Australia has spent eight years negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union, one of the world’s largest and wealthiest markets. The agreement promises new export opportunities for Australian farmers, greater access for Australian businesses, cheaper imported machinery and equipment, and stronger economic ties with around 450 million European consumers. Yet the Nationals have declared their opposition to a deal that could deliver significant benefits to regional Australia.
Now, I understand why some agricultural organisations are unhappy. Beef producers argue that the quotas negotiated with Europe are too restrictive. They have a legitimate case for wanting better access, especially when European farmers continue to benefit from substantial government subsidies. The National Farmers’ Federation has also expressed serious concerns. But there is an enormous difference between arguing that an agreement could be better and deciding that Australia would be better off without it. Rejecting an opportunity because it doesn’t deliver everything you wanted can leave you with nothing at all.
Let’s look at what is actually on offer. Under the agreement, almost 94 per cent of the value of Australia’s agricultural exports to Europe would enter duty-free when it takes effect, rising to almost 95 per cent after full implementation. Tariffs would be eliminated on products including wine, seafood and nuts, while sheep meat producers would gain an additional 25,000 tonnes of duty-free access. Beef producers would receive 30,600 tonnes of additional preferential access, phased in over ten years, bringing Australia’s total guaranteed access to 35,000 tonnes annually. Not all that beef would be duty-free, and the industry had sought considerably more, but it represents a substantial improvement on existing arrangements.
There would also be opportunities for grain growers, dairy producers and horticultural businesses, while farmers could benefit from cheaper imported tractors and agricultural machinery. Across the broader economy, approximately 98 per cent of Australian goods exports would eventually enter Europe duty-free. These are not insignificant concessions.
Here in the New England and North West, where beef cattle production is a cornerstone of our regional economy, this debate matters enormously. From the grazing properties around Tamworth, Gunnedah and Quirindi to the cattle-producing districts of Armidale, Inverell and Glen Innes, the beef industry supports families, businesses and entire communities. I would never dismiss the concerns of local cattle producers who believe Australia should have secured greater access to the European market. But farming also supports transport operators, machinery dealers, rural suppliers, processors and thousands of regional jobs. We need to consider what rejecting the agreement would mean for the wider regional economy.
And the Nationals’ opposition is not universally shared across Australian agriculture. While cattle producers have concerns about the beef quotas, vegetable growers, seafood producers and wine exporters see significant opportunities. Even European farming organisations have objected to the agreement, concerned about increased competition from Australian producers. It is an interesting situation when agricultural groups on both sides argue that the other has secured the better deal. It also demonstrates the danger of treating the interests of one agricultural sector as though they represent the interests of every Australian farmer.
Then there is the increasingly curious politics of the Nationals’ opposition. Matt Canavan declared it the worst trade deal ever before parliamentary scrutiny had run its course. Even Barnaby Joyce, now with One Nation, has questioned why his former colleagues rushed to oppose the agreement before properly examining its details. Joyce has his own objections to the climate provisions, but acknowledged that the potential economic gains deserve consideration. When Barnaby Joyce is advising the Nationals not to rush to judgment, it is certainly worth paying attention.
Joyce’s climate objections also raise an important economic question. The European Union already operates a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, imposing carbon-related costs on imports of certain emissions-intensive products, including steel, aluminium and fertilisers. These rules exist independently of the free trade agreement and would continue to apply whether Australia ratifies it or not. The agreement’s separate climate commitments deserve scrutiny, but rejecting the deal would not exempt Australian exporters from European environmental regulations. Australia cannot simply dictate the trading conditions of a market of 450 million consumers.
Nor is the Nationals’ position universally shared by their Liberal colleagues. Liberal MP and former trade expert Zoe McKenzie has highlighted the agreement’s benefits for agricultural exporters, professional services and emerging industries. She has raised concerns about the climate and workplace provisions but argues that the agreement deserves careful examination. That is a different approach from declaring opposition before the parliamentary process has concluded.
And I cannot help wondering whether the Nationals would be taking quite the same position if they were still sitting around the cabinet table. After all, it was the Coalition government that began these negotiations in 2018. Would they be describing this as the worst trade agreement ever if it had been negotiated by a Coalition government? Or would we be hearing speeches about opening international markets, backing Australian farmers and securing the nation’s economic future? I don’t pretend to know the answer, but it is a fair question. The economic merits of a trade agreement should not change depending on which political party happens to occupy the Treasury benches.
There is another problem with the suggestion that Australia should simply go back and negotiate a better deal. According to reporting by Politico, European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill has made it clear that negotiations are finished. After eight years of bargaining, Europe is not offering Australia another round simply because some Australian politicians dislike the outcome. Those calling for renegotiation need to explain why they believe rejecting the agreement would produce concessions that Europe has already indicated it is unwilling to revisit.
And the benefits extend well beyond agriculture. One of the most overlooked opportunities is in critical minerals, where Australia has enormous resources and Europe is seeking to diversify its supply chains. The agreement would eliminate tariffs on Australian critical minerals and strengthen cooperation on mining, processing and investment. European investment and long-term purchasing agreements could help Australian projects secure finance and support more processing and manufacturing here at home. That means potential jobs, investment and economic opportunities extending well beyond the farm gate.
There is also a much bigger issue here. Australia’s experience with Chinese trade restrictions demonstrated how vulnerable exporters can become when they depend too heavily on particular overseas markets. More recently, American tariffs have reminded us that even longstanding allies can impose barriers to trade. Australia needs more options, not fewer. Strengthening our relationship with Europe offers an opportunity to diversify our markets at a time of increasing protectionism and international uncertainty.
Trade Minister Don Farrell has argued that his responsibility is to represent the national interest, not just one section of the economy. That is the difficult judgment governments must make. No trade agreement delivers everything every industry wants. Europe has its own powerful agricultural lobby, and negotiations inevitably involve compromise. The question is not whether this agreement is perfect. It plainly isn’t. The question is whether Australian farmers, businesses and workers would be better off with the additional opportunities it creates, or without them.
If the Nationals believe rejecting the agreement will produce a better outcome, they should explain precisely how. What further concessions do they realistically expect Europe to offer? What happens to the benefits negotiated for other agricultural industries? And how long should Australian exporters be expected to wait? Demanding a better deal is easy. Demonstrating that walking away from the existing agreement will deliver one is considerably harder.
The Nationals have every right to advocate for beef producers. Indeed, they should. But representing regional Australia means considering the interests of the entire regional economy, not just one sector. Australian farmers have demonstrated time and again that they can compete internationally when given a reasonable opportunity. They need access to markets, investment and the ability to grow their businesses, along with governments prepared to negotiate effectively on their behalf.
You cannot spend your political life demanding more opportunities for regional Australia and then threaten to block those opportunities when they arrive. Farmers deserve serious consideration of the economic benefits, genuine recognition of the shortcomings, and a credible explanation of what happens if Australia walks away.
Because the real cost of rejecting this agreement would not be measured simply in tonnes of beef. It would be measured in the opportunities Australian farmers, businesses and regional communities never get to pursue.
Denise McHugh is an experienced educator in Tamworth. She is Chair of the NSW ALP Education and Skills Committee and Deputy President of the Independent Education Union (IEU).
All opinion and comment on New England Times Engage is the opinion of the writer and not New England Times.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.