Lines in the Water, Lines in the Law: Cultural Fishing in NSW

On the coast of New South Wales, cultural fishing has deep roots — it is not simply about catching seafood, but about keeping stories, skills, and traditions alive. The law recognises this through a precise definition: cultural fishing must never have a commercial purpose, meaning the catch cannot be sold, and it must be undertaken for a genuine cultural reason such as ceremony, education, or meeting community needs. These two criteria are supposed to form a clear and immovable line between cultural practice and commercial exploitation, safeguarding both the cultural integrity of the activity and the sustainability of the resource itself.

For many Aboriginal fishers, this recognition is more than words on paper. It’s a way to keep fishing traditions alive, to gather as families and communities, and to maintain an unbroken link to the water. But in practice, the pathway for going beyond standard limits or using traditional gear is through Section 37 of the Fisheries Management Act — a flexible permit power that can authorise otherwise prohibited take, gear, or access. These authorities are approved by senior officers within NSW Fisheries under delegation from the Minister, following an application process that requires details of the cultural purpose, location, species, methods, and dates. While intended for specific cultural events such as ceremonies, funerals, or educational activities, more than 160 have been issued since 2010, and some authorities have been granted for multiple years with broad and vague descriptions of purpose. When the specific cultural context is not identified for each fishing activity, it risks drifting away from the law’s intent, blurring the lines between cultural and commercial fishing, and fuelling suspicion among other sectors.

Without a Section 37 permit, cultural fishing is bound by the same gear rules as recreational fishing, with some extended bag and possession limits under the Aboriginal Cultural Fishing Interim Access Arrangement. Access is generally allowed in places where recreational fishing is permitted, though additional permits are needed for marine parks or aquatic reserves. Methods such as spears, nets, or fish traps can still be authorised, but only when clearly linked to cultural use and specifically approved. Local Management Plans have been trialled in places like the Hastings and Tweed regions, giving communities the ability to set locally tailored rules and monitor their fisheries — a model that blends cultural autonomy with sustainability.

But even with these frameworks in place, there is tension. Recreational anglers question extended bag limits and the potential impact on fish stocks. Commercial operators worry about market leakage — the possibility that culturally caught fish might be sold illegally. Aboriginal communities, for their part, point to a long history of prosecutions and heavy-handed compliance, and the slow pace of legal reform to fully protect cultural fishing rights.

Layered on top of these tensions is an uncomfortable perception in the commercial sector: that rules for share-managed commercial fisheries are not applied equally. In Region 7 of the Estuary General fishery, prawning requires at least 150 shares to hold an endorsement. There is no leasing pathway like in quota fisheries such as Lobster or Abalone — the shares must be acquired and registered to the business. Yet industry reports suggest some businesses are operating with only 125 shares while fishing and selling prawns, well short of the legal minimum. The rules also say that to use an unendorsed crew member in meshing you must hold 250 shares, but there are accounts of operators fishing with fewer and still taking extra crew.

What troubles many is not just the alleged non-compliance, but the perceived “scared dog” approach of fisheries compliance when it comes to Aboriginal commercial operators. Whether due to policy direction, political sensitivity, or an aversion to confrontation, there’s a belief that certain operators are simply not scrutinised as closely. If that is true, it creates an unwritten concession — one not in legislation, not public, and not available to all — which undermines confidence in the system and deepens the divides between sectors.

The lack of transparency doesn’t help. There is no public register of Section 37 permits, their conditions, or the exact purposes for which they were granted. Data on the number of cultural fishing authorisations that overlap with commercial activities is scarce. This opacity makes it difficult to have an informed, trust-based conversation about sustainability, rights, and responsibilities.

Moving forward will require more than legislative tweaks. It means applying the rules evenly, communicating them clearly, and making the decision-making process visible to all sectors. It means building genuine co-management models where cultural, commercial, and recreational voices are heard — and where protecting cultural practice doesn’t come at the cost of fairness, sustainability, or trust. In the end, the health of our fisheries and the respect between those who use them will depend on our willingness to confront the difficult questions, not avoid them.

Further Reading: Aboriginal cultural fishing local management plans

Summary of Section 37 cultural fishing permits issued from 2010-Aug

Jerrinja Tribal Council raise concerns about cultural protocols associated with South Coast fishing rights class action