meeting of Seiect Committeeappointed to inquire Into and report uponthe Fisheries Act, 1905-1962, in its applicationto the Oray Fishing Industry in particular,and make such recommendations as are con­sidered necessary to safeguard the future ofthe fishing grounds and the industrygenerally.

Debate ensued.

Question thus passed.

Leave granted.

Han. R. O. Mattiske requested leave of theHouse to withdraw from this Oommittee.

Itinerary.-It was resolved that evidencewould be taken at Geraldton, Jurien Bay andOervantes In April and in the Metropolitanarea on a date to be fixed.


Attendance.-Hons. R. Thompson, N. E.Baxter and S. T. J. Thompson.

Minutes of meeting of Honorary RoyalOommisslon appointed to enquire Into andreport upon the Fisheries Act, 1905-1962, inits application to the Orayfishlng Industry inparticular, and make such recommendationsas are considered necessary to safeguard thefuture of the fishing grounds and the indus­try generally.

Appointment of Chairman.-On the motionof Hon. R. Thompson, seconded by Hon,S. T. J. Thompson, it was resolved that Hon.N. E. Baxter be the Ohairman.

(a) arrange for the insertion of an ad­vertisement In The West Australiancalling for persons desirous of ten­dering evidence to the committee;

(b) request the "Fisheries Advisory Oom­mlttee" to supply four copies of itsreport for the years 1962 and 1963;and

(c) ascertain the quantities and cost ofbait being used in the crayfishingIndustry and obtained from MidlandJunction, Robbs Jetty and otherabattoirs In the State and from theEastern States, Hong Kong, Japanand Oanada.

Ad10umment.-The Oommittee adjournedat 7.26 p.m,

B1tsiness.-The Secretary was instructedto-

Next Meeting.-It was resolved that thenext meeting would be held on Tuesday, 24thMarch, 1964, at 2.30 p.m,

Noes-12Han. R. C. MattiskeHan. J. MurrayHan. H. R. RobinsonHan. S. T. J. ThompsonHan. F. D. WlllmottHan. J. M. Thomson


Han. C. R. AbbeyHan. A. F. GriffithHon. J. HeitmanHan. A. R. JonesHan. L. A. LoganHon. G. C. MacKinnon

4th DEOEMBER, 1963.

2.-Flsheries Act-Appointment of SelectCommittee.

Extract from the Minutes of the Proceedingsof the Legislative Council No. 49.

Hon. R. Thompson moved, That the Hons.N. E. Baxter, R. O. Mattlske and the moverbe appointed to serve on the Oommlttee.

Question-put and passed.

Ordered-That the Oommlttee has powerto call for persons, papers and documentsand to adjourn from place to place; that Itmay sit on days over which the Oouncilstands adjourned; that the proceedings beopen to the public and the press; and thatthe Oommittee report when the House re­assembles.

Extract from the Minutes of the Proceedingsof the Legislative Oouncil No. 50.

The House divided.

Ayes--13Hon. N. E. Baxter Hon. F. R. H. LaveryHan. D. P. Dellar Han. H. C. StricklandHon. J. Dolan Han. R. H. C. StubbsHan. J. J. Garrigan Han. R. ThompsonHon. E. M. Heenan Hon. W. F. WilleseeHon. J. G. Hislop Han. J. D. TeahanHan. R. F. Hutchison (Teller I

5th DEOEMBER, 1963.

5.-Fisheries Act-Appointment of Mernherto Select Committee.

12 noon-TUESDAY, 24th MAROH, 1964.

Attendftnce.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Ohair­man), Hon. R. Thompson, Hon. S. T. J.Thompson.

Han. R. Thompson, pursuant to notice,moved, That Hon. S. T. J. Thompson beelected to serve as a member of the SelectOommittee appointed to inquire into and re­port upon the Fisheries Act, 1905-1962.

Question-put and passed.

Confirmation of Minutes:

Moved Hon. S. T. J. Thompson, secondedHon. R. Thompson, that the Minutes of theprevious meeting held on 5th December, 1963,be confirmed.


Business arising from the Minutes:

(a) PUblicity.-The Secretary reportedthat advertisements had been in­serted in The West Australian on11th January and 15th February,1964. Notices had also been distri­buted along the coast at variouscrayftshlng centres; the enquiry wasthe subject of a news item by theA.B.C. on 1st March, 1964, andarticles were printed in The WestAustralian on 3rd March, 1964, andthe Daily News on 12th March, 1964.

(b) It was decided not to proceed withthe request for copies of the re­ports of the Fisheries Advisory Com­mittee.

(c) The Chairman agreed to follow upInvestigation into the supply of baitused in the crayfishlng industry.


Publicitll.-The Secretary was Instructedto meet with the Secretary of the Royal Com­mission recently appointed to enquire Intothe boat safety aspect of the Fishing Indus­try, with the object of arranging suitablepublicity to clarify in the minds of the publicthe different aims of the two Royal Com­missions.

Preparation of standard questions wasdiscussed, and the Secretary was Instructedto provide sufficient copies of the proposedlist of questions.

The Secretary was instructed to obtain alegal ruling regarding the admission of thepublic and the Press to the enquiry.

The Secretary was instructed to write theFisheries Department inviting Fisheries In­spectors to give evidence at meetings alongthe coast, and for the Chief Inspector to giveevidence when the Commission meets at Par­liament House on 28th April.

Subpoenas.-The Secretary was instructedto arrange for the preparation of subpoenasto be served on certain Individuals, in orderthat they might appear before the Commis­sion with records showlng:-

(a) The number of crayfish processedduring the past year.

(b) The average number of crayfishpacked in each box.

(c) From whom the crayfish were pur­chased.

Meeting closed at 1.25 p.m,

FRIDAY, 10th APRIL 1964.

At Perth.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hon. R. Thompson.

(An apology was received from Hon.S. T. J. Thompson.)


Witness.-Manuel DE SOUSA-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Dongara, Monday, 13thApril, 1964.

Adjournment.-The Commission adjournedat 12 o'clock noon.

MONDAY, 13th APRIL, 1964.

At Dongara,

The Commission met at 2 p.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evldence:-

James BAILEY-Fisherman.Clement Leslie HILL-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Geraldton, Tuesday, 14thApril, 1964.

Adjournment.-The Commission adjournedat 4 p.m,

TUESDAY, 14th APRIL, 1964.

At Geraldton.

The Commisslon met at 10 a.m.

Attend(tnce.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Francis Robert LEMMON-General Man­ager, Geraldton Fishermen's Co­operative Ltd.

Aubrey Vincent GREEN-Fisheries In­spector, Geraldton.

John Claude BOWES-Managing Direc­tor, James Bowes Pty. Ltd. and W.A.Fish Filleting Pty. Ltd.

(At this juncture-12 o'clock noon-theCommission adjourned, and resumed at PortGregory at 3 p.m.)

Witnesses (continued):-

Clarence William CHALLENGER-Fish­erman.

James Edward HORSMAN-Crayfisher­man.

Walter John WILLIAMS-Crayfisher-man.

John William GRILL-Fisherman.William Harold MARTIN-Fisherman.John HERBERT-Fisherman.Ronald BIRMINGHAM-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Dongara, Wednesday, 15t,hApril, 1964.

Adjournment.-The Commission adjournedat 4 p.m.


WEDNESDAY, 15th APRIL, 1964.

At Dongara.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Gordon Kenneth HOPE-Fisherman.Stanley Maxwell LEWIS-Fisherman.John Austin HENNEBURY-Fisherman.Keith Ernest Skipper MILLER-Fisher-

man.Richard Mahlon Berryman NIELSON­

Fisherman.Francis Beddingfield MONEY-Fisher­


Next Meeting.-Jurlen Bay, Thursday, 16thApril, 1964.

Adjourmnent.-The Commission adjournedat 3.30 p.m,

THURSDAY, 16th APRIL, 1964.

At Jurien Bay.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evldence:-

Johanas Cornelis Van GELDER-Fisher­man.

Stephen DEL ROSSO-Fishermen's Co-operative.

Domenico MARINO-Fisherman.Ronald SMITH-Fisheries Inspector.Jack MASTRO-Fisherman.Antonio CAVVALEA-Fisherman.Hugh HASTINGS-Fisherman.Angeio CALDERA-Fisherman.Edward PARKIN-Fisherman.Keith HOUSE-Fisherman.Willie SANDERS-Fisherman.Alexander Roy HARPER-Fisherman.Axel William KLEINBERG-Fisherman.James EDWARDS-Fisherman.Keith BOLITHO-Fisherman.Karre Tornes HANSEN-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Cervantes, Friday, 17thApril, 1964.

Adjoll1'1lment.-The Commission adjournedat 9 p.m.


FRIDAY, 17th APRIL, 1964.

At Cervantes.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Joe MINERVINI, Fremantle Fishermen'sCo-operative Ltd.

Douglas John CORSER-Fisherman.Max William BEISSEL-Fisherman.Thomas MEAGHER-Fisherman.George MARGARIA-Fisherman.Victor RUSSELL-Fisherman.John McMAHON-Fisherman.James TIMMERMANIS-Fisherman.Charlie James STARR-Fisherman.George STARR-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Lancelin, Tuesday, 21stApril, 1964.

Adjournment.-The Commission adjournedat 3 p.m.

TUESDAY, 21st APRIL, 1964.

At Lancelin.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Russell Soudan BROWN-Fisherman.

David Stanley EAYRE-Flsherman.James Richard OLIVER-Fisherman.

Leonard Eric DRAY-Fisherman.John TAYLOR-Fisherman.

Leonard PRIDEAUX-Fisherman.Alfred Edward Victor TANNER-Fish­

eries Inspector.

Clarence Benningfield BATEMAN-Fish­erman.

Sandra Marie COO PER - MarriedWoman.

Frank Charles BROWN-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Fremantle, Wednesday,22nd April, 1964.

Adjou1'1lment.-The Commission adjournedat 5.20 p.m,


WEDNESDAY, 22nd APRIL, 1964.

At Fremantle.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evldence r->

Alphonse MIRAGLIOTTA-Flsherman.

Salvatore LOPRESTI-Fisherman.Salvatori MIRAGLIOTTA-Fisherman.

Francesco IANNELLO-Fisherman.

Kenneth FOSTER-Fisherman.Francesco MAZZEL-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Fremantle, Thursday, 23rdApril, 1964.

Adjourmnent.-The Commission adjournedat 5.15 p.m.

THURSDAY, 23rd APRIL, 1964.

At Fremantle.

The Commission met at 10 a.m.

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Oliver William WILSON-Fisherman.Runer Gustav CARLBURG-Fisherman.Eric Furey CARRUTHERS-Fisherman.Frank MIRAGLIOTTA-President of the

Confederation of Licensed Fisher­men.

Michele ROTENDELLA-Flsherman.Lance Robert TUCKEY-Fisherman.Arthur Wilson TOUSSAINT-Fisherman.Lionel Elliot RENFREY-Fisherman.Guiseppe ROTENDELLA-Fisherman.Frank MENDOLIA-Fisherman.Pasquale Fedele VINCI-Fisherman.George ANICICH-Fisherman.Alfred Kristoffer MELSOM-Fisheries In­

spector.Roland Myles CRAWFORD-Fisheries

Inspector.Carlo MIRAGLIOTTA-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Perth, Tuesday, 28th April,1964.

Adjournment-The Commission adjournedat 5.25 p.m.


TUESDAY, 28th APRIL, 1964.

At Perth.

The Commission met at 10 a.m.

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Francesco CORREA-Fisherman.Dr. Joseph Slavko MARIAN-Sollcitor.Horace William McCORMICK-Fisher-

man and Processor.Vincent CARBONARO-Fisherman.Charles James STARR-Fisherman.John Victor GODWIN-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Perth, Wednesday, 29thApril, 1964.

Adjournment.-The Commission adjournedat 5.10 p.m,

WEDNESDAY, 29th APRIL, 1964.

At Perth.

The Commission met at 10 a.m.

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evldence:-

William VALLI-Fisherman.Edwin Reginald NELSON-Fisherman.Nicholas PETERS-Poultry Processor.William Hugh EDWARDS-Journalist.Michael George KAlLIS-Processor.Victor TOMBA-Cartage Contractor.Theo George KAlLIS-Ross Inter-

national Fisheries (Processors).

Next Meeting.-Perth, Thursday, 30thApril, 1964.

Adjourmnent.-The Commission adjournedat 4.45 p.m,

THURSDAY, 30th APRIL, 1964.

At Perth.

The Commission met at 10 a.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.


Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Gordon Donaid NOBLE-Fisheries In-spector.

Colin WHEELER-Processor.Edward Joseph ANNEAR-Processor.Ronald Philip Henshaw JACKSON-J. N.

Taylor & Co. Ltd.-suppllers of gear.James Woodhead OSWALD-J. N. Taylor

& Co. Ltd.-suppliers of gear.Roland Myles CRAWFORD-Fisheries

Inspector.John Edward BRAMLEY-Senior Fish­

eries Inspector.

Next Meeting.-On a date to be fixed bythe Chairman.

Adjournment.-The Commission adjournedat 4.50 p.m.

MONDAY, 6th JULY, 1964.

At Geraldton.

The Commission met at 10 a.m.

Attendance.-Hon. R. Thompson (ActingChairman), Hon. S. T. J. Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Christopher Robert LEMMON-Fisher-man.

Con Kenneth NICKOLAKIS-Fisherman.Harry SMITH-Fisherman.Richard Earl CARR-Fisherman.Kenneth George MAY-Fisherman.George James MAY-Fisherman.

Next Meeting.-Albany, 9th July, 1964.

Adjourmnent.-The Commission adjournedat 3.15 p.m,


THURSDAY, 9th JULY, 1964.

At Albany.

The Commission met at 1 p.m,

Attendance.-Hon. N. E. Baxter (Chair­man), Hons. R. Thompson and S. T. J.Thompson.

Witnesses.-The following were called andtendered evidence:-

Norman Keith SWARBRICK-Flsher-man.

Francis William GOMM-Flsherman.Leslie MOUCHEMORE-Flsherman.Newton SHARP-Fisherman.Ronald Leslie HEBERLE-Fisherman.

Adjournment.-The Commission concludedthe taking of evidence at 5.25 p.m. on Thurs­day, 9th July, 1964.


New South Wales.



Act No. 20, 1963.

An Act to provide for the constitution of TheNew South Wales Fish Authority and todefine its powers, authorities, duties andfunctions; to make further provisionsfor the marketing of fish in New SouthWales; for these and other purposesto amend the Fisheries and Oyster FarmsAct, 1935, as amended by subsequentActs; and for purposes connected there­with.

[Assented to, 10th April, 1963.]

By Authollty I AlEX. 8. DAVIES, Government Printer