Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton both agree Australia should react to US President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime by continuing to seek a special deal. They just disagree about which of them could better handle the challenge of dealing with the rogue president.

Login or signup to continue reading

Dutton said after Trump's announcement, "the deal is there to be done", but insisted Albanese just isn't up to the task.

At Wednesday's briefing for the red meat industry, Trade Minister Don Farrell said, "Tomorrow might be the end of the first part of the process but we'll continue to engage with the Americans to get these tariffs removed, as we did with the Chinese."

But if there is indeed a deal to be done, at what cost would it come? The price could be higher than any specifics negotiated.

Australia should be careful of going down the route of supplicant - which, let's be blunt, is what this would involve.

It's long been clear we can't predict what Trump might do in his international relationships. His appalling bullying of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; his extraordinary treatment of Canada; his bizarre bid to grab Greenland from NATO ally Denmark - individually, each of these is shocking; collectively, they amount to nearly unimaginable behaviour from a US president.

The risk of trying to cosy up to the Trump administration in seeking exemptions from the 10 per cent general tariff is that, whatever the overt quid pro quo involved, Trump would then see Australia as owing him something if and when he needed it.

A deal could mean Australia would later feel somewhat constrained in calling out egregious Trump actions. Even if it didn't, the perception could be there.

It's obvious in retrospect - if it wasn't all along - that Australia was never going to escape whatever general tariff Trump imposed. At least we are at the bottom of the league table - we're among the countries minimally hit. As of course we should be, given the........

© The Examiner