•Australia is a substantial way from implementing a sugar-sweetened beverages tax.•Industry interference, fragmented advocacy and conflicting political agendas have undermined tax acceptance.•Advocates should re-frame the problem to which the tax has been coupled.•A broader advocacy base is needed to counter industry power. Globally, 43 jurisdictions have implemented a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) for obesity prevention; however, there is significant political resistance to adopting such a policy in Australia. This paper applies Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to the case study of an SSB tax in Australia to identify barriers and enablers to policy adoption, and to inform future advocacy strategies in local and international contexts. A systematic search was conducted of scholarly literature, parliamentary documents and media articles relating to an SSB tax. Information retrieved was analysed and integrated under the ‘problem’, ‘policy’ or ‘political’ streams of the MSF. The findings reveal that Australia is a substantial way from having the conditions in place where a tax might be successfully implemented due to industry influence, fragmented advocacy efforts, political opposition to paternalistic policies, conflicting political agendas, and inadequate pressure for change from civil society. Opening a policy window will require a shift in political ownership of the obesity problem, or the coupling of an SSB tax to an alternative problem. The public health community also needs to agree that an SSB tax deserves greater priority, relative to alternative policies for addressing obesity, and to agree on the most effective tax design.