Federal Budget Virtual Seminar: expert insights on spending, tax reform and policy impacts. Register now.
While the policy direction is clear, the challenge is that trade settings shaping day-to-day investment decisions are not always aligned with the rules, standards, and enforcement practices of key trading partners – and for businesses weighing a major capital commitment, that misalignment increases risk and can be the difference between building in Australia or building elsewhere. A stronger manufacturing sector supports economic diversification, supply chain resilience, and regional job creation – outcomes that extend well beyond any single industry.
Investment decisions in manufacturing are long-dated commitments. A business deploying significant capital into domestic production must remain commercially viable across a 10-to-15-year period. When the trade environment is inconsistent, with varying tariff schedules, divergent standards, and uneven enforcement, investors cannot reliably model future cost structures. That uncertainty becomes a cost, weakening the case for building locally.
The issue is not simply one of cost – it is one of clarity. When one section of government funds domestic capability while another’s trade settings make imported alternatives structurally cheaper, the commercial logic of onshore investment is undermined. Businesses read policy environments as much as they read balance sheets, and mixed signals produce cautious decisions.
Australia holds active free trade agreements (FTA) with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, India, and is a signatory to various Bi-Lateral Free Trade Agreements. Additionally, an agreement with the European Union has been concluded and is pending entry into force most likely in the next 18 months to two years. On paper, this represents preferential access to a substantial portion of global trade.
In practice, the value of a network is not always realisable. Each agreement operates under its own rules of origin, standards requirements, and documentation procedures. For mid-market businesses without dedicated trade compliance teams, navigating multiple frameworks is resource intensive, meaning many eligible businesses do not fully utilise available tariff preferences.
There is a meaningful opportunity to harmonise standards and simplify rules across key agreements. Where Australian-made products are accepted in major export markets without additional certification burdens, the practical value of market access improves substantially. Consistent enforcement and shared standards frameworks would make the FTA network a more effective tool for manufacturers, and a stronger signal to investors that goods produced in Australia can reach global markets efficiently.
The global trade environment has shifted materially in recent years. Supply chain disruptions, geopolitical realignments, and sweeping new tariff measures have made the cost of over-reliance on offshore production more visible. Australia’s major trading partners are responding with deliberate policy action: significant government investment in domestic industrial capability has become a defining feature of economic policy in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. These measures are not simply protecting existing industry; they are actively competing for the manufacturing investment that Australia is also seeking to attract. Policy incoherence, in this context, is a competitive disadvantage.
The case for a stronger manufacturing sector extends well beyond the sector itself. An expanded industrial base supports economic diversification, reducing Australia’s dependence on commodity exports. Supply chain resilience depends on the ability to produce critical goods domestically when international sources become unavailable or unreliable, as recent global disruptions demonstrated.
Two active policy processes are shaping the cost environment for domestic producers in ways that require integration into the broader trade framework. The first concerns sunrise tariffs, time-limited import duties designed to shelter growing industries during their establishment phase. These are currently under assessment by the Anti-Dumping Commission, which is examining whether such instruments can be applied consistently with Australia’s international trade obligations. The outcome will have direct implications for manufacturers in sectors targeted for sovereign capability development.
The second concerns carbon leakage. A recently completed government review has recommended carbon tariffs on goods imported from jurisdictions without equivalent carbon pricing. The aim is to prevent Australian manufacturers, who bear domestic carbon costs, from being undercut by imports produced under less stringent emissions frameworks. If adopted, this would align Australia with border adjustment measures being implemented by the European Union and would materially affect investment decisions in steel, aluminium, cement, clinker, hydrogen, lime, ammonia and derivatives and glass.
The cohort most responsive to trade policy signals is the mid-market. Manufacturers with the capacity to scale, a defined product offering, and genuine investment readiness represent what industry analysts describe as the missing middle.
Mid-market manufacturers are typically more agile than large corporates, closer to their regional communities, and more likely to reinvest domestically – but also highly sensitive to the risk environment. A credible improvement in trade policy settings, one that reduces the cost and uncertainty of domestic production relative to importing, can shift investment decisions that are otherwise held in suspension. Building a more populated middle tier of Australian manufacturers would strengthen the industrial ecosystem on which larger-scale capability depends.
The decisions made about Australia’s trade settings are, in effect, decisions about the shape of the national economy. Manufacturing growth drives productivity, supports knowledge spillovers, improves export complexity, and anchors employment where it is often needed most.
Australia has the foundational conditions to be genuinely competitive in advanced manufacturing: stable institutions, strong rule of law, proximity to major Asian markets, and a significant resource endowment. Activating those conditions requires a trade policy environment that is coherent, predictable, and aligned with the country’s industrial ambitions.
With the Federal Budget approaching, greater alignment between trade policy and manufacturing objectives could play an important role in shaping investment confidence. Continued efforts to simplify free trade agreement rules, improve consistency across customs and tax frameworks, and provide clarity on emerging measures such as carbon border adjustments would help reduce uncertainty. When investors – domestic and international – can see that Australia’s trade settings work in the same direction as its sovereign capability agenda, the case for committing capital to local manufacturing becomes materially stronger. Alignment is not a guarantee of investment, but misalignment can often be a reason to look elsewhere. Getting the settings right is, ultimately, how Australia builds the road to the ambition it has already declared.
PepsiCo embedded royalties, ATO Decision Impact Statement, embedded royalties Australia, royalty withholding tax, diverted profits tax, intellectual property payments, IP arrangements Australia, multinational tax Australia, ATO royalties guidance
Geopolitical shocks are reshaping supply chains – what this means for tax, trade, GST and Incoterms control.
What Australia’s Carbon Leakage Review means for trade, imports and business costs
