A Parallel Career Begins
In 1914 Flynn was elected to the committee of the University Progress Association, this brought him into closer contact with Lyndhurst Giblin that in turn led him to Joseph Lyons and the Labor Party. The efforts of the Association produced an expansion of staff, one of the new lecturers being a Melbourne philosopher, Morris Miller. Aspiring economist Douglas Copland joined the staff in 1917 and his protégé, Torliev Hytten, formed a firm friendship with Flynn.[Davis op cit p.127] These all became men of power and influence.
Joseph Lyons, Tasmania’s only Prime Minister of Australia, took a keen interest in fisheries. One of his first Parliamentary roles was to successfully move in 1913 for a Select Committee to investigate the legalisation of pots in the lobster fishery. Through this Lyons and Flynn first met. Both were seeking to change the policy of the Fisheries Commissioners and Lyons had the Premier Solomon write to the Prime Minister to gather evidence from the Director of Commonwealth Fisheries, H C Dannevig. Dannevig supplied a detailed response that supported the use of pots and rejected the existing policies.[PD 3 17/4/13] ‘Tasmania was probably the only place in the world’ where this most effective fishing method was prohibited. Despite this endorsement the Commissioners rejected the findings. Their Secretary wrote that he had received no submission from Tasmanian fishermen to legalise pots, and the pressure to do so must have come from Victorians.
Flynn's association with idealogues and their Labor Party connections drew the professor deeper into public policy when a Labor Government was elected in April 1914. The new Labor Government was led by John Earle, with Joseph Lyons as Treasurer. When positions on the Fisheries Commission became vacant the Government appointed Flynn. [A.G.Webster and Wm Moore had died and Thomas Rush had resigned.]This appointment began a parallel career and involvement in Fisheries that lasted for nearly twenty years. His commitment must have impinged on his responsibilities at the University and curtailed his research commitment to the Ralston Trust.
Flynn and Lyons were more than official colleagues. One of many community functions to aid the War effort was a Carnival Queen competition run by the Mayor of Hobart in aid of the French Red Cross. Enid Lyons, eighteen year-old wife of the Treasurer, was chosen by the State Public Service as its entrant. Enid, in purple robe and coronet, was accompanied by Lily Flynn as one of her maids of honour. The six-year old Errol was a page boy.[Robson L, A History of Tasmania. Vol II. Melb. Oxford Uni Press. 1991] Enid recalled Errol as ‘a handsome boy, fearless and with a somewhat haughty expression’. She regretted that he had not yet developed his skills as a fund raiser, her team finished in the middle of the field of eight.[Lyons Enid, So We Take Comfort p85]
The Flynn Royal Commission
At the end of 1914 the country, at war ‘with a relentless foe’, was entering ‘the most serious drought yet experienced….and thus the resources of the State were not as buoyant as could be desired’.[Governor's speech to the opening of Parliament in June 1915]
When Parliament resumed in June 1915 the War, the drought and the weakness of the State's finances reforms. But government was able to support agriculture by establishing a farm and agricultural college at Deloraine, and mining. Ministerial discussions in the previous year, and a request from the Commissioners for inquiry into the supply and price of fish, resulted in a Royal Commission being issued to Flynn in September 1915. Chief Secretary JE Ogden was reported to favour a state trawler and so Flynn studied the state owned trawlers in New South Wales.[Bulletin 31 Dec 1915] There is little evidence that Lyons played any role in the fisheries debate during this time; historian PR Hart suggests that as Treasurer and Minister for Education he now began his interest in governmental finance.
The fisheries study was expected to take just a few months but was extended three times and not finished until April 1916.[Papers and Proc of the Parl of Tas. 1916-17 paper no. 10 ] Flynn was assisted by H C (Clyde) Smith who acted as Secretary and earned Flynn’s thanks for his diligent work. Smith was only 24 and had been a public servant for two years. At the time he was an assistant to the Usher of the Black Rod in the Legislative Council.[In 1919 he was appointed Secretary to the Minister for Lands and later became Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. He was also a prominent cricketer and later cricket administrator.] The first hearing was held in the Legislative Council on 6 October 1915 where it was decided that hearings would be closed to the public and the press. Flynn requested a short-hand writer to record the evidence that would be given on oath and £50 for expenses. He resolved that they write to the Governments of New Zealand, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, and to the Surveyor–General for charts and bathymetric maps if possible with the currents shown.
The collection of evidence began on Monday 11 October with a 6am visit to the Hobart fish market and later that day they examined the Secretary of the Fisheries Commission and Commissioner Andrew Kirk. Phillip Seager, the Chairman of the Commission, was examined next morning, followed by Commissioner William Gates, a well-known fisherman. Later the long time Commissioner RM Johnston, and key member of the previous 1882 Royal Commission into Tasmanian Fisheries, gave Flynn the benefit of his extensive knowledge on fish stocks and the management of Tasmanian fisheries over the preceding thirty years. In the following three weeks Flynn took evidence from relevant government employees and several fish hawkers. As the thrust of his enquiry was to improve the supply of fish to consumers it was logical to look first at those thought to be running the existing supply chain.
On December 13 Flynn held the first hearing in Launceston, again concentrating on marketing and the next day visited the town fish market. With the University on vacation Flynn now went to Melbourne and Sydney and gathered facts and opinion on the fish supply system in both cities. The Bulletin reported that on his visit to Sydney ‘he was greatly taken by Black’s fish shops and State trawlers’.[The Bulletin 31 Dec 1915.] It also said that
‘Chief Secretary Ogden, who is the Government’s fishing expert, has always had a hankering for a State trawler so it is likely that, if the present government stays in power and can borrow the money from somewhere, his excellency, Tasmania’s Governor Sir William] Macartney will have a chance to buy the first fish from a state trawler.’ The Mercury reported that Flynn had ‘made a thorough enquiry into the financial and other aspects of the working of the State Trawlers in New South Wales’.[The Mercury 10 Feb 1916] At this time there was great interest in that State’s fleet of government owned and run steam trawlers. Three Castle-type vessels were brought from Great Britain in 1915 to fish the grounds discovered by Harald Dannevig in the Endeavour.
A representative from Queensland was in Sydney at the same time as Flynn and Victorians arrived a little later. One vessel had made the astounding catch of 25 tons in just three days and the Government’s chain of shops was selling fish at a few pence a pound. The Mercury wondered
Whether the more common types of fish such as leatherjacket, flathead and gurnard’ would not be found ‘distasteful’ to Tasmanians despite their nutritious value.
During the first three weeks of February 1916 Flynn held regular meetings in Hobart concentrating on fishermen. Armed the knowledge acquired in Melbourne and Sydney he could probe their views about the likely availability of new fishing grounds. In March he visited other ports, starting with Dunalley and Eaglehawk Neck. He worked northwards until again reaching Launceston. The fisheries of the Tamar needed scrutiny as there were already signs that stocks were depleted. He took evidence in Beauty Point and then spent two days in Devonport. At this second set of hearings in Launceston Flynn took evidence from Dr Thompson, the City Officer of Health as well as Chairman of the Ralston Bequest.
After almost five months work Flynn and Smith were ready to wind up their enquiry when a Mercury editorial berated them for not visiting the west coast ‘where many excellent fish are to be caught.’[The Mercury 20 March 1916] Surely ‘the expenditure of £50 or £100’ was justifiable. ‘Incidentally the Commissioner might obtain a good deal of knowledge about freshwater fishing on the west coast and how it might be improved’. So Flynn and Smith set off for Strahan and Burnie, extending the Commission to more than five months. Evidence was taken from a hundred witnesses and the Commission sat for 41 hearing days. It is a great pity that the verbatim record has not survived for it would have been extremely valuable to compare the views of fishermen in 1915-16 with those given to the 1882 Royal Commission.[For an account of this enquiry see Harrison A J An Inquiry into the Fisheries of the Colony, THRA 2006] William Crooke, who wrote on fisheries for the Mercury gave evidence and criticised Flynn for not publishing the evidence. The only surviving record is the extracts of evidence that Crooke published in his column.
Flynn’s Report found -
The fishing industry has always languished in the State of Tasmania. No attempt has ever been made, except in a spasmodic way, to exploit in any large commercial way the vast resources of fish which exist in most easily accessible grounds along the Tasmanian coast. No island Sate has ever yet reached full development without the thorough exploitation of its fishing resources, and I am convinced, after the experience I have had in visiting various centres of fish-supply, that there is ample possibility of supplying the Tasmanian public with large quantities of this delicate and highly nutritious food, still leaving opportunities for export to the ready market of the mainland, and at the same time allowing of sufficient supplies for local canning, smoking, and curing establishments.
The chief obstacle in the way of development are restrictions on natural methods of catching fish; absence of technical knowledge on the part of the fishermen as to migration and movements of fish, and the best means to use in catching them; the use of boats which are too small and badly fitted do not allow fishermen to work in anything but the finest weather; the absence of any trained officers to give instruction to fishermen on the catching of their fish; and, finally the absence of any Government Department responsible to the Minister in whose hands the future development of the fisheries could be placed.
Most of the fishermen on the Tasmanian coast send the catch either to Hobart or Launceston. The method of the transmission of the catch differs greatly. Some fishermen are able to take their fish in well-boats to these centres, whereupon the catch is either auctioned in the market or sold privately to some fishmonger. In the latter case the fish do not appear in the market at all, and very often are not even inspected. Other fishermen prefer to send their fish from some centre on the coast. They pack the fish in boxes, and they are sent on by boat, coach, or train, as the case may be. It is evident that, in the case of fish sent in boxes, the need for inspection is especially to be emphasised. Inquiry shows that fish are handled on these various conveyances just like other less fragile freight: no special space is provided on the trains; no particular attention is given to it on various steamers and coaches.
With regard to the fish markets: these are all under municipal control, and it is no exaggeration to say the chief concern of these bodies is to make the market pay. After that ideal has been attained, no further interest seems to be taken in the development and improvement of the methods of selling fish. After fish have been sold in the market, or delivered to the dealer, they are either sent direct to the shop to be sold, or placed in ‘caufs’ for cool storage, to be drawn upon as required. Cleaning of fish is at present done in the dealers shops.
For some time past the fishing industry has received no help whatever from the Government On the whole the conditions are such that, while the public complain of the high price of fish, the dealers state that the supply is inadequate, and the fishermen themselves as a rule say that the prices they receive are not such as to afford them a decent living.
It is inexplicable that some sustained effort has not been made to exploit commercially the great resources which our fishing-grounds present. At various times canneries have been established in the State, but all have failed, either through want of capital or through lack of the technical knowledge calculated to make the product a success. In the case of the cannery formerly in operation at St. Helens, into the history of which I made special inquiries, it seems that the canned product was well up to the standard of the imported article, and was greatly in demand. Almost all the edible fish in the Tasmanian seas are suitable for canning, and it seems as though Government aid might be extended in the way of helping those who are desirous of establishing this industry.
The comments about the cannery at St Helens are particularly interesting for the next chapter will tell how, a decade later, the Royal Commissioner made a personal effort to rebuild that industry.
‘I regard the matter of cheap fish-supply as one of the greatest importance and urgency. The matter is one that private firms might have taken up with advantage in the past.
The times are exceptional, and I think the State should take action. I therefore propose the following scheme:-
Flynn’s qualified support here for Ogden’s ambition for a State trawler was founded in the same overly optimistic assessment of the size of the fish stocks. As soon as the New South Wales trawl fleet removed the virgin stocks of fish problems began to arise. The Endeavour had showed that the possible trawl grounds around Tasmania were very much more restricted than those off the Victorian and New South Wales coasts. The idea of a state-owned fishing enterprise was economically unsound and none of the other States followed the New South Wales model. The New South Wales industry did much better when sold to private operators.
Flynn recommendations to Parliament were grouped under four headings-
Administration
That a new Government Department be formed to control the sea fisheries; that it be placed in charge of a Chief Inspector, with a staff of trained inspectors to assist him.
Markets
1. That all fish be brought to the fish-market in Hobart or Launceston, and there sold by auction.
2. That a salaried auctioneer be placed in charge of the markets.
3. That a rigid system of inspection be insisted upon in the case of fresh fish, as well as in the case of smoked, cured, and imported fish.
4. That in both markets two sales per day be held, one in the morning, the other in the afternoon.
5. That a cool storage, under the control of the Government or Municipal auctioneer, be erected in connection with the fish markets.
Supply
1. That the State endeavour to charter boats or contract with fishermen for the supply of fish, and that the State or municipal councils arrange for a scheme of distribution by shops, by hawkers, or by open stands in the cities.
2. That as soon as possible a system of small cheap State trawlers be instituted.
General
1. That at the earliest possible opportunity effect be given to the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Assembly appointed to inquire into Deep-sea Fisheries with regard to the matter of the use of crayfish pots.
2. That encouragement, in the way of Government aid, be given to the establishment of fish canneries, and commercial enterprises of a similar nature.
3. That the regulation with regard to the close season for flounders be rescinded in the case of Macquarie Harbour.
In terms of administration this advice was strikingly similar to that of the 1882 Commission that resulted in the appointment of William Saville-Kent in 1884.[Harrison AJ Savant of the Australian Seas,Hobart. THRA 1997.] It would not have been well received by the current Chairman of the Fisheries Commission, Phillip Seager, who was Secretary to the earlier Commission and a leader of the group that hounded Saville-Kent and his Fisheries Department. Flynn’s recommendation about craypots added fuel to the critics indignation. The Commissioners’ response was to call for direct Government assistance to enforce its laws, and stress the need for revenue for experimental work, but ignored the more progressive of Flynn's recommendations. Although for many years all boats had been required to be licensed, no licence fees could be charged. The Commissioners requested the Government to reverse this situation.
My 2006 paper on this Royal Commision is reproduced here.
Opportunity Lost
Flynn’s findings were what the Labor Government had hoped for but before they were tabled in Parliament the Earle Labor Government had been defeated in the election of April 1916 by Walter Lee's Liberals. The report was therefore not debated in the House of Assembly until November 1916 and was not well received by the new Government. The Premier said it was a waste of time and its recommendations were worthless.
‘He was very dissatisfied with the report ... he read from the minutes of the report holding it up to ridicule ... The whole thing was a ridiculous farce and he did not intend giving effect to any of the conclusions’. [Mercury Nov. 1916]
A previous Premier, Captain J W Evans, criticised the selection of Flynn as the Commissioner - ‘he was not the right man for the position’.
Lyons and James Ogden mounted a defence based on the current unacceptable price of fish –
‘a silver trumpeter to feed two people costs two shillings and sixpence... The object of the inquiry was to try and find out whether the community could be served with cheaper fish’. They chided the Government ‘Was it the duty of the Government to look after the welfare of the people or to sit back and smile?... They were keen about a Mines and Agriculture Department then why not a Fisheries Department’.
Neither government nor opposition had many good words for the Fisheries Commissioners -
Lyons - ‘There should be proper control of the fisheries. The existing board only concerned itself in stocking the inland rivers. Of the sea fish it knew nor troubled nothing. If the government said there was no need for anything to be done then it did not know much about the subject.’
Ogden - ‘ The report stated that most of the selling of fish fell into the hands of one member of the Fisheries Commission, Mr King, against whom grave charges had been made.’
Nevertheless Walter Lee finally decided against any action in regard to the administration ‘ at this junction.’ Whilst the war continued Lee had little opportunity to review his decision or to reconsider Flynn’s other recommendations.
After completing his enquiry Flynn continued to work towards the development of the fishing industry. He had reported on scallop stocks including the first study of growth rates. Flounder was a major fishery and juveniles were regularly sent to Sydney to stock the State Government Fish Hatchery at Cronulla that had been founded by Dannevig. Flynn took an interest in the early life stages as part of his embryological research. The loss of the Commonwealth research vessel Endeavour in 1914 and the rejection of Flynn's recommendations dashed any chance of developing new fisheries. Meanwhile the supply of fish greatly diminished and the cost of fishing increased with resultant higher prices. Reform would have to wait until the next Labor administration.