Quota Management: “Bricks and Mortar” or Smoke and Mirrors?

Quota management has long been presented by Fisheries Queensland (FQ) as the golden ticket to security, stability, and prosperity in our fishing industry. Many of us were sold on the idea that quotas would provide tangible rights, valuable enough to serve as collateral for lending institutions, securing our financial future. But is quota management truly a foundation of "bricks and mortar," or is it merely "smoke and mirrors"?

In this blog post, let's dive into the reality of quota management—examining what Fisheries legislation actually says, and shedding light on some important truths that have often remained hidden.

Statutory Fishing Rights—What Do They Really Mean?

When I recently posed three critical questions to FQ about quota management, their answers revealed some troubling realities.

Question 1: Does this grant commercial fishers a true fishing right?

According to FQ, Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ) or Individual Transferable Effort (ITE) are indeed statutory fishing rights but explicitly not property rights. Under Queensland's Fisheries Management Act 1991, statutory fishing rights (SFRs) merely outline permissions—such as the quantity of fish that can be caught, or the gear and vessels permitted—not ownership or guaranteed long-term security. In other words, an SFR sounds impressive but is essentially just another type of fishing licence, offering minimal real protection.

Do We Truly "Own" Our Quota?

Question 2: Do commercial fishers actually own their quota?

Technically, yes—but here’s the catch: ownership doesn't offer the security you might think. Under current legislation, quotas can be suspended or even cancelled by FQ for various reasons, ranging from legal infringements to vague managerial justifications like "best management practices." Worse still, there's no guaranteed compensation if your quota suddenly disappears.

Would you confidently invest your life savings into an asset that could evaporate overnight? For most of us, the answer is a firm "no."

Quota: Yours "Forever," or Not Really?

Question 3: Has quota been granted to the individual fisher in perpetuity?

FQ's answer suggests "yes," but reality says otherwise. Despite using reassuring terms like "in perpetuity," quotas remain vulnerable to changes, including reductions or outright cancellations, without compensation. The system allows management plans to be modified, repealed, or replaced entirely, thus putting your seemingly permanent fishing rights at constant risk.

Lessons from History—Coral Trout and Spanner Crab Fisheries

Looking at history tells an even clearer story:

• Coral Trout: Initial quotas set at 1350 tonnes in 2004 have continuously declined, reaching just 912 tonnes for the 2024-2025 season—a reduction of nearly 440 tonnes despite reduced fishing efforts.

• Spanner Crab: Initially set at 2800 tonnes in 1999, the quota has plummeted to 797 tonnes today—over 2000 tonnes lost over 26 years. If quotas are truly effective, why hasn't the original quota been restored?

These significant quota reductions also impact Australian seafood consumers directly, resulting in reduced local supply, increased reliance on imported seafood, higher prices, and compromised food security. Australia's ability to sustainably feed itself with high-quality, locally caught seafood diminishes, placing strain on both industry viability and consumer access to fresh, affordable seafood.

The Financial Reality—Banks Don't Trust Quotas

Perhaps the most telling indicator of quota management's true value is that no lending institution considers quota as credible collateral. Banks recognize quotas for what they are: highly unstable assets vulnerable to administrative changes.

Conclusion: Security or Illusion?

Despite repeated assurances from Fisheries Queensland, the evidence clearly suggests quotas offer no meaningful security, no real ownership, and certainly no dependable future. Far from being the cornerstone of stability promised, quota management is built upon shaky foundations of smoke and mirrors.

Ultimately, the decision rests with you, the industry participants. I've provided the facts—the good, the bad, and the concerning. Is this truly the world-class fisheries management we've been promised, or merely another case of lazy, opaque mismanagement?

You be the judge.