By Hamish McIntyre, NFF President.

Australian farmers want a free trade agreement with the European Union. But it must be fair and balanced, with real gains for Australian agriculture at its core.

That’s the starting point – and it’s non-negotiable.

As the prime minister prepares to host European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Canberra next week, farmers across the nation are watching closely. This is the closest we’ve ever been to getting a deal done.

Farmers want that outcome. No one understands the value of free and fair trade better than a farmer.

But there is a clear expectation the government will deliver on what it has promised – and for very good reason. A one-sided agreement would not just be a missed opportunity. It would lock in decades of disadvantage for Australian farmers, particularly in critical export industries like red meat and dairy.

And the timing could not be worse.

Right now, global conditions are volatile with the conflict in the Middle East putting real pressure on the supply of critical farm inputs such as fuel and fertiliser. Supply is uncertain, and costs are ballooning at rates we’ve never seen before.

If Australia signs a deal that falls short, it sets a precedent and weakens our credibility to argue for open markets in global forums.

Farmers are already making hard calls about whether to scale back planting this season because the risks are stacking up or they simply don’t have the fuel to get the tractor moving.

At the same time, global trade settings are becoming more protectionist and the European Union has shown its hand.

To secure its deal with Mercosur nations, the EU fast-tracked nearly $80 billion in farm subsidies while offering only limited agricultural access in return. That is not a level playing field, and it sent alarm bells in Australian agriculture.

Not only are Australian farmers price takers, and will need to absorb the steep price increases for fuel and fertiliser, but they are among the least subsidised in the world.

The risk for Australia is clear – limited access into the EU market, while European producers are further shielded by billion-dollar, production-distorting subsidies.

That’s a double blow Australian farmers simply cannot absorb, and the impacts would flow through our economy.

The federal government has been clear that the deal hinges on delivering materially better outcomes for Australian agriculture. We agree, and we call on the prime minister to stand strong by those principles.

This is also a real test of the government’s claim it can negotiate strong outcomes for Australia. Farmers have been clear on what a fair deal looks like, including commercially meaningful access for red meat producers.

For beef, it is entirely reasonable Australia secures at least 50,000 tonnes of carcase weight, in line with what the EU has offered our competitors. For lamb, a genuine trade-enhancing agreement must address the current imbalance by securing at least 67,000 tonnes. These are fair asks and are the baseline for a fair deal.

Because this is about more than one agreement. If Australia signs a deal that falls short, it sets a precedent and weakens our credibility to argue for open markets in global forums.

That’s not leadership. And it’s not in the national interest.

Australian farmers can compete with anyone in the world, but we cannot compete against a system where our competitors are backed by the full weight of government subsidies while we are locked out of meaningful market access.

The prime minister has a choice: secure a deal that delivers real commercial value for Australian agriculture, or walk away.

No deal is better than a bad deal.

And at a time like this, with global uncertainty rising and pressure building on farm businesses at home, that’s not a negotiating tactic – it’s common sense.

Originally published on the Australian Financial Review.