Trading Places: How Indigenous Geographies Could Redefine Australia’s Global Identity
Reopening Free Trade Agreement (FTA) talks between Australia and the European Union (EU) is worth serious reconsideration—especially if Australia is willing to revisit its stance on Geographical Indicators (GIs). The deadlock over GIs, while significant, shouldn’t be viewed as insurmountable. Instead, it could be reframed as an opportunity—not only to unlock substantial trade benefits with one of the world’s largest markets, but also to carve a distinctive path that aligns with Australia’s evolving national identity and priorities, including reconciliation with Indigenous communities.
Why Reopen FTA Talks with the EU?
The EU remains one of Australia’s most important economic partners. A comprehensive trade deal would open new avenues for exports, enhance services and digital trade, and facilitate investment flows. For sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, and clean energy, the EU’s market represents a premium destination with high standards and purchasing power.
The previous breakdown in negotiations—primarily due to disagreement over the EU's insistence on protecting traditional European food and drink names such as "feta", "prosecco", and "parmesan"—was not about tariffs or quotas, but about cultural and branding identity. For Australia, which has long taken a more generic approach to food naming, GIs were seen as a step too far.
But what if, instead of resisting the concept, Australia embraced it on its own terms?
A New Approach to GIs: Indigenous Place-Based Branding
Rather than viewing GIs as a threat, Australia could see them as a creative branding opportunity—particularly if we start applying them to our own unique, culturally significant regions. There is a growing recognition of the importance of Indigenous knowledge systems, land stewardship, and place-based identity in Australian food, wine, and cultural industries.
Imagine a future where premium products are branded not just as “South Australian Shiraz” but perhaps as “Barngarla Country Shiraz,” or where unique bushfoods are marketed under names that reflect their Indigenous regions of origin—Quandong from Arrernte Country, for instance. This would elevate Australia’s profile globally while also respecting and embedding Indigenous place names into national and international consciousness.
By linking high-quality Australian products to Indigenous geographies—with proper consultation, consent, and economic participation—it could not only strengthen Australia’s trade posture but also foster economic development and cultural recognition for First Nations communities.
Strategic Advantages
1. Unlocking a Deal: Agreeing to a negotiated GI framework would significantly increase the chances of sealing the FTA with the EU. This could be a strategic lever for wider gains in other sectors.
2. Value-Added Branding: Embracing GIs can help differentiate Australian goods in crowded global markets. European consumers, in particular, value authenticity, heritage, and provenance—factors that GIs explicitly communicate.
3. Reconciliation in Action: Indigenous-led GIs could be a world-first, blending trade with truth-telling and empowerment. It would be a form of economic justice, recognising the deep ties between people and Country.
4. Soft Power & Diplomacy: A creative and respectful approach to GIs would enhance Australia’s reputation abroad, showcasing it as a nation willing to evolve, listen, and lead.
But First—Some Challenges to Overcome
To realise this vision, Australia must first navigate some key legal and policy gaps:
1. Outdated Legal Frameworks: Most existing GI systems are built around Western legal concepts of individual or corporate ownership—not collective, inter-generational, or customary ownership typical of Indigenous knowledge systems.
2. Governance Gaps: Mechanisms for Indigenous control, consent, and benefit-sharing within GI systems are underdeveloped. Without shared authority, these schemes risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
3. Customary Law & Recognition: Australia's current IP and trade laws rarely recognise customary law or traditional territorial boundaries. For Indigenous GIs to be meaningful, traditional governance and law must be acknowledged within any legal framework.
4. Learning from Other Jurisdictions:
New Zealand / Aotearoa
The NZ-EU FTA includes specific provisions for Māori GIs—an important milestone acknowledging cultural and collective rights in trade instruments.
Canada
While not yet fully realised, Canada has included Indigenous economic rights and benefit-sharing clauses in recent trade negotiations and treaties.
Peru
Recognised Indigenous GIs like “Maca Junín-Pasco” and “Chulucanas” pottery have shown that traditional knowledge and modern trade frameworks can coexist—and thrive.
The Way Forward
To make this work, Australia would need:
· A national consultation process involving Indigenous communities, producers, and legal experts on intellectual property.
· A domestic framework for Indigenous GIs that ensures benefits flow back to traditional owners.
· Negotiation with the EU that allows for a mutually respectful coexistence of traditional European GIs and emerging Australian ones.