Cray-ving a taste of the state’s best

Time to think outside the box

IGGING in to a plate of delicious dumplings at a Chinese restaurant in Hobart this week, I was stopped in my tracks by an elegantly arranged crayfish being carried to a neighbouring table.

The superb.

The three diners at my table all oohed and aahed so much at the splendid feast being carried by the waiter that the lucky table of diners on the receiving end of the repast burst into laughter. cray dish looked Our envy was palpable. It got me thinking about how most locals, like myself, cannot really afford to indulge in crayfish or abalone at a restaurant and how only the most well-heeled tourists can.

Crayfish and abalone are simply too expensive to consider, unless it is a very, very special occasion or you dive and get your own.

Even at Christmas, I think many of us have given up trying to put enough crayfish or abalone on the table to feed anyone. There is something inherently wrong with this.

Tasmania supplies about a quarter of the world’s wild abalone but do not expect to find it on many local tables. I suspect it is easier to find it in Sydney and Hong Kong.

The main reason is that diners overseas, particularly in China, are willing to pay highly for the delicacy and price it out of the Tasmanian market.

Is there anything that can be done about this?

I have an idea, and I have written about it before to little avail, but here I try again.

What if suppliers sold 4-8 per cent of their catch at half the overseas market price to local restaurants?

This would cut their return by 2-4 per cent and, in recognition of this sacrifice, the suppliers who opt in — and it would be a choice, not a requirement — earn the right to use a Tasmania “brand” authorised by the Tasmanian Government, quid pro quo.

Whether the brand is a name, logo or notion, its role would be to stamp the state’s imprimatur on the product.

Those who opt in would be preferred suppliers for the state and used in state advertising, functions and catering. They would be first port of call for state-funded marketing, trade missions and the like. In this way, suppliers effectively buy a seat at the table.

As part of the deal, local restaurants that also choose to opt in would have to resist profiteering on the cheaper crays and abs and provide dishes on their menus that tourists and locals can afford, and this has to be regulated.

Participating restaurants could use the “brand” and receive similar benefits to suppliers. They would be required to use the name of the supplier on their menus and detail from where the crays or abalone came.

This brand or appellation approach could even be tied to the provision of other health, environmental and social standards required by the state of fishers and restaurateurs.

This system would treat Tasmania, the destination, as a “front of house” for exports similar to a cellar door at a winery or a chocolate-factory tour where tourists expect the privilege of “special” treatment and local knowledge.

This would add depth to a diner’s understanding of the story of Tasmanian produce.

Those who pay $80 for Tasmanian abalone in a Sydney eatery could get the same here for, say, $50.

Could the concept be expanded to include wine, beer, cheese and the like?

There would be competitive and legislative issues, and the concerns of suppliers and restaurants would need to be addressed, including the need to avoid cumbersome costly regulation.

Could we find a way to benefit all parties that enables local restaurants to sell crays and abalone at reasonable prices?

Maybe not, but getting stakeholders around a table to talk may identify shared interests that are mutually beneficial. It would have to be voluntary and there would need to be something in it for all sides of the deal.

Yes, it’s a perversion of the market and, yes, it’s back-ofthe-envelope stuff, but even the most deregulated free markets are far from pure and even the Sydney Opera House started as a sketch. and