Simon Birmingham speaks to ABC Radio National on the Australia-EU Trade Deal and benefits for the economy

E&OE
Radio Interview
ABC Radio National Hour
24 March 2026.

Topics: Australia-EU free trade deal

Fran Kelly (Host): Total two-way trade between Australia and the EU was worth nearly $110 billion in the last financial year, and this Free Trade Agreement is expected to be worth an extra 10 billion in the first year alone. But farmers are in an uproar, describing the deal as a wasted opportunity that doesn’t deliver meaningful access to the European market. In a statement, Cattle Australia said the government had bulldozed the red meat industry, adding “we have been misled by an apparently disingenuous trade negotiation – amateurs playing a game with professionals.”

But agriculture is just one part of the picture and of the pie. In 2024, our services accounted for more than 50% of total Australian exports to the EU, representing a bigger and a faster-growing share of two-way trade than any other sector. Jane Drake-Brockman is the director of the Australian Services Roundtable. She’s a former trade negotiator with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and a former chargé d’affaires at the Australian delegation to the European Union in Brussels. And Simon Birmingham joins us. Simon was Australia’s trade minister in the very early days of negotiating this Free Trade Agreement with the EU way back in 2018, and these days, Simon Birmingham is the CEO of the Australian Banking Association. Jane, Simon, welcome to the Radio National Hour.

Jane Drake-Brockman: Hello, Fran.

Simon Birmingham: Good afternoon, Fran.

Fran Kelly: Simon Birmingham let’s start with you, because you had a seat at the negotiating table during the most recent iteration. Just how challenging are these sorts of deals, how are these sorts of talks?

Simon Birmingham: All trade negotiations are challenging, and particularly when you get to the crunch point. It was evident all along that it would be a difficult negotiation with the EU when it came to agriculture. Just after we had launched the negotiations between Australia and the EU, the European Union concluded a near 20-year process with the Mercosur group of countries, a South American grouping. And that agreement, which indeed was more generous in relation to beef meat in particular, has not actually entered into force with the EU despite being concluded in 2019, because the resistance to what was given away and negotiated by the EU was so great. So we can see just how tense and difficult it can be, and that’s why you’ve got to try to find a pragmatic outcome that can yield as much benefit as possible, but acknowledge that everybody has domestic political sensitivities, that means it’s not always possible to get everything you want.

Fran Kelly: And Jane, I mentioned that Simon was one of the early trade ministers around the table during these talks when they kicked off in 2018, but we all know ministers start talking after officials have been breaking their backs a long time before that, and I think you’ve been there. You were there pretty much from the beginning of it all. When did these negotiations really begin? And why has it taken so long? Has it been a 20-year journey like it was for those others?

Jane Drake-Brockman: It’s been even longer, Fran. I mean, if you think – I think Simon took over at 2018ish I think. In the year before, 2017, we concluded what we called a framework agreement with the EU. One way or another, it took 20 years to get that, so 10 years to get the FTA… it’s not bad by comparison. But you could take it all the way back to ’98 when we first pulled out – Australia first pulled out of the first attempt to come up with a treaty-based statement to put some structure around bilateral relations. Similar, kind of timing, bit sooner 1994, we did negotiate our wine agreement. That’s when we gave up the word “Sherry” and the word “Champagne.” So, we’ve been on the agricultural side of this for a very long time, too, and that goes back to then, to 1994. So I would say, for various different reasons, generally with agricultural differences at the heart of it – but not only – it has been a long and difficult slog.

Fran Kelly: I think that’s fair to say. And Simon, Jane’s memory is much better than mine, but my memory is that the stumbling block for pretty much most of this time is the same as it was this week: tariffs on beef and other meat and farm exports, as well as those fights over labelling products like now Prosecco and Parmesan. Have these issues actually been resolved, or just massaged through? Not fully resolved; too pragmatic, according to the cattle producers, just to get a signature on the dotted line?

Simon Birmingham: Well Fran, the issues have been resolved in the sense that there is now text, there is now agreement, but nobody has everything they wanted from it, and that’s very clear. But that’s not unusual at the end of a trade agreement. I took the step as minister to start the consultations in a public framework sense around geographical indications, knowing at the time that would be very difficult with parts of Australian industry. But I think indeed on that, pragmatic solutions have largely been found for terms like Prosecco and finding a way…

Fran Kelly:  Well sort of… I mean, we sort of lost the fight on Prosecco, though. We did throw in the towel, didn’t we? We won’t be allowed to export wine under the label Prosecco; that phases out over 10 years. It’s a loss, isn’t it? Well, Simon, you finish, and then Jane.

Simon Birmingham: Well, I was going to say the bulk of Prosecco is consumed in Australia, and the name can continue to be used here. It’s a long time to be able to work through alternative frameworks, which Australia has done successfully in the wine industry. For others, it is as pragmatic a landing point to be able to deal with the bulk of the industry’s interests, while respecting that sensitivity of the Europeans where those names attached to a geographic region of Europe are used overseas.

Jane Drake-Brockman: Well, this was an issue that I was extremely uncomfortable with throughout the negotiations. It’s an intellectual property issue, ultimately, but I take my hat off to Don Farrell. I think he got there, he got a compromise.

Fran Kelly: Jane, I do want to talk to you about what this means for services, because I think there’s some very significant news there for Australian services exports. But I want to ask you first about this fierce reaction we’ve had from the cattle producers and the farmers. They are ropeable. They’ve described the deal as appalling for agriculture, and just to repeat that quote I said at the beginning: “we’ve been misled by an apparently disingenuous trade negotiation. Amateurs playing a game with professionals.” Have we been outfoxed? Did we throw in the towel and throw our cattle producers to the wolves?

Jane Drake-Brockman: No, no, we did not. It’s true that the EU negotiators are tough and strong, and they are big – a big market – and we’re a little player, and we have been absolutely as firm as they have been. I think our negotiators have done a fantastic job, but at the end of the day, there is an equation to be made and a big picture that needs to be seen. You can’t go on and on and on saying no to things that become increasingly a lesser share of the overall benefit. And so the simple fact is that a degree of protectionism in the EU is a reality. It’s not one we can change, and when we do change it, we will need multilateral support in the WTO. There are things you just can’t do bilaterally, especially at the subsidy level. So, I would say our negotiators did pretty well. They got outcomes. The quotas aren’t zero. I think it’s a good deal all round on agriculture.

Fran Kelly: For everyone listening, we should just remind everyone the size of this market access. It’s 450 million people across the EU bloc. But Simon Birmingham, as I say, you’ve been there, you’ve been the one to say no at times. ‘Amateurs’ is how the cattle producers have labelled it, and they’re describing Trade Minister Don Farrell. Cattle Australia says this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to balance trade with the EU and it’s been thrown away because our minister rolled over. Is that fair?

Simon Birmingham: No, I think those criticisms are unfair. I think this has been a very long process. There are the examples which indeed cattle producers may hold up – that South American deal that I highlighted earlier with a larger quota – but the reality is, getting that implemented has then proved to be next to impossible for the Europeans. And so, getting an outcome that also recogniz=ses the bigger picture… you’ve touched on the services industry, there is the investment flow, there are the other sectors that benefit. But then there is also the reality that at this point in time in the world, Australia and a partner like the EU also need to be diversifying our supply chains and finding opportunities to deepen areas of cooperation. With all of the disruption that is happening, this is an important time for this type of agreement making. And yes, we all wish for more. I’m a puritan who would love to see tariffs and quotas eliminated completely…

Fran Kelly: Oh, you mean free trade!

Simon Birmingham: That’s right. But ultimately you can say no for a long time and get nowhere, or get to the point where you think it’s the best deal you’re going to get. And when you’ve got that best deal possible, it’s the time you need to be able to strike it and move to realise those benefits, and hope that you can then down the track use review and other mechanisms to try to leverage additional opportunities.

Fran Kelly: Yeah, we should say the beef producers do get more access to the EU market under this agreement. I think there’s something like, at the end of this 10-year period phased in, an eight-fold increase in existing quotas. You’re listening to the Radio National Hour. My guests are Jane Drake-Brockman, a former DFAT trade negotiator, and former Trade Minister Simon Birmingham. Both of you are involved and engaged in the services sector now. Jane, when we’re talking services, what does that mean? What sort of services, and what has been won in this trade deal?

Jane Drake-Brockman: Well, the services sector is 88% of our GDP, 88% of value-add. So ‘what isn’t services?’ is almost the better question. It’s everything from telecoms to tourism, to education, to professional services, to R&D, to transport, ICT, computer services, audio-visual… it’s a lot. And the important thing is that very strong growth that’s going on in what we call knowledge-intensive business services. They’re the services that other businesses buy in global supply chains. They are the services inputs into all the merchandise sectors. And that is, increasingly, where the value is, where the employment is, where the innovation is – and for me, that is the big growth sector. So, Simon’s obviously in financial services, which is absolutely one of those big sectors, but professional services as well is one I’d highlight, because this is an extraordinary deal we have.

Fran Kelly: Tell me about that. Tell me about – what do you mean when you say professional services, and what’s this ‘extraordinary deal’ that you see?

Jane Drake-Brockman: Well, so lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects. I would say that this is the sector that is most heavily protected of all sectors in the economy. It is extremely difficult for a professional to work in another market because you’ve got to be qualified, accredited, recognised, and then given a visa. That is changing – we’re going online – but the fact is that for both Australia and the EU, we would like to do something about freeing this up.

Fran Kelly: Does this trade deal do that?

Jane Drake-Brockman: Yes it does, yes it does. So now, as of the new system, when an Australian professional’s qualifications or accreditation is accepted in one of the EU 27, then for the first time ever – and we are the first trading partner to get this deal – that individual will be able to enter all 27. They do not have a single market in services in the EU; it’s highly fragmented, like in the States or here in Australia. So this is a big gain. Get into one market, you’re in them all. You still have to meet domestic requirements, but once you’re there, you’re there. There’s also a lot of attempt to allow greater flexibility on the regulatory front for project-based, short-term work, so that professionals can go for a year to three years to get a particular project done. So it’s definitely freeing up the people movement, the ability to open an office. If you’re building a railway in Milan, or you’re building a stadium in London, it’s easier. It’s all going to be easier. And it is a big shift, because it is the unrecognised sector that never gets anything in a trade deal, and it’s done very well. This is a very grand outcome, in my opinion.

Fran Kelly: Jane Drake-Brockman is the director of the Australian Services Roundtable – which I guess you can pick up there. She’s also a former long-time trade negotiator with DFAT. Simon Birmingham is a former trade minister and is currently the CEO of the Australian Banking Association, but he has been around that negotiating table with the EU’s heavy-duty negotiators in the early stages of this trade pact. Simon, you’re also a long-term trade minister for Australia, and Shadow Foreign Minister. Ursula von der Leyen’s message to the parliament today couldn’t have been clearer: “We want more free trade, not less, and we’re committed to a rules-based order.” How much of an impact has Donald Trump’s trade war had on bringing this agreement to a conclusion? Has it sharpened minds?

Simon Birmingham: I think the changed global environment – of which the US is part, China is also part – has definitely sharpened minds and focused on the need for like-minded partners such as Australia and the European Union to draw closer together, and therefore to get deals like this done. To enable that flow of people in the services industry to happen, to ensure a flow of investment that both our economies need is opened up and is strengthened. Australia needs that foreign investment from Europe, but there are big opportunities for Australian super funds and other investors to now more easily access European markets. And all of that is crucial. And yes, in a world of disruption where Australia has been on the receiving end of China seeking to weaponise trade – and we’re not the only country to have seen that and to have seen breaches in our FTA undertakings – while it’s good to see the stabilisation that has occurred, that stands as a warning of how great powers will weaponize those things. Just as Donald Trump’s weaponisation of trade and tariffs in breach of various undertakings, including to Australia, also is a demonstration that those great powers will use market power and force in ways that we may not always be able to control or use agreements to push back upon. But for others who are middle powers and who believe in a rules-based system, to strengthen it… well, we can best strengthen it by doing just as occurred today, that is reaching agreement where we can, opening up our economies to each other, diversifying our supply chains and our investment sources. That will make us all that bit stronger, that bit more resilient for the future.

Fran Kelly: And we’re going to run out of time here shortly. But this wasn’t just a Free Trade Agreement announced today. We’ve also signed an EU-Australia Security and Defence Partnership. Simon Birmingham, to you first: is this the new middle-power alliance that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was talking about when he addressed the Australian Parliament earlier this month? He said middle-power nations like Canada and Australia can no longer rely on superpower protection – he was talking economic and defence domination.

Simon Birmingham: This is a demonstration of middle powers, of like-minded liberal democracies and market economies, coming together and working together for their economic and security interests. It is not to the exclusion of major powers. Australia’s economic partnerships with China and the United States remain essential – our largest trading partner and largest investment partner, respectively China and the US. And of course, our security relationship with the US remains the pillar of our security framework, but diversifying and strengthening all of those things only makes us more resilient as a country.

Fran Kelly: And Jane, yes our security relationship with the US is a major pillar, but that pillar is looking a little shaky, if you’re looking at it, say, from NATO’s eyes, for instance. So the fact that we’ve signed this EU-Australia Security and Defence Partnership, which is beyond the usual focus of trade and investment… is that a surprise? What does that signal to you?

Jane Drake-Brockman: Well, I wouldn’t agree with you that the symbolism was more important than the substance. So, I want to make that quite clear. I think there is real, commercially meaningful substance in this FTA, especially when we look also at the digital economy. But it’s completely true that President Trump has turned the world of global trade policy upside down and inside out, and no one has known quite where they stood. And what this deal does is it shows that Australia and the EU can work together on the critical future issues around digital trade, cross-border data flows, the things that are going to drive the future. Those are the issues that the two trade ministers will get on the plane now to Yaoundé in Cameroon to talk about. And if we’re lucky, if we’re lucky, they themselves will be bringing in collaboration to that meeting more momentum to help bring the US back a little bit into the fold. They have fundamental interests in the digital economy, trade issues this FTA does deal with.

Fran Kelly: Jane Drake-Brockman, Simon Birmingham, thank you both very much for joining us.

Ends