The Tariff Threat That Jolted a Regional Powerhouse
Picture a glittering film set on the golden shores of Queensland, or the rugged, spellbinding peaks of New Zealand made famous by global blockbusters. Now imagine an industry that brings both jobs and cultural identity to these places—suddenly under threat from a bold policy across the Pacific. This is the scenario facing Australia and New Zealand’s film sectors after former U.S. President Donald Trump announced his administration’s intent to impose a 100% tariff on films produced outside the U.S. It’s an escalation that’s left creative professionals, cultural leaders, and government officials on both sides of the Tasman Sea rallying to defend what many see as more than just an economic export, but a core piece of national identity.
Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was quick to voice the government’s response, underscoring what he called an “unequivocal” stance to protect the domestic screen industry. According to Burke, conversations with the leadership at Screen Australia—a national funding body and champion for Australian cinema—are already underway. In neighboring New Zealand, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon assured the public that his government would serve as a “great advocate, great champion of that sector in that industry” in the face of U.S. economic pressures.
This isn’t just bureaucratic posturing. For the nearly 200,000 people directly and indirectly employed by the film industries in both countries (Screen Australia, 2022), the message has landed with real urgency: their jobs, their livelihoods, and their ability to tell stories that matter on a global stage are now at stake.
The High Stakes of Culture & Commerce
A closer look reveals how high the stakes truly are. Australia and New Zealand have built an enviable reputation as global filming destinations—not simply for their breathtaking landscapes, but also for robust local talent pools and progressive public investment. In 2023 alone, the Australian screen industry contributed more than $6 billion to the national economy, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Meanwhile, New Zealand’s international film sector—powered by the legacy of cinematic sagas like “The Lord of the Rings”—has become a lynchpin of its creative economy and international identity.
You might wonder: why such fierce opposition to the Trump-era tariff threat? Beyond lost revenue, the answer lies in the delicate dance between cultural sovereignty and economic survival. When a dominant market like the United States singles out global entertainment with prohibitive tariffs, the ripple effect is swift. International partners, independent producers, and local talent all face the prospect of evaporating contracts and shuttered opportunities. Jane Smithson, a Melbourne-based film producer and industry advocate, put it bluntly in an interview: “Tariffs of this magnitude don’t just impact the bottom line, they silence diverse voices and flatten what gets seen on the global stage.”
History provides a sobering lens. During the 1930s, U.S. attempts to enforce restrictive quotas on foreign films met fierce resistance in Europe and Latin America. The result was a tide of retaliatory measures, fragmenting the global screen industry and making international collaboration nearly impossible. More recently, political brinkmanship over steel and technology tariffs has demonstrated how quickly trade spats can spiral beyond their original targets—hurting everyday workers more than governments or CEOs. The film industry, inherently collaborative and global in scope, stands particularly vulnerable.
“Tariffs of this magnitude don’t just impact the bottom line, they silence diverse voices and flatten what gets seen on the global stage.” – Jane Smithson, Melbourne-based film producer
Defending Diversity—and the Future
Leaders in Australia and New Zealand recognize there’s far more at stake than lost box office receipts. This moment is a referendum on the value of global creative exchange. As Tony Burke plainly stated, the government is not waiting for the sky to fall; real-time monitoring and direct engagement with Screen Australia reveal a proactive approach to policy threats rather than passive reaction. New Zealand’s leadership echoes this vigilant stance while awaiting concrete details on the American plan, indicating they understand the need for agility in a rapidly changing policy climate.
Beyond that, the question looms: what message does America send when it closes its cinematic borders? Research from the Pew Research Center underscores the undeniable power of movies in shaping global perceptions and promoting cultural empathy. Imposing blunt-edged tariffs risks reducing not only economic opportunity but also the diversity of stories that reach international audiences. According to Harvard film historian Dr. Lucia Reynolds, “National cinemas thrive when governments support openness—not isolation. The world simply becomes less interesting if we allow a handful of market actors to dictate what can be seen or heard.”
Australian filmmaker Warwick Thornton, whose film “Samson & Delilah” won acclaim at Cannes, once said, “If you want to know who a people are, watch their movies.” Tariffs, in this light, threaten not just trade, but the right to be seen and understood by the world.
The stakes couldn’t be clearer. For Americans, a retreat into protectionist trade policy—particularly in the arts—may feel like a win for domestic jobs or cultural champions. Yet it signals a retreat from leadership in global creative discourse. People across Australasia, progressive thinkers, and those who value a rich and open cultural tapestry are left asking: does America want to set the standard for engagement, or isolation?
History has shown that vibrant screen industries aren’t built by barriers—they flourish through partnership, risk-taking, and mutual respect. As Australia and New Zealand’s leaders stand united, they hold the line not just for their own film workers, but for the principle that shared stories and pluralist values should cross borders—not be hemmed in by tariffs.
