Queensland Seafood and the Damage of Investment Warnings

When the Queensland government announced that long-standing “investment warnings” on state fisheries had finally been lifted, industry groups were quick to welcome the decision. After years of uncertainty, the message was clear: Queensland seafood and the industry that supplies it are “open for business” again.

But here is the uncomfortable truth. Those warnings should never have been imposed in the first place. What was framed as responsible policy was, in reality, a slow strangulation of one of the most tightly regulated and sustainable industries in the country.

A Policy of Paralysis

The very concept of an “investment warning” in fisheries management is flawed. Instead of building resilience, it signals to banks, investors, and operators that the government does not trust the long-term viability of the industry. In Queensland, these warnings hung over commercial fisheries like a storm cloud.

For fishers, that meant uncertainty in whether they could safely buy quota or invest in a new vessel. For banks, it meant a clear red flag. Loans were denied, capital was frozen, and long-standing family businesses could not secure the finance they needed to modernise their fleets. For young fishers considering whether to take over the reins, the message was bleak. The government could move the goalposts at any time and livelihoods could vanish with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.

Case Study – Spanish Mackerel: In 2023, the government slashed the commercial Total Allowable Catch for East Coast Spanish mackerel from around 578 tonnes to 165 tonnes. In practice, this cut around 135 tonnes per year of actual Queensland seafood supply. That is hundreds of thousands of local meals lost, and no “investment warning” could soften the blow when the quota axe fell.

Appeasing the UN, Importing the Problem

Why did this happen? The driving force was not Queenslanders demanding change. It was not consumers rejecting local seafood. And it certainly was not because commercial fishers were failing to manage stocks responsibly.

Much of this policy shift was about aligning Queensland with international agendas. Governments at both state and federal levels have increasingly sought to prove their “green credentials” to the United Nations and other global forums. The push for “30 by 30” — reserving 30 per cent of oceans as no-take zones by 2030 — is a textbook example. It is a number plucked from global negotiations, not tailored to the actual science of Queensland waters.

While our fishers endure the burden of red tape and closures, supermarket shelves are filled with imported product from countries with little to no regulation. Fish raised in crowded farms in Asia. Prawns frozen and refrozen across supply chains that would never meet Australian standards. Wild-caught product from countries where observers and stock assessments are almost non-existent.

Case Study – Fitzroy Net-Free Zone: In 2015, the creation of the Rockhampton Net-Free Zone removed over 200 tonnes of fresh Queensland seafood a year from consumers. That catch did not disappear. Demand was simply met by imports, often from poorly regulated overseas fisheries.

Impact on Fishers

For commercial fishers in Queensland, the impact of investment warnings has been real and painful.

• Loss of confidence in the future: Families who once looked to pass their fishing licences and knowledge to their children instead warned them off the industry. Why saddle the next generation with debt if government policy could wipe out the value of their quota tomorrow?

• Loss of capital access: Banks and financiers treated investment warnings like toxic labels. Loans were withheld or offered on punishing terms. Fishers could not upgrade ageing vessels or invest in safety improvements, putting both efficiency and livelihoods at risk.

• Loss of faith in government: For many operators, this was the deepest cut. Instead of being treated as partners in sustainable management, fishers were cast as a problem to be managed. The social licence they had built over generations was ignored, replaced with suspicion and caution notes from above.

Case Study – Great Sandy Marine Park: In 2024, rezoning of the Great Sandy Marine Park stripped away around 35 per cent of the commercial catch in the region, wiping out $2.5–$3 million a year in Queensland seafood supply. For Hervey Bay and Fraser Coast fishers, this meant immediate loss of income. For consumers, it meant yet another gap filled by imports.

Impact on Consumers

Most consumers do not see the policy detail. They see the impact at the counter. The empty display cases where local species once sat. The creeping dominance of imported product. The steady rise in prices for once-abundant fish.

Every tonne of Queensland seafood blocked by investment warnings, quota reductions, or new closures is a tonne less available to local buyers. And once that supply is gone, it is almost always replaced by imports.

The consumer pays in more ways than one. They pay higher prices for the local product that survives. They pay in quality, as imported fish is shipped frozen across the world. And they pay in trust, because when seafood comes from regions with little regulation, consumers cannot be certain it was caught sustainably, humanely, or even safely.

Case Study – Great Barrier Reef Gillnet Phase-Out: Queensland’s gillnet fishery in the GBR provides about 2.6 per cent of the East Coast’s wild-caught harvest for consumers. That share is being phased out by 2027, directly reducing the amount of fresh reef fish available in local markets. Every kilo lost will be replaced by something caught elsewhere, most likely overseas.

Queensland Seafood, A Better Way Forward

Lifting the investment warnings is welcome. It signals a shift away from treating commercial fishers as expendable and toward recognising them as central to Queensland’s food security. But it is not enough.

The damage of the last decade cannot be undone with a single announcement. Trust must be rebuilt. Families who walked away from fishing may not return. Markets that shifted to imports will not swing back overnight.

If Queensland wants to secure the future of its seafood industry and ensure that consumers continue to enjoy fresh, local product, the government must:

1. Stop appeasing UN-driven box ticking: Queensland should not be a test case for global slogans. Fisheries policy must be grounded in local science, not international targets.

2. Prioritise local supply for local plates: Make it a clear goal that Queensland seafood feeds Queenslanders first. Only then should exports or imports fill the gap.

3. Guarantee real stability: Fishers need certainty. No more moving the goalposts, no more “warnings,” and no more sudden shocks that wipe out decades of investment.

The Real Lesson

The real lesson in the lifting of investment warnings is this. Stability matters more than spin. Commercial fishing is one of the oldest industries in Queensland, feeding Australians long before global climate conferences and UN agendas.

If governments truly value food security, they need to stop undermining their own fishers and start backing them. Otherwise, we will keep exporting compliance while importing seafood, and in the end, both fishers and consumers lose.