Who Will Catch Your Seafood Tomorrow? Protecting the Future of Locally Caught Seafood

When Australians choose locally caught fish, they rarely need to think about how the person who caught it learned their trade.

They see fresh seafood in a co-operative, fish shop, restaurant or market. Behind that seafood sits a chain of productive capacity: fishing access, boats, nets, handling skills, local knowledge, transport, processing and people willing to do the work.

Every link matters.

Yet in the NSW Estuary General Fishery, an experienced meshing fisher can be authorised to work alone but prevented from taking one supervised crew member unless the business holds twice as many shares.

The fisher can navigate the waterway, set and retrieve the net, handle the catch, complete the records and accept full legal responsibility for the operation.

But teaching someone else beside them requires another 125 shares.

No additional boat enters the fishery.

No extra net is authorised.

No additional fishing days are created.

The crew member must remain in the same boat and work under the immediate supervision of the endorsed fisher.

The only meaningful difference is that someone else is there to work, learn and potentially become part of the next generation.

This requirement has never provided a clear benefit to fish stocks, the fishing industry or the public. It is simply another layer of regulation standing between experienced fishers and the people who may one day replace them.

Removing it would help protect the future of locally caught seafood.

The Fisher Is Authorised, but the Teacher Is Restricted

A fishing business generally requires 125 regional meshing shares to qualify for a meshing endorsement in the NSW Estuary General Fishery.

That endorsement allows the fisher to participate in the fishery, use the authorised gear and accept responsibility for complying with the rules.

However, the business must hold at least 250 regional meshing shares before the endorsed fisher may take one crew member.

This creates an obvious contradiction.

At 125 shares, the fisher is considered sufficiently authorised to operate alone. They can make every operational decision and carry the full legal responsibility for the fishing activity.

Yet the same fisher cannot take one person alongside them to assist and learn unless the business doubles its qualifying shareholding.

The crew member does not receive an independent endorsement. They cannot operate a second boat or establish a separate fishing operation. They must remain with the endorsed fisher and participate in the same activity.

The endorsement holder remains responsible for the gear, catch, reporting, supervision and compliance.

The additional shares do not improve accountability because accountability already rests with the endorsed fisher.

They do not create closer supervision because immediate supervision is already required.

They do not prevent a second operation because the crew member must remain in the same boat.

The rule does not control a new fishing entitlement.

It controls whether a smaller fishing business is allowed to employ and teach someone.

Fishing Effort Is Already Managed by Days Worked

The meshing fishery is not an unrestricted fishery.

Fishing effort is already managed through limits on the number of days a business may work. Meshing businesses receive an allocation of fishing days under the total allowable fishing effort system.

Once those days have been used, the business cannot continue fishing simply because another person is available to help.

The fishing days remain the same whether the endorsed fisher works alone or has one supervised crew member beside them.

The fishery is also governed by controls over gear, net construction, fishing methods, areas, seasons, operating times and how nets may be used.

These are direct controls on fishing activity.

They determine how often a business may operate, where it may work and what fishing equipment may be used.

The extra-share requirement sits on top of those existing controls.

It does not give the business more fishing days. It does not authorise another net. It does not permit another boat to fish at the same time. It does not allow the crew member to work independently.

The business remains limited by the same fishing-day allocation and the same gear rules.

The activity is already controlled.

The additional 125-share threshold is simply another layer of regulation.

That layer does not appear to produce a sustainability benefit, but it does produce consequences for employment, training, succession and seafood supply.

Why the Future of Locally Caught Seafood Needs New Entrants

Commercial fishing cannot continue without new people entering the industry.

The available workforce data already shows an ageing occupation. Jobs and Skills Australia reports a median age of 45 for Fishing Hands, compared with 40 across all occupations.

That figure does not capture every owner-operator, but it reflects a challenge visible throughout the industry.

Experienced fishers are getting older. Many carry decades of practical knowledge about local waterways, fish behaviour, changing weather, tides, safe operations, gear handling and seafood quality.

That experience is an asset.

The problem is not the age of the fishers. The problem is whether the system allows their knowledge to be transferred before they retire.

A new entrant does not become a capable commercial fisher by reading a management plan.

They must learn how a net behaves in changing conditions. They must understand tides, currents and fish movement. They must know how to handle catch properly, release non-target species and maintain seafood quality from the water to the market.

They must also develop judgement.

Judgement comes from working beside someone who already understands the fishery.

A new entrant observes how decisions are made, asks questions, assists with the work and gradually accepts more responsibility under supervision.

That is how practical knowledge passes from one generation to the next.

The meshing crew share requirement interrupts that process.

It ties the ability to teach someone to the capital size of the business rather than the experience of the fisher.

A fisher with 125 shares may have spent decades working a particular waterway. They may possess exactly the knowledge the next generation needs.

Yet they may still be prevented from taking a younger person onto the boat to learn.

Once that fisher retires, the knowledge may retire with them.

The First Step into Fishing Should Be Working Beside a Fisher

Most prospective entrants cannot begin by purchasing a boat, vehicle, nets, licences and hundreds of shares.

They need somewhere to start.

A crew position provides that first step.

It allows a younger family member, local worker or interested entrant to experience the industry before making a major financial commitment.

They can learn the work, understand the conditions and decide whether commercial fishing is a suitable long-term career.

The fishing business also benefits from that period of supervised experience.

An established fisher can determine whether the person is reliable, capable and willing to accept responsibility. They can teach safe practices and correct mistakes before those mistakes become established habits.

This is a gradual and practical pathway into the industry.

Learn first.

Build experience.

Accept more responsibility.

Then consider investing in a fishing business.

The existing rule reverses that pathway for many smaller operators. It effectively requires greater capital investment before a business is allowed to provide basic supervised experience.

That is not an entry pathway.

It is an entry barrier.

Smaller Businesses Should Be Allowed to Train People Too

The current requirement creates a structural advantage for larger fishing businesses.

A business holding 250 meshing shares may take a crew member.

A business holding 125 shares may be fully authorised to fish but still be expected to work alone.

This is scale bias.

The ability to employ and train another person is determined by the size of the business’s shareholding rather than by the fisher’s experience, the quality of supervision or the amount of fishing effort allocated to the business.

Larger businesses are permitted to create entry pathways.

Smaller businesses are not.

Over time, this can contribute to further concentration within the fishery. Smaller operators have fewer opportunities to train family members or prospective successors.

Older fishers may face the physical demands of working alone. When the operator retires, the business may disappear because nobody has been allowed to learn how it operates.

Allowing one supervised crew member would give smaller businesses a fairer opportunity to plan for succession.

It could also improve safety and reduce the physical burden associated with handling nets, operating the vessel and managing catch alone.

An older fisher could remain active while gradually transferring knowledge and responsibility to another person.

Instead of the business ending abruptly at retirement, there could be continuity.

The boat, skills, local knowledge and market relationships could pass to another generation.

Seafood Consumers Have a Direct Interest in This

This issue may appear to concern one section of one commercial fishery.

Its consequences travel much further.

Seafood is a vital part of a healthy diet. Australian dietary guidance recommends regular fish consumption because seafood provides high-quality protein and important nutrients.

But nutritional guidance does not put fish on the table.

Someone must possess the access, equipment and knowledge needed to catch it.

Commercial fishers provide access to seafood for Australians who cannot catch their own.

Most people do not own a fishing boat. Many live away from productive waterways. Others do not have the time, physical ability or specialised knowledge required to supply seafood for themselves and their families.

They rely on the commercial fishing industry.

When an experienced fisher retires without a successor, the public loses another part of its connection to locally caught seafood.

The immediate loss may seem small. It may be one fisher, one boat or one regional business.

Repeated across the coast, however, those losses reduce Australia’s capacity to supply its own seafood.

Local co-operatives receive less product. Fish shops and restaurants have fewer local options. Regional supply networks become less viable. Consumers become more dependent on seafood produced and processed overseas.

This is why succession is not merely an internal industry concern.

It is a food supply issue.

Food Security Requires People with Skills

Food security should not be measured only by whether seafood can be purchased somewhere on the international market.

It should be measured by domestic productive capacity.

That capacity includes boats, fishing access, processing, handling skills, local businesses, entry pathways and resilient supply networks.

People are central to every part of it.

A boat without a skilled fisher does not supply food.

A fishing entitlement without someone capable of using it responsibly does not supply food.

Healthy fish stocks without viable businesses and trained entrants do not automatically reach the public.

Protecting the future of locally caught seafood therefore requires more than managing the resource. It requires maintaining the human capacity needed to harvest and distribute that resource.

The meshing crew share requirement works against that objective.

It prevents some authorised businesses from bringing another person into the industry, even though their fishing days, gear and operating conditions are already controlled.

It restricts the development of the very workforce Australia will need to maintain its seafood supply in the years ahead.

Regulation Should Target the Actual Risk

The issue is not whether fishing should be regulated.

It should be, and it already is.

The issue is whether each restriction directly manages an identifiable risk and produces a benefit proportionate to its cost.

Fishing-day allocations directly manage effort.

Gear controls directly manage fishing equipment.

Area and seasonal restrictions directly manage where and when fishing occurs.

Supervision requirements directly establish accountability for crew.

The extra-share requirement does not directly control any of those activities.

Instead, it determines whether a fishing business has accumulated enough capital to employ one person.

If taking a crew member creates a measurable increase in fishing pressure, that pressure should be demonstrated and managed directly.

Catch and effort can be monitored. Gear limits can be enforced. Fishing-day allocations can remain unchanged. Area-specific controls can be applied where evidence shows they are needed.

Management should address the activity creating the risk.

It should not use share ownership as a substitute for evidence.

Existing Safeguards Can Remain

Removing the extra-share requirement would not mean removing accountability.

The existing safeguards could remain.

The endorsement holder could continue to be limited to one crew member. The crew member could remain in the same boat. Both people could continue to undertake the same fishing activity.

The endorsed fisher could remain responsible for supervision, catch possession, reporting and compliance.

The number of fishing days available to the business would not increase.

The authorised gear would not increase.

No new endorsement would be created.

No separate fishing operation would begin.

The change would simply allow an experienced fisher to take one supervised person on the days the business is already permitted to work.

The fishing effort would remain managed.

The knowledge would be allowed to pass on.

One Practical Change with Benefits for Everyone

Removing the meshing crew share requirement would support benefits across the industry and the wider community.

Experienced fishers would have more opportunity to pass on their knowledge.

New entrants would gain a realistic first step into commercial fishing.

Smaller businesses could employ and train people without first doubling their qualifying shareholding.

Older fishers could receive practical assistance while preparing someone to accept greater responsibility.

Regional communities could retain more local employment and fishing businesses.

Seafood co-operatives, retailers, restaurants and consumers would benefit from stronger continuity of local supply.

None of these outcomes requires more fishing days.

None requires another boat or additional gear.

It simply requires allowing one person to work beside an authorised fisher and learn.

Who Will Catch Your Seafood Tomorrow?

The meshing crew share requirement has never provided a clear benefit to fish stocks, the industry or the public.

The fishery is already managed through fishing-day allocations and detailed controls over gear, methods, seasons and operating conditions.

The extra-share threshold is another layer of regulation placed over an activity that is already controlled.

Its consequences are real.

It restricts employment, blocks knowledge transfer and weakens succession. Over time, that reduces the number of people capable of supplying locally caught seafood to the Australian public.

Government should therefore answer four questions.

What identifiable benefit has the additional 125-share threshold ever delivered?

What extra fishing entitlement is created when the crew member remains in the same boat and the number of fishing days does not change?

Why should the ability to train a new entrant depend on the capital size of a fishing business?

Who will supply Australians with locally caught seafood when experienced fishers retire without anyone ready to replace them?

The future of locally caught seafood depends on healthy fish stocks.

It also depends on people who know how to harvest them safely and responsibly.

Let the next generation onto the boat.