The Australian Customs Service has a mandate to provide a civil coastal and offshore surveillance and response service for a number of government agencies in order for them to carry out their portfolio responsibilities. This service is provided by a branch called Coastwatch, whose central headquarters are located in Canberra, using a variety of boats and aircraft contracted from other government agencies and private companies. In the early 1990s, the surveillance and response effort in the AFZ involved 13 privately contracted aircraft flying approximately 12 000 hours per annum, 250 hours of dedicated patrols by RAAF P3C Orion aircraft, and 1800 days of surface surveillance by RAN patrol boats (Naylor 1995: 1–4). ^[23]

When a suspected illegal foreign fishing boat is sighted, a report is sent to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in Canberra and to regional fisheries officers in Darwin or Broome. Perahu found operating in Australian waters are officially classified according to ‘the degree to which Western technology has influenced design’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993:4). There are three main categories: Type 1 perahu are those with a traditional lateen rig such as lete lete sailed by the Madurese; Type 2 perahu are those with a western sailing rig, most commonly lambo; and Type 3 perahu are motorised, either with a sail and auxiliary motor (perahu motor layar), or with a motor only (perahu motor) (see Figure 5-1). ^[24]

Source: Cowan, Mellon and Anderson 1990: 20.

The information in the sighting report is assessed to determine whether a response action is warranted. If the assessment is positive, a naval patrol boat with a fisheries officer on board is usually directed to the area. ^[25] The captain of the foreign vessel is questioned about his activities, often through the use of Indonesian language cards, and the fisheries officer completes a Fisheries Vessel Reporting System (‘Fishreps’) form and boarding report. This information is wired to Canberra for further assessment by AFMA officers and a decision is made about whether there is sufficient evidence of illegal fishing activity and whether the boat and crew should therefore be apprehended. If apprehension is approved, the captain is informed and the vessel is towed to either Darwin or Broome for further investigation and prosecution.

On arrival in either Broome or Darwin, a number of other Australian government agencies become involved in the detention, prosecution and repatriation of the fishermen. The Commonwealth provides AFMA with funds to meet the costs associated with action arising from apprehension of illegal fishing vessels, including the costs of interviewing offenders, maintaining seized vessels, housing and maintaining the crew, and court proceedings. After arrival, formal processes of immigration, health and quarantine are completed, and custody of the boat is formally transferred to AFMA. In Broome and Darwin, some of AFMA’s functions, including investigations into the alleged offences, are carried out by officers of the NT and WA Fisheries Departments. The captain and crew are then charged by summons and a date is sought for the court hearing.

In Broome, the boats and fishermen are held at Willie Creek, an isolated coastal property 20 km north of the town. Boats are anchored in the bay at the mouth of the creek and fishermen are free to move between their boats and the property. The property is owned and operated by a private contractor responsible for the care and security of the fishermen and their boats. ^[26] At Willie Creek, fishermen are questioned and given telephone access to the Indonesian consulate in Perth. At one stage, the WA Legal Aid Commission provided representation for the captains but did not have the resources to continue this service (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 128). AFMA supplies an interpreter used for questioning and during appearances in the Broome Magistrates Court.

In Darwin, fishermen are held on their boats anchored some 300–400 m off Stokes Hill Wharf in Darwin Harbour in a designated quarantine mooring area. Barefoot Marine, a local marine charter company under contract to AFMA, is responsible for maintaining the boats, providing security, enforcing the quarantine zone, supplying food and water to the fishermen, and transporting them to and from the shore to attend meetings, appear in court or receive medical attention if necessary. In Darwin, access to interpreters, legal aid, and support from the local Indonesian Consulate means that conditions are generally better than those available in Broome.

The period of time fishermen are detained in either Darwin or Broome depends on the judicial process. On average, this period extends for around 3–4 weeks, but in some cases fishermen have been held for much longer periods, even up to five months. In cases where fishermen have been given jail terms for repeat offences they have been transferred to the Broome Regional Prison or to Berrimah Prison in Darwin. Fishermen are repatriated by plane, usually to Kupang or Denpasar (Bali), where they are sometimes met by officials from the Indonesian Social Department (Departemen Sosial) who may provide assistance for them to reach their home villages, but this service is erratic. Forfeited boats and equipment are normally burnt, but in some cases they have been sold or auctioned by AFMA.

Although fishing outside the permitted areas in the expanded AFZ became illegal in 1979 it was six years before any vessels were apprehended. The apprehension of the first four perahu resulted from a surveillance program called ‘Operation Roundup’. ^[27] On 27 February 1985, an RAAF Orion aircraft on a surveillance flight sighted 12 Type 2 Indonesian fishing vessels between 30 and 60 miles northwest of Cape Van Diemen off Melville Island in the Northern Territory. On 28 February, the HMAS Ipswich arrived in the area, and two of the boats, the Cari Damai and the Usaha Selamat, were boarded to the north of Melville Island and taken in tow to Darwin. At the time of boarding it was discovered that both vessels, each with a crew of nine, were from Wangi Wangi and had quantities of fresh and dried shark fin on board. The captain of the Usaha Selamat stated that there were up to 20 vessels from Wangi Wangi fishing in the area to the west and north. On 1 March, several Indonesian fishing vessels were spotted from the air northwest of Melville Island, and HMAS Cessnock was directed to the area. On this occasion the AFS in Darwin also chartered the MV Pacific Adventurer to assist in the search. ^[28] The Cessnock made visual contact with seven Indonesian vessels, one of which was boarded, but then left to pursue other vessels further north. On 2 March, the naval officers apprehended two more boats, the Tenaga Atomand the Tunas Muda,and took them in tow to rendezvous with the Pacific Adventurer.

The following is an extract from a record of the interview conducted on 6 March 1985 by a fisheries officer and an interpreter with the captain of the Usaha Selamat, Si Usman Basirang.

Si Usman also stated that he was from Mola and the vessel belonged to his parents. He and his crew had departed Mola on 31 January and had been catching shark over the previous seven days. They were intending to sell most of the catch back in Mola for Rp3 500 a kilogram and would eat the remainder.

The captains of the Usaha Selamat and the Cari Damai were charged with using a fishing boat for taking fish in the AFZ without a licence and appeared in Darwin Magistrates Court on 8 and 11 March 1985. The captains, represented by a solicitor from the NT Legal Aid Commission, pleaded guilty to the charges, despite Si Usman’s earlier protestation of innocence. The defence gave evidence that the vessels were wooden sailing boats, had no charts or navigational gear, and only poor quality compasses. The prosecution sought an order for forfeiture of the catch and fishing gear on board the vessel, but this was opposed by the defence. Magistrate Sally Thomas ordered that the men be convicted but not fined, and since they had no means to pay, she said that she could not order forfeiture of the vessels. Instead she ordered that the fish and equipment be forfeited with the exception that the defendants be allowed to keep their canoes and enough fish and fishing equipment to provide for the sustenance of their crews on the journey back to Indonesia. ^[29]

The captains of the other two vessels were not charged at all, for reasons given in a telex from Coastwatch to the NT Fisheries Department dated 12 March 1985.

On 12 March the Pacific Adventurer towed all four vessels to the outer limit of the AFZ. ^[30]

In the late 1980s several waves of distinctly different groups of Indonesian vessels began operating illegally in the AFZ, leading to a dramatic increase in the number of apprehensions. This was to have a significant effect on the fishing operations of Bajo and other users of Type 2 vessels operating outside the permitted areas. Late 1987 and early 1988 saw the beginning of a wave of illegal activity by Type 3 motorised vessels (perahu layar motor) seeking access to trochus beds in the Kimberley region, especially at King Sound and further south at Rowley Shoals. The majority of the boats originated from islands in Southeast Sulawesi such as Maginti, Masaloka, Kadatua and Buton, with a few from Pepela, and their crews were drawn from Bajo, Butonese and Rotinese ethnic groups. Their activities were partly due to a rise in the price of trochus shell in the late 1980s coupled with the over-exploitation of the resource in Indonesian waters (Reid 1992: 4). With the exception of men from Pepela, the Butonese and Rotinese fishermen do not appear to have a long history of voyaging in the north Australian region, so this could be seen as a ‘separate and discrete form of Indonesian fishing in the AFZ’ (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 161). ^[31]

Between 1987 and 1990, 67 trochus boats were apprehended in Australian waters and taken to Broome. ^[32] In almost all cases, vessels, catch and equipment were confiscated and destroyed. The new policy of apprehension and forfeiture was adopted as a ‘solution’ to deter further incursions (JSCFADT 1993: 123). In addition, many of the captains and crew who were unable to pay fines after their convictions were jailed in Broome Regional Prison. This was also the time when the policy of burning boats at the detention site was introduced as a further deterrent (Reid 1992: 7; Campbell and Wilson 1993: 136). The sentiment at this time is expressed in a statement by the Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Ray, in a parliamentary debate on the cost of the surveillance operation.

In 1991 only four trochus boats were apprehended, in 1992 none, and in 1993 another four. State fisheries officers argued that the decline was due to the newly improved surveillance and enforcement measures (JSCFADT 1993: 120), but others have suggested that it may have more to do with the declining price of trochus shell or other socio-economic factors (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 60).

In late 1988 another kind of illegal activity began in the northern Arafura Sea. Between October and November 1988, 25 large-scale, well-equipped, commercial Type 3 boats were apprehended in an area to the south of the Aru Islands. All but one originated from Dobo and all were targeting shark using large gill nets. Some of the captains and crews were wage labourers. In Darwin all captains were charged and found guilty under Sections 13AB(1a) and 13B(5) of the Fisheries Act 1952. Vessels, gear and catch were confiscated, two skippers were fined, and all captains were placed on good behaviour bonds (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 162–3). This group of vessels was the first of several waves of illegal activity by motorised perahu targeting shark fin and reef fish in the Arafura Sea (ibid.: 163).

Twenty of these industrial shark boats were apprehended in 1989 and 11 in 1990. The number fell after June 1990, and only two such boats were apprehended in 1991, but the number rose again to seven in the first half of 1992. All these boats were targeting shark except for one which was specifically targeting tuna (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 163–5). During the second half of 1992, AFMA’s list of apprehensions records nine illegal incursions of ‘ice boats’ with similar technology targeting reef fish in an area known as the Timor Box which straddles the international border.

In November 1990, two motorised Type 3 perahu (perahu motor layar), similar in technology to the trochus boats, were apprehended for shark fishing a few miles inside the AFZ, and another 29 of this type were apprehended in March 1991. All captains were convicted, and their boats, catch and equipment were confiscated. The fishermen were either Butonese or Bajo and had come from a number of settlements and islands in South or Southeast Sulawesi, from East Nusa Tenggara, and from Dobo in the Aru Islands (Fox 1992; Stacey 1992; Campbell and Wilson 1993: 165–74). All had sailed to Dobo and then south into the AFZ where they fished for shark using longline gear. No more of these shark boats were apprehended in 1992. In the short term it appeared that the policy of forfeiture deterred further incursions (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 188), but boats like this were apprehended again in 1993 and subsequent years until 1997.

Around the same time as large numbers of trochus boats were being intercepted on the northwest coast, three Type 2 perahu were apprehended for violating the amended MOU in the permitted areas. On 19 May 1988, an unmotorised perahu lambo, the Karya Sama, with seven crew originating from the village of Suoi, opposite Pepela on Roti, was apprehended at Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. The crew had been killing seabirds and collecting eggs on East Islet, which was now a protected area. In order to deter further infringements, the ANPWS recommended confiscation of the boat rather than confiscation of the catch or jail sentences. The captain and crew were placed on a good behaviour bond of A$ 50 for two years, the crew were repatriated, and the vessel was forfeited and later donated by the ANPWS to the Northern Territory Museum (Stacey 1997). ^[33]

In early July 1988 two perahu, theCahaya Indah and the Alam Niaga, both from Pepela, were apprehended while fishing for trepang and trochus shell around Scott Reef and were escorted to Broome. Both Type 2 vessels had been equipped with auxiliary engines and therefore failed the new definition of a ‘traditional’ fishing boat. Both captains were convicted and their vessels, catch and equipment were confiscated. ^[34] Since that time, most Pepela and Bajo fishermen have largely complied with the ‘no engine’ rule in the MOU areas.

On 29 March 1990, two more Bajo perahu, the Kenangan Indah and the Rahmat Ilahi 2,were boarded some 20–30 nm north of Maret Island in the Bonaparte Archipelago off the Kimberley coast. ^[35] The local fisheries officer found that the crews had been shark fishing with handlines and shark rattles (goro goro). Both vessels had fresh and dried quantities of shark fin and shark flesh on board, along with reef fish for bait. The captain of the Kenangan Indah, Si Samading, had left Kaledupa with his seven crew members on 15 March, while the captain and owner of Rahmat Ilahi 2, Si La Ibu, had left Wanci with seven crew on 20 February. Both had sailed to Roti before departing to Ashmore Reef. The local official recommended a severe reprimand and warning, but AFS officials in Canberra were adamant that the vessels should be apprehended and transported to Broome. Both captains pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 13AB(1) and 13B(1A) of the Commonwealth Fisheries Act 1952 and were placed on two-year good behaviour bonds of A$ 2000 each. The vessels, catch and equipment were forfeited and the fishermen repatriated to Indonesia. These were the first Bajo vessels to be confiscated for illegal fishing activity in the AFZ even though perahu had been operating outside the permitted areas for years. The forfeiture of the two perahu in 1990 represented a change in the treatment of Type 2 vessels found operating outside the permitted areas. By this time the policy of apprehension and confiscation of illegal motorised fishing boats was well established in both Broome and Darwin. The decision of the court in Broome to confiscate these two unmotorised vessels was influenced by the large number of apprehensions and confiscations of trochus boats and other perahu operating illegally in the AFZ over the previous three years (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 160).

From conversations with WA fisheries officers, Campbell and Wilson (1993: 179) state that perahu which had been engaged in shark fishing for many years in the Timor Sea did ‘not constitute a serious problem’ when Australia increased its AFZ to 200 nm since the vessels remained well out to sea. Fisheries officers generally tolerated shark boats operating between the coast and the MOU areas, and in most cases boats were only warned if found operating too far from the permitted areas. This point is supported by boarding reports which show a pattern of repeated visits by many of the same Bajo perahu, both inside and outside the permitted areas, in successive years between 1979 and 1989. ^[36] Regular contact with Australian authorities generally did not end in apprehension, and even if vessels were apprehended, they were not confiscated. However, this unofficial tolerance ended in 1990 when the AFS took a stricter approach to illegal fishing by Type 2 vessels.

On 5 October 1990 another perahu from Mola, the Wisma Jaya,was located approximately 20 nm northwest of Troughton Island off the Kimberley coast. Once again, at the time of apprehension, the crew were found to be engaged in shark fishing using handlines and shark rattles (see Plate 5-2). The captain, Si Kaboda, pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 13B(5) and 13AB(1A) of the Fisheries Act 1952, was convicted on both counts and placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond of A$ 500. On 13 October, the Usaha Selamat, previously apprehended in 1985, was boarded approximately 15 nm west of Bathurst Island and found to contain 200–300 kilograms of shark fin and shark flesh as well as handlines and shark rattles. The captain, Si Usman Basirang, pleaded guilty, was convicted and placed on a three-year good behaviour bond of A$ 200. In both cases, the vessels, catch and gear were forfeited and the shark fin was sold by public tender. The Wisma Jaya was deemed to be in poor condition, valued at A$ 800, and recommended for destruction, whereas the Usaha Selamat was deemed to be in fair condition, valued at A$ 1200, and recommended for use by the RAN to train naval boarding parties. ^[37]

Source: Western Australian Fisheries Department.

One year later, in October 1991, five more perahu from Mola — the Sinar Jaya, Kota Alam, Asean, Toyota, and Suka Damai — were apprehended and taken to Darwin. All were targeting shark using handlines and shark rattles in an area north of Joseph Bonaparte Gulf and west of Bathurst Island, from about 38 nm to 97 nm inside the AFZ. This time the captains were each placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond of A$ 200 and all the boats were burnt except for the Toyota, which was sold to a Darwin restaurateur. ^[38]

On 20 March 1992, three more perahu from Mola — the Jaya Harapan, Usaha Baru (Green), and Usaha Baru(Blue) — were located approximately 2 nm inside the AFZ by a RAAF P3 Orion aircraft on a surveillance flight that was part of an Australian military exercise known as ‘Kangaroo 92’. On 23 March, during a surveillance sweep as part of the same exercise, HMAS Cessnock and HMAS Derwent encountered the three boats about 22 nm inside the AFZ with lines set in the water. One perahu was boarded and the crew were warned, whereupon all three recovered their lines, hoisted sail and proceeded north. Later that day, the naval ships were ordered to relocate the vessels and carry out another investigation of the boats with a view to apprehension. The vessels were boarded at a position approximately 15 nm inside the AFZ, north of Bathurst and Melville islands. The Usaha Baru(Green) was found to have 10 kg of dried fish, 10 kg of shark fin and 5 kg of fresh whole shark, as well as a small longline with 37 hooks. The Usaha Baru (Blue) had 25 kg of shark flesh, 15 kg of fresh shark fin and a fresh whole shark, with three lines set. The Jaya Harapan had 2 kg of fresh fish on board and two lines set. The boats were apprehended and towed to Darwin.^[39]

This time the captains were charged under Sections 100(2) and 101(2) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, which had superceded the Fisheries Act 1952. Unlike the previous trials in 1990 and 1991, the fishermen pleaded not guilty to the charges and their case was strongly defended by a Legal Aid lawyer who argued that the boats had been becalmed and carried south into the AFZ by a strong current. ^[40] The longlines extending from the perahu at the time of boarding were said to be drag-anchors intended to stop the boats from drifting further inside the AFZ and the shark were said to have been caught while they were still in Indonesian waters. Based on the precedent from 1985, the defence also argued that the crew were only fishing for food to stay alive, the amount of catch was not significant enough to warrant forfeiture of the vessels, and forfeiture would result in severe economic hardships for the crews and their families. The captains were convicted and placed on two-year good behaviour bonds of A$ 1000 each, but the magistrate agreed that the offences were not serious enough to warrant forfeiture of the vessels. Instead, he ordered forfeiture of the longlines, hooks, floats, shark rattles and one canoe from each perahu, while allowing the fishermen keep their handlines so they could fish for subsistence on the journey back to their village (Fox 1998: 133).

The same consideration was not afforded the crews of nine Type 2 perahu apprehended and taken to Darwin between September and November 1993. ^[41] In September 1993, six perahu from Pepela — the Titian Muhibah, Bintang Selamat, Tegal Baru, Usaha Remaja, Sari Idaman I, and Sari Idaman II — were apprehended while fishing for shark fin with longline gear. Most had been warned previously. Five of the cases were heard together, and all five captains pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 100(2) and 101(2) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. During the court hearing the prosecution valued the catch of shark fin in each boat at between US$ 2000 and US$ 4000. This was the first time such a high value had been placed on a shark fin catch and the prosecution did not state how the figure had been calculated. In the case of the Sari Idaman I, whose case was heard later that month, the same prosecutor then stated that shark fin was currently fetching US$ 50/kg dried weight. Since the Tegal Baruhad a forfeited catch of only 19 kg of semi-dried shark fin, the sale price of its catch would have been US$ 950 — significantly less than the US$ 3000 value quoted in the earlier court case. However, the presiding magistrate was moved to observe that Australia had to ‘protect its fishing grounds from foreign exploitation since the fishing industry yields large profits’ and that ‘forfeiture is the only solution … [for] if forfeiture was not imposed, others will follow’. All equipment, catch and vessels were confiscated, four of the captains were placed on five-year good behaviour bonds of A$ 5000; one on a 12-month bond of A$ 2000, and one on a bond of A$ 200. The vessels themselves were assigned values of between zero and A$ 500 and all of them were burnt (see Plates 5-3, 5-4, 5-5 and 5-6).

Three other perahu apprehended shortly afterwards received similar treatment. Two of them — the Kembang Sari and the Dasar Usaha — originated from Lasilimu in south Buton and Ereke in north Buton respectively, and both contained mixed Bajo and Butonese crews. The third one, the Alam Baru, was the first boat from Oelaba on Roti Island to be apprehended in the AFZ. Boats from Oelaba were known to have fished for sedentary species in the past, but some crews had now turned their hand to shark fishing. Mr Hannon, the magistrate presiding over this case, remarked: ‘give them an inch and they take a mile — that’s what they’re doing’.

At no time during the court proceedings against the captains and crew of the Bajo and Pepela perahu was reference made to the fact that some of these fishermen were operating under the terms and conditions of the 1974 MOU and could be considered to be ‘Indonesian traditional fishermen’. Although their vessels had no engines and the shark fin catch was relatively small, they were treated in the same fashion as the crew of a large industrial motorised fishing vessel using sophisticated navigation equipment with an ability to harvest significant catches. In the brief of evidence for the case of the Usaha Selamat in 1990, the only reference made to the MOU was in regard to the position of the perahu at the time of its apprehension. This was also the case with three Bajo perahu that were apprehended and allowed to sail home in 1992.

In the short term, it appeared that the new policy regime had been effective in deterring further incursions by Type 3 vessels because there was an overall decline in the number of apprehensions by 1993. However, from 1993 onwards there was a steady increase in the number of Type 2 and Type 3 vessels apprehended in the AFZ each year, despite the fact that nearly all apprehensions resulted in the confiscation of vessels, catch and gear.

In 1993 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade published the results of its inquiry into Australia’s bilateral relationship with Indonesia, noting that ‘the inquiry had its origins in concerns about illegal fishing off the north and north west coast of Australia’ (JSCFADT 1993: xxvii). The committee found that illegal Indonesian fishing for shark or trochus in Australian waters was driven by two main factors — the ‘monetary gain from a successful voyage which could amount to two or three months income for poor fishermen’ and the ‘resource depletion in Indonesian waters’ — but it also noted that ‘the general lack of development and a poor range of alternative occupations in Eastern Indonesia’ was a further contributing factor (ibid.: 128). The committee observed that:

Nevertheless:

In the committee’s view, the 1974 MOU ‘does not adequately deal with all categories of Indonesian fishermen’ and it would be ‘appropriate to reconsider all aspects of illegal fishing with the involvement of Indonesian authorities’ (ibid.: 131). Following a submission by Bruce Campbell and Bu Wilson, the committee recommended a review of the MOU in light of the Torres Strait Treaty (between Australia and Papua New Guinea) which would pay special regard to:

None of the committee’s recommendations have been implemented since its report was published in November 1993. Instead, Australian policy has continued to focus on a high level of marine and air surveillance of the northern AFZ combined with costly apprehension and prosecution procedures.

In November 1994, the Fisheries Resources Branch of the Bureau of Rural Sciences, then part of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy, was commissioned by the department’s Fisheries Policy Branch to undertake a review of Indonesian fishing activity in the AFZ. This was done in response to concerns raised by AFMA and the domestic fishing industry in northern Australia over the possibility that Indonesian fishing vessels may account for a substantial proportion of the recommended allowable catch for some target species. The review found that ‘there are different ethnic groups [from Indonesia], fishing in different areas, using a number of methods and a range of technologies’ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 13), and described a number of alternative strategies to deal with traditional Indonesian fishermen operating in the MOU area. Without making reference to any particular group of Indonesian fishermen, the authors concluded that current illegal Indonesian fishing activity has a minor impact on the marine environment and that ‘it would appear surveillance, enforcement and prosecution efforts have been effective in minimising illegal fishing activity’ in the AFZ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 32, 1995b: 121). However, they also suggested that the management of marine resources in the MOU area should be determined by granting ‘priority access rights’ in the form of licences to ‘fishers who can demonstrate an historic interest in these waters’ (Wallner and McLoughlin 1995a: 33).

The authors of this report may have overestimated the effectiveness of existing surveillance and prosecution efforts, because the number of illegal intrusions into the AFZ rose again in 1994. This prompted the formation of a joint government delegation to undertake an information and education campaign in a number of eastern Indonesian provinces in January 1995. ^[42] The purpose of this exercise was to explain the conditions under which traditional fishing was permitted in the AFZ and increase awareness of the consequences of illegal fishing (AFMA 1995: 63–4). During the visit several thousand information handouts and maps were distributed showing the maritime jurisdictions in the Timor and Arafura Seas. There were also preliminary discussions about Australian support for small-scale development assistance programs in fishing communities. ^[43]

In 1995, the Commonwealth Government established an inter-departmental committee to investigate the problem of illegal Indonesian fishing in the AFZ and recommend solutions to it. Although this committee received one paper outlining a licensing arrangement for ‘traditional fishermen’ (see Fox 1998), there appears to have been no further consideration of current research by social scientists on issues previously raised by the Joint Standing Committee, despite calls by academics for ethnographic research into the social, economic and cultural organisation of fishing groups operating inside Australian waters (Campbell and Wilson 1993: 191). ^[44]