hion and textile manufacturing happens offshore, leaving local brands exposed to global shocks and cutting retailers off from the factories that power their ranges. AFC General Manager Sam Delgos described this as a sovereign capability risk, citing categories like defence uniforms that must be made here, alongside the pandemic and recent trade disruptions that made vulnerabilities impossible to ignore. “We grow some of the world’s highest quality wool and cotton, but we export it as raw fibre and import it back as finished product, or sometimes as yarns, often at multiples of the price of our exports,” Delgos told Inside Retail. “That represents the missing middle from our Australian supply chain and a critical value leak.” For retailers, that leak shows up as limited onshore options, long lead times and less control over quality and traceability. It also means the ‘Australian-made’ story that consumers and international buyers respond to is harder to substantiate when most of the value-added work takes place offshore. A first-of-its-kind national roadmap Launched at Parliament House in Canberra, the National Manufacturing Strategy for Australian Fashion and Textiles 2026-2036 is the first industry‑backed roadmap for rebuilding targeted domestic manufacturing capability across the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) sector. It is the result of nearly a year of consultation led by the AFC and R.M.Williams, including 14 national roundtables with manufacturers, brands, educators and policymakers, more than 300 contributors, and over 1000 proposed initiatives. Independent RMIT University modelling commissioned for the NMS estimates that, if implemented in full, the plan can lift textile, clothing and footwear manufacturing value added from $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion within five years, delivering a cumulative $1.4 billion economic dividend and more than 1000 new skilled jobs. AFC Executive Chair Marianne Perkovic framed that as both an economic and a cultural opportunity. “Closing that loop is, commercially, a $1.4 billion opportunity over five years,” she told Inside Retail. “Culturally, it means a young person in a regional wool‑growing community can see a career pathway that connects the land their family works to a finished garment worn somewhere in the world.” The strategy is unapologetically selective. Rather than attempting to replicate high‑volume, low‑cost offshore production, it targets areas where Australia can compete on its strengths: natural fibres, advanced technology, premium design, traceability and provenance‑led branding. “We know we can’t compete on labour cost alone,” Delgos explained. “Where we can compete is on natural fibres, technology, innovation, premium, designer‑made traceability. All we need is co-ordination and investment to do it.” Redefining ‘Australian-made’ for a global market Historically, Australian-made fashion has been framed as heritage craft or niche local production, beloved by loyal customers but marginal in volume. Perkovic believes the new strategy marks a shift toward a more ambitious definition. “Australia is already a brand,” she said. “We are seen globally as a lifestyle country – open, natural, quality‑conscious – and that perception extends to what we make.” For her, the decade ahead is about turning that soft power into structural capability. “The opportunity the NMS creates is to scale that reputation into something with full structural backing – a country that doesn’t just design beautifully but makes beautifully, from the farm gate to the finished garment,” Perkovic said. “That’s the new definition of Australian‑made.” In practice, that means shifting from small‑run, artisan‑only narratives to premium, traceable, provenance‑led manufacturing at scale. “When you can say with confidence that a garment was grown, processed and made here, and verify every step of that, the product speaks differently,” Perkovic added. For retailers, that translates into collections where the farm‑to‑finished‑garment story is not a marketing flourish but a verifiable asset that can command higher price points and deeper loyalty in premium markets. Delgos pointed out that no other market can tell that story in quite the same way. “If we look globally, the moment is right now as well,” she said. “Premium markets are actively seeking traceable, provenance‑led products, and we’re uniquely positioned to own that story. No other market in the world can own the farm‑to‑finished-product story like we could.” The missing middle – and why infrastructure matters Underpinning the strategy is an unflinching diagnosis of capability gaps. While Australia remains a leading exporter of premium wool and a significant cotton producer, its early‑stage processing base has almost disappeared. “We have just one wool scouring facility remaining in Australia and no commercial spinning,” Perkovic noted. Delgos describes this as the “missing middle” – the fibre processing and spinning infrastructure between raw fibre and finished product. Without it, value creation, jobs and technical know‑how all migrate offshore. “When we look at fabric manufacturing and garment assembly, we’re currently sitting at 3 per cent onshore, and that’s not a market failure, it’s policy failure over decades.” Rebuilding that middle is central to the 10‑year plan. The strategy’s third pillar, “Accelerate advanced manufacturing”, calls for co‑investment in modern machinery, new technologies, and the re‑establishment of fibre processing and yarn spinning, alongside innovation in circular manufacturing and fibre‑to‑fibre recycling. For retailers, that infrastructure is what will eventually allow meaningful onshore alternatives to offshore sourcing – not just for hero pieces, but for broader product categories where provenance, quality and speed‑to‑market are commercial levers. R.M.Williams as proof of concept Having R.M.Williams at the table was a deliberate move to prove that Australian manufacturing at scale is not a nostalgic idea but a live, commercial reality. The heritage bootmaker has manufactured in Adelaide for more than 90 years, employs skilled craftspeople and has grown its local workforce since returning to Australian ownership. “It was really important to have R.M.Williams on board as a proof of concept,” Delgos said. “Within Australia, they’re a household name, they’re recognised internationally, and they manufacture in Australia at scale – they’ve created more than 350 jobs in Adelaide since returning to Australian ownership, and they’ve increased their production capacity in their Adelaide workshop by 90 per cent, so they are essentially the ultimate business-case example.” That example extends beyond jobs. R.M.Williams has engaged 42 apprentices and trainees in two years and helped revive TAFE training programs, providing a practical template for workforce development that other manufacturers can adapt. As Delgos puts it, “Having an industry partner with skin in the game gives the strategy credibility with government. It’s not just the AFC, as the peak body, advocating in isolation; it’s us demonstrating that we’re partnering with an aligned manufacturer on a shared roadmap.” At the same time, R.M.Williams is not positioned as an outlier. Delgos said the brand is clear that it cannot be the only major manufacturer operating onshore. “They want to bring back all their manufacturing, but they know they can’t just be the single manufacturing business operating within Australia,” she said. “They want to see a healthy, thriving and strong manufacturing ecosystem surrounding R.M.Williams so they can work across the supply chain.” Three pillars to secure the future The strategy is structured around three interdependent pillars: activating demand, securing the future workforce, and accelerating the adoption of advanced technology. Each is necessary; none is sufficient on its own. “Demand has to come first,” Delgos explained. “Without procurement reform and market activation, there’s no commercial pull for manufacturers to invest in the technology or in their workers to retrain and upskill the sector.” The first pillar centres on strategic public procurement – using federal and state purchasing power in uniforms, healthcare, defence and workwear to anchor demand for Australian‑made textiles and apparel, supported by clearer Australian‑made identification and co-ordinated national promotion through to consumer markets. The second pillar focuses on securing the workforce of the future. The current manufacturing workforce is ageing – the median age is 57 – and dominated by women and culturally diverse communities, yet formal pathways into advanced manufacturing roles remain limited. “Formal apprenticeship pathways in garment construction and textile manufacturing don’t exist at the scale the industry needs,” Perkovic said. The strategy calls for new skilled pathways, skills transfer, recognition pilots and training programs co‑designed with TAFEs and education providers. The third pillar is about technology and advanced manufacturing, but with a targeted lens. “We’re not advocating bringing back all manufacturing to Australia,” Delgos said. “Again, we know that doesn’t make sense, but looking and reviewing the industry to see where our comparative advantage is and what we really want to own as a fashion, textile manufacturing sector.” That includes investments in digital production, smart factories, fibre‑to‑fibre recycling, and shared manufacturing infrastructure that smaller brands and manufacturers can access. “All three pillars are interdependent, which makes it even more complex to work on,” Delgos noted. “Demand will justify investment. Technology will then create the jobs that are worth training for. A skilled workforce makes the manufacturing proposition globally competitive, and if we pull one out, or just decide to focus on one area, the whole system essentially slows down.” The role of government – and retailers For the strategy to move beyond paper, policy follow‑through will be critical. “Procurement reform is the most immediate lever,” Perkovic said. “The Federal and state governments purchase enormous volumes of textile product – uniforms, defence, healthcare, workwear – and currently apply no meaningful preference for Australian‑made in those decisions.” The AFC’s first ask of the Federal Government is to partner with industry to review procurement across all TCF categories, mapping what is currently made onshore and what could be brought back. “This is an opportunity for the government to back a Future Made in Australia – starting with what Australians wear to work every day,” Perkovic said. From an industry perspective, the AFC is focused on national capability mapping – capturing who is manufacturing what, at what scale and with what technology – and on developing consortium‑style manufacturing networks. The latter will be essential for retailers and brands eyeing major events like the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, where individual businesses may not be able to achieve the necessary scale alone. There is also a role for retailers and consumers in making the economics stack up. The strategy explicitly calls on consumers to “get behind Australian‑made” by choosing brands that manufacture locally, and on retailers to champion those stories at the point of sale and online. For multi‑brand retailers, that could mean dedicating space to domestically made ranges, building farm‑to‑garment storytelling into merchandising and collaborating with local manufacturers on exclusive capsules. Sustainability, traceability and circularity Onshoring is often framed as a jobs or sovereignty play, but it is also a powerful sustainability lever. “Onshore manufacturing essentially shortens and compresses the supply chain so you have fewer countries, fewer handoffs, which is really important when looking at many of the complex global supply chains that brands operate within at the moment,” Delgos said. “Bringing it all onshore localises it and makes traceability structurally easier. And of course, audit costs go down as well.” Australia already produces much of its raw material onshore, so rebuilding processing domestically closes the biggest gap in the farm‑to‑finished story. Delgos noted that once wool or cotton is exported, traceability is often lost at the spinning stage. “That’s a real advantage as to why we should be bringing spinning back onshore,” she said. Circularity is equally dependent on local capability. “Achieving a circular economy in Australia requires infrastructure that’s closer to the consumer,” Delgos explained. That includes textile recycling, reprocessing and repair – all of which rely on manufacturing skills and facilities within reach of the domestic market. For retailers grappling with product stewardship schemes and ESG expectations, a stronger onshore manufacturing base could make sustainability commitments more practical and measurable. Looking to 2036 – a manufacturing sector retailers can build on The strategy is structured as a 10‑year plan, with an implementation review to 2029 and a strategic outcomes review in 2036. By then, Perkovic wants Australian manufacturing to be something the country is proud of in the way Italy is proud of its making tradition or Japan of its craft culture – not as a museum piece, but as a living, globally respected capability. “For brands, it means genuine choice – the ability to manufacture locally at competitive quality, with a provenance story that premium markets will pay for,” she said. “For workers, it means skilled, well‑paid careers in an industry that has invested in training them and values what they do.” And for regional communities, it means more of the value generated by Australia’s natural fibres staying closer to home – processed, spun, woven and sewn in ways that sustain the towns where those fibres are grown. Delgos is realistic about the timeframe. “We are very aware that it’s not going to happen overnight, and the manufacturing strategy definitely doesn’t pretend otherwise,” she said. “It’s a long‑term, 10‑year strategy that the AFC is committed to working on, alongside industry and government. The long‑term goal is definitely to build genuine domestic content across more of our supply chain in Australia.” For retailers, the message is clear: The decisions taken over the next few years – about procurement, partnerships, sourcing and storytelling – will help determine whether “Made in Australia” is a niche label or the backbone of a resilient, modern retail ecosystem. As Perkovic put it, “The RMIT modelling gives us a clear economic picture of what’s achievable in five years. The 10‑year ambition is bolder – a manufacturing sector that has rebuilt its missing middle and is recognised internationally as the home of premium, natural fibre production. That’s not wishful thinking. It’s what this strategy is designed to deliver, step by step.”