Recent controversy in New Zealand, sparked by fishing identity Matt Watson accusing Fisheries Minister Shane Jones of favouring commercial “mates”, has reignited debate about who fisheries policy is really for. While New Zealand is often described as pro-commercial and Australia as more conservation-focused, the reality is far more complex — and far more political.
In both countries, fisheries are a public resource. Decisions about who can access fish stocks shape not just industry outcomes or recreational opportunities, but food supply, prices, sustainability, and consumer trust. Yet seafood consumers — the largest stakeholder group — are routinely absent from the conversation.
New Zealand: Commercial Focus, Transparency Tensions
New Zealand’s fisheries system has historically been unapologetically commercial. The Quota Management System (QMS) treats fisheries as an economic asset, with strong industry participation and clear export orientation. The industry has played a key role in this area – they are organised built around a small number of organisations who have generally worked together. Totally different to Australia!
The current political debate, however, highlights the risks of this model when transparency and public confidence weaken. Proposed changes around onboard cameras, discarding rules, and access to information have created a perception — rightly or wrongly — that commercial convenience may be outweighing environmental and public-interest safeguards.
For consumers, the issue is not whether commercial fishing exists — it must — but whether it is accountable, transparent, and demonstrably sustainable.
Australia: Science at the Commonwealth, Politics in the States
Australia is often portrayed as science-led in fisheries management. That is true — but only at the Commonwealth level.
Fisheries managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) are underpinned by:
• independent stock assessments
• harvest strategies
• quota systems linked to biomass
• explicit objectives to maximise net benefit to the Australian community
This is fisheries management that recognises fish as food.
However, most politically contentious decisions occur at state level, where fisheries are frequently shaped by:
• short electoral cycles
• highly organised recreational lobbying
• symbolic “wins” framed as conservation outcomes
• minimal consideration of seafood consumers
The result is an inconsistent, fragmented system where commercial fishing is often politically expendable — even when science does not support exclusion.
The Real Problem: Consumers Are Invisible
The debate is too often framed as commercial versus recreational. This is a false binary.
Every Australian who eats seafood is a stakeholder. When we export, every overseas consumer becomes a stakeholder.
Only a minority fish recreationally!
When governments remove or restrict commercial fishing without considering consumer impacts, the consequences are predictable:
• loss of local seafood supply
• increased reliance on imports
• higher prices
• reduced traceability
• erosion of domestic capability
This is not sustainability — it is displacement.
The Seafood Consumers Association believes fisheries policy must recognise fish as food first, and consumers as legitimate stakeholders alongside industry, recreation, and conservation.
CASE STUDY
Port Phillip Bay Scallops: When Politics Replaced Balance
The collapse of the Port Phillip Bay scallop industry stands as a cautionary tale of how fisheries policy can fail consumers when politics overrides balance.
Once a valued local fishery supplying Victorian consumers with fresh scallops, the fishery was progressively constrained and ultimately lost amid environmental concerns, public pressure, and political risk aversion.
What was missing from the debate?
• meaningful consideration of consumers
• assessment of food supply impacts
• exploration of adaptive or transitional management
• recognition of the cultural and economic value of local seafood
The outcome delivered no clear winner:
• consumers lost access to a local product
• commercial capability was destroyed
• imports filled the gap
• trust in fisheries decision-making declined
This was not a science-led reform in the AFMA sense.
It was a political resolution to a complex problem — and consumers paid the price.
CONSUMER EXPLAINER
The Myth: “There Are More Recreational Fishers Than Seafood Consumers”
This assumption underpins many state fisheries decisions — and it is wrong.
Reality check:
• Almost all Australians eat seafood
• Only a minority fish recreationally
• Even fewer fish regularly
Seafood consumers include:
• families
• elderly Australians
• culturally diverse communities
• people who cannot or do not fish
• people who rely on affordable protein
When governments prioritise recreational access over commercial supply without evidence, they:
• privilege leisure over food security
• mistake noise for numbers
• ignore silent majorities
Consumers are not anti-recreational. Recreationals are consumers. Consumers are pro-balance.
A sustainable fishery is not one that simply removes boats from the water — it is one that continues to feed people responsibly, transparently, and for the long term but more importantly it is one that considers and engages the majority, the seafood consumers!
Comments
No comments yet.