Why Seafood Misses the Election Spotlight in Australia

Australian fishing trawler at sunrise with headline about ignored fisheries.

Australia, an island continent surrounded by vast oceans, has a deep cultural love for seafood. 

From backyard barbecues featuring prawns to fine dining with barramundi, the nation consumes around 25 kilograms of seafood per person annually, well above the global average. Yet, when elections roll around, fisheries policy barely registers. Major parties rarely highlight it, and voters seem indifferent despite the industry's sharp decline since the 1990s. This oversight stems from the fisheries portfolio's minor status in government, the sector's shrinking economic role, reliance on imports, a fragmented voter base more focused on recreational fishing than commercial struggles, and restrictive regulations like recreational-only areas, net-free zones, and locational closures that further limit commercial fishing. The result is a once-vibrant fleet that has been significantly reduced, with little electoral impact.

The Decline of Australia's Fishing Fleet

Since the 1990s, Australia's commercial fishing industry has faced a dramatic reduction, driven primarily by political decisions rather than scientific necessity. In New South Wales, commercial fishing licences have plummeted by over 60% since 1990, even as population and seafood demand grew. Nationally, wild-catch production has dropped by 31% over the past decade. The east coast longline fleet, for instance, shrank from around 150 vessels in the early 2000s to just 30 by the mid-2010s. While environmental concerns and overfishing have been cited, many argue the culling of the fleet stems from politically motivated policies, such as government buyback schemes and restrictive regulations, rather than robust scientific evidence. For example, the collapse of fisheries like orange roughy was used to justify broad cuts, yet critics contend that targeted management could have preserved more jobs and vessels. The majority of fishers have been removed through licence revocations and consolidations, driven by political priorities that favour urban and environmental agendas over coastal livelihoods. These measures have decimated the industry without significant public pushback, leaving commercial fishing a shadow of its former self.

A Minor Portfolio in a Big Department

Fisheries' low profile in elections is partly due to its place in government. Unlike standalone ministries in some countries, Australia's fisheries oversight is tucked into the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, where it is overshadowed by agriculture and forestry. This setup, rooted in historical arrangements, dilutes focus on fishing. Management is handled by a dedicated authority, but decisions are filtered through broader agricultural priorities.

In elections, this means fisheries rarely gets attention. Major parties mention vague plans to support fisheries, like emphasising sustainability and growth, but these are minor points in platforms dominated by cost-of-living, housing, and climate issues. Even when fisheries issues arise, such as debates over supertrawlers or marine reserves, they are framed as environmental or regional concerns, not national priorities. Recreational fishing occasionally sparks voter interest, as seen in Western Australia's 2025 election promises on catch reporting or Tasmania's salmon farming controversies, but commercial fisheries remain largely ignored.

A Small Economic Footprint

Economically, fisheries contribute little, explaining their electoral irrelevance. The sector's gross value of production is around $3.56 billion, with Commonwealth fisheries making up just $412 million. This is dwarfed by agriculture's $80 billion plus or mining's hundreds of billions. Employment is also modest: charter fishing supports about 325 jobs in Queensland, and the broader industry employs far fewer than retail or manufacturing.

With such a small economic role, fisheries lacks the lobbying power or voter mobilisation of larger sectors. Coastal communities feel the impact of declining fleets, but these areas are electoral minnows in urban-dominated politics.

Imports Mask the Decline

Australia's love for seafood continues despite the fleet's decline, thanks to imports. About 62 to 65% of edible seafood consumed is imported, mainly from Asia and New Zealand, totalling $2.1 billion from 97 countries in 2019 to 2020. Domestic production meets only a third of demand, yet shelves stay stocked with affordable prawns, salmon, and tuna. This ensures voters do not feel the industry's decline, as prices remain low and supply steady.

Critics argue imports hurt local producers by pressuring domestic markets. No party has prioritised curbing uncooked seafood imports in recent elections, and environmental groups' calls for stricter import rules to ensure sustainability have gained little traction without voter support.

Restrictive Regulations Sidelining Commercial Fishing

Adding to the commercial fishing industry's woes are region-specific regulations that prioritise recreational fishing and environmental protection over commercial operations.

• In New South Wales, recreational-only areas, such as parts of the Solitary Islands Marine Park, restrict commercial fishing to protect biodiversity while allowing activities like recreational angling, swimming, and diving. These zones, detailed in the park's zoning map and user guide, limit where commercial fishers can operate, further reducing their access to viable fishing grounds.

• In Queensland, net-free zones in Cairns, Mackay, and Rockhampton, introduced to enhance recreational fishing and tourism, prohibit all commercial mesh and seine netting. While recreational fishers can use certain nets under strict conditions, these zones effectively exclude commercial operations, shrinking the viable fishing area.

• In Victoria, locational closures in Corio Bay and parts of Port Phillip Bay impose significant restrictions on commercial fishing to protect sensitive habitats and support recreational activities. For example, Corio Bay has seasonal and spatial closures to preserve seagrass beds and fish spawning grounds, while Port Phillip Bay includes no-take zones and restrictions on commercial netting to prioritise recreational fishing and environmental conservation.

These regulations, while framed as environmental or recreational wins, exacerbate the commercial sector's decline by limiting operational space, often without strong voter backlash due to the prioritisation of recreational interests.

A Young Fisher Speaks Out

The human cost of these restrictions is best captured by the words of 26-year-old Sienna Green, a commercial fisher from Burdekin, Queensland. Speaking at a parliamentary barramundi barbecue in Canberra, she delivered a plea against the gillnet ban:

“I have the right to choose what profession I wish to work in and my future… Why does the State and Federal Governments and UNESCO have the right to take that right away from me and the other young fishers in the industry?”(Courier Mail, 2025)

Green’s story highlights the generational toll of these policies. With barramundi gillnet licences already cut from 90 to just 23, she and her father stand among the few left still fighting for their livelihoods. Her voice represents the many younger Australians who want to stay in the fishing industry but face policies that steadily close off opportunity.

Political and Social Factors

Fisheries' electoral invisibility also reflects demographics and framing. Commercial fishers are a small, scattered group, unlike farmers with strong rural lobbies. Issues are often framed as environmental versus jobs disputes, alienating urban voters. Recreational fishing draws more attention, influencing policies in swing seats, while climate impacts on fish stocks are buried in broader environmental debates.

In the 2025 federal election, related issues like Indigenous rights and marine parks surfaced, but fisheries remained peripheral. Governance prioritises sustainability over expansion, sidelining growth-oriented voices.

A Need for Change?

Australia's fisheries decline shows how policy success in sustainability can lead to political neglect. Imports prop up consumption, so the domestic industry's struggles do not sway voters. However, as climate change intensifies and global stocks falter, this oversight could have consequences. Elevating fisheries, perhaps through a dedicated portfolio or voter education, could bring it into focus.

One way to make a difference is by joining Seafood Society Australia, where membership costs just $10 a year. This grassroots organisation empowers consumers to advocate for local seafood and support fishers, helping to put Australian seafood back on our plates. Visit www.seafoodsocietyaustralia.com to join and give consumers a voice in shaping the future of our fisheries.

For now, seafood remains off the election menu, but collective action could change that. As Sienna Green told the Courier Mail from Canberra:

“I have the right to choose what profession I wish to work in and my future… Why does the State and Federal Governments and UNESCO have the right to take that right away from me and the other young fishers in the industry?”

Her words capture the urgency. This is not just about fish or quotas — it’s about whether young Australians like Sienna will still have a future on the water.