Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the government finally delivering on their promise to implement the local content obligations on streaming providers. It's an ambitious and progressive reform designed to safeguard our cultural identity, strengthen creative industries and ensure global platforms contribute their fair share, with Australian screen jobs, children's content and cultural representation very much at stake.

We are so lucky in Warringah to have a vibrant community of screen industry professionals: writers, directors, documentary makers, producers and emerging creators. In August, I met with a group in the industry who explained frankly the impact that the industry has felt under the current status quo. It was dwindling investment, shrinking commissioning opportunities and a deep fear that, without legislative obligations, Australian stories would disappear from our screens and through streaming platforms. These Warringah professionals are talented, innovative and determined, but they are under real pressure. Without legislative obligations, the ecosystem that sustains Australian storytelling is at breaking point. From hearing those stories, I launched the Save Australian Stories petition, which called on the government to fulfil the promise they made—first at the 2019 election, 2022 and then 2025—and to ensure that Australian content remains visible, accessible and adequately funded. The support was clear. Within a month of launching the petition, we reached more than 13,000 signatures from people across the industry and across Australia.

Australian broadcasting has long relied on local content quotas to ensure Australians see themselves reflected on screen. But, while traditional networks continue to shoulder obligations, global streaming platforms—now dominant in Australian households—have operated without equivalent responsibilities. Labor repeatedly promised to introduce Australian content obligations for streaming platforms, yet this was languishing and nothing was happening. For years the sector has been left in uncertainty. Consultations were held again and again, alongside discussion papers, roundtables and expert panels. All the while, investment in Australian content dwindled. Now what we know is that there were some 60,000 Australian screen jobs at risk without these legislative quotas. Representation is slipping. Women and under-represented creators hold only 34 to 36 per cent of key creative roles. Modelling shows that this could fall to two per cent within two decades without mandated investment.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill proposes that streamers with more than one million Australian subscribers must invest either 10 per cent of total program expenditure or 7½ per cent of Australian revenue into new Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content. This must be a floor, not a ceiling. I've previously called for more investment—for up to 20 per cent of streamers' revenue to be the investment—which is aligned with international best practice and the needs of our industry.

I've discussed with the government where they landed and asked, in fact, for modelling to show whether or not this would result in an uplift in investment to the industry to preserve those 60,000 jobs. It's unclear, but it is felt that there is fluctuating spend from year to year. Some streamers are good players and do invest. Others are not investing at all, and so they will see an uplift in their spend. On balance I will accept the government and the department's briefing or indication that this should result in an increase in spend but also a balancing out of these fluctuations.

The government's proposal holds some warning that it may not be sufficient to address the scale of decline or rebuild the Australian screen sector, but I acknowledge this is a step forward. Currently, Australia risks becoming a backdrop for foreign projects, with little genuine Australian representation on our screens. This matters because we know that every dollar invested in the screen sector delivers around $3 to $4 in broader economic benefit, generating jobs, attracting international investment and bolstering the sector's credibility and capabilities. Not only does Australia's local screen production sector benefit directly from secure and guaranteed investment in Australian content; postproduction services, distributors and exhibitors do too. Other industries benefit indirectly with screen production such as tourism, hospitality, building, construction—so many areas. It's not just a cultural policy; it is a smart economic policy.

This bill is a significant step forward, but we need to make sure the obligation balances investment to sustain and build the industry while making sure streamers can continue to operate with regulatory certainty. We need to make sure there is balanced investment across all types of product.

The bill introduces investment requirements across Australian drama, documentary, children's and educational content, but there isn't a subquota or requirement across those different types. While this is necessary, the bill has not included subquotas around drama, documentary or children's content, to be more specific. There's no real guarantee of balanced investment across those different types—and we know it is necessary. Since quotas were removed from commercial TV, Australia's children content has almost evaporated. In the 2007-08 financial year, there was a total of 200 hours of children's content on Australian TV. In the 2023-24 financial year, that dropped to an all-time low of just 35 hours of children's TV content. The collapse is occurring despite the extraordinary global success of Australian programs like Bluey, a show that has become a cultural phenomenon, beloved worldwide, proving beyond doubt that Australian's children content is not only viable but exceptional. To address this, I'll be introducing an amendment that would reflect the intention of the bill that balances investment across all types and is expected. This would be an amendment to the objects, to ensure that that indication is clear.

Regulatory certainty is essential. While the bill provides a mandate for ACMA to determine how compliance would be achieved, this provides little reprieve for streamers who are trying to navigate this new obligation. It's not about resisting the obligations; it's about ensuring that industry has predictability, a stable operating environment and clarity on how compliance will be monitored, measured and enforced. To this end, last month I met with Netflix and the Australian and New Zealand Screen Association. I also met with Stan, which has shown strong leadership as an Australian owned platform. Stan has commissioned some of Australia's most distinctive local series and illustrates the importance of locally committed platforms. Both streamers stress the need for an effective obligation framework which requires stability, predictability and clarity around the requirements. It allows the broadcasting industry to plan ahead, commissioning pipelines and compliance systems with confidence. Any uncertainty around enforcement, definitions or reporting frameworks risks discouraging rather than encouraging investment. The government must ensure ACMA's regulatory approach is not only strong but also transparent, consistent and properly resourced.

We need to make sure Australian owned production companies are the beneficiaries of this. We must avoid a scenario where increased investment flows predominantly to foreign owned production companies operating in Australia at the expense of locally owned, independent Australian producers. To genuinely strengthen the Australian screen sector, policy and regulation must ensure that new investment supports the Australian businesses, creative talent and cultural perspectives that anchor our national storytelling. If implemented with care, foresight and proper oversight, this bill can be transformative, setting the new foundations for an ambitious, progressive and accountable future for Australian screen content.

We need clear, funded enforcement capability. ACMA must be resourced to enforce obligations and investigate ownership structures, including international corporations operating behind the corporate veil. There needs to be a reasonable transition period. Streamers have argued that the 60-day window to select revenue or expenditure obligations is too narrow and that the government should consider extending this. Of course, for them, there are also the questions around the definitions, the period of review and the fluctuating. I am absolutely sympathetic to their concern that there is a long pipeline of commissioning projects. For them, the fear is that this new obligation will change some of their forward planning.

We need accurate investment reporting. Streamers' expenditure must reflect net private investment only and not be inflated by federal or state funding through the producer and location offsets. This must be removed from the definition of 'expenditure'.

For new legislation like this, we need to make sure we have a robust review period to consider whether it's working or whether it has had unintended consequences. The government has proposed a robust four-year review to consider whether or not, by that time, we would need to be doubling the requirements for subquotas for children's and documentary content visibility and requirements for Australian titles and supporting Australian owned production companies. The point is, essentially, without being too specific in this round and on this legislation, in four years time, the government will look to see whether the things that we're warning of now have come to pass. That's why I would urge the government to consider the amendment that I will be moving to the objects to make sure that there is clarity on all streamers to comply with that need for diversity of investment. Supporting Australian owned production companies is important. We have to avoid a scenario where increased investment flows primarily to foreign owned companies operating in Australia behind corporate veils.

I welcome the government introducing this bill—the Australian screen industry cannot survive in its current form—but, let's be clear, it's well overdue. There is some complexity. There hasn't been broad consultation on where the bill has finally landed, and there are concerns from all involved as to how it's going to work in application—whether or not there is going to be sufficient certainty around the definitions of Australian content—and about some of the issues that I've touched on in terms of what will be included in that spend. Let's make sure this legislation marks the beginning of a more ambitious, progressive, accountable and optimistic future for Australian storytelling.

We know, if we go back to where this all started, the importance of safeguarding our culture and Australian stories on our screens. As more and more households turn to streamers for their content and their entertainment, we have to make sure there are good Australian stories being told. Streamers like Stan have been putting in great content—some of my favourite shows of recent years have been from there—but we have to make sure that all platforms are contributing to this incredible industry and make sure that we keep saving Australian stories.

See this speech in context