Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Wentworth is home to some of the most vibrant and dedicated people working in Australia's film and television sector, from production companies and screen writers to actors, directors, crew and many creatives who make the stories of Australia come alive. From iconic series like Kath& Kim or Rake to recent successes like Colin from Accountsa personal favourite—and Boy Swallows Universe, these stories matter. Our local screen industry is not just an economic contributor; it is a cultural treasure. These are the people who help us understand who we are and reflect our diversity, our history and our hopes for the future. These stories help create community, foster respect and build understanding. They spark connection around dinner tables, workplaces and waiting rooms.

Over the past decade, this sector has been worn down. It has endured years of neglect and underinvestment, compounded by COVID-19 and the growing dominance of global streaming services whose power far outweighs that of local creators. I've heard from constituents who have been forced to walk away from the industry they love—people whose skills, talent and livelihoods are at risk. When we lose those workers, we lose more than jobs; we lose storytellers, cultural custodians and the very voice of Australian creativity and Australian stories.

We know that streaming services are now where most people and most Australians find content, whether it be Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV or Prime. However, a large proportion of Australian screened content available on these services tends to be older content, with the commissioning of new Australian content by streaming services low by international standards. A 2023 Ampere Analysis report found that Australian content comprised just 8.8 per cent of Stan's catalogue, 5.0 per cent of Paramount+, 3.7 per cent of Binge, 4.1 per cent of Netflix, 3.6 per cent of Amazon Prime Video and only 0.2 per cent of Disney+. Screen Australia's 2023-24 report shows a 17.5 per cent drop in Australian titles on TV in just one year.

Without screen content quotas, our local industry is vulnerable. Streamers can choose to fill their slates with repeats and international reality TV that does not reflect our own. While these shows are entertaining, it's crucial that we see our lives reflected on screens. Our stories should be treasured, and, without enforcement, they are fading.

Australian content obligations for streaming services are something I've been advocating for since I was elected in 2022. I've worked extensively with Screen Producers Australia and with producers and production companies in my electorate who tell me how important this reform is. I want to highlight the incredible work of these advocates, especially Screen Producers Australia, in their tireless campaign to achieve quotas. I'm pleased to see the government finally introduce this legislation, and I commend them for taking this step. I will note—and I have been very frustrated—that it has been a long time coming, promised over three successive elections and again in the National Cultural Policy of January 2023.

While the regulatory design has required complex negotiations, the long period of uncertainty has had real and very negative consequences for the Australian film industry. Production companies have struggled to plan, and major streaming services have delayed commissioning decisions because they did not know if or when the obligations were coming, with renewals and new projects stalling as a direct result. However, I am encouraged by elements of this bill which have the capacity to make a significant impact.

The bill establishes Australia's first legislated requirement for major streaming services to invest in new Australian screen content, applying only to major platforms with more than one million subscribers, excluding specialist services. It defines what qualifies as an Australian program using existing content standard definitions. Programs must be newly commissioned with drama, documentary, factual or animated entertainment and under Australian control in development and production. The bill inserts new obligations into the Broadcasting Services Act, requiring eligible streamers to invest either 10 per cent of global program expenditure or 7.5 per cent of Australian sourced revenue in new Australian programs. Many in the sector, I will be honest, though, are disappointed, having advocated for a 20 per cent revenue model for over a decade. This model would deliver stronger investment without the capacity for services to manipulate their expenditure figures, which is of great concern to the industry. A compliance framework is also established in this legislation, with ACMA empowered to determine eligibility and publish reasons and decisions reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Federal Court.

Finally, the bill includes a statutory review after four years. My hope is that by then we will have the data to make clearer, stronger decisions, including increasing these requirements if necessary. With an industry in crisis, I see the urgent need for this reform to be passed this year, with changes to be in effect from 1 January 2026. This is what the sector wants; therefore, I am looking to be not only constructive, as always, in my engagement on this bill, but also timely.

However, in my consultation with members of the Wentworth screen community, peak bodies and representatives across different parts of the sector, there are significant loopholes which could be rectified to strengthen the bill. First, and one of the most important ones, is weak guardrails around the expenditure model, because at the heart of this bill is an expenditure model that leaves too much to chance. We are asking ACMA to police complex financial structures used by some of the largest corporations in the world but without giving ACMA any extra resources. This is a recipe for problems discovered only after the damage has been done. The definition of 'qualifying expenditure' is so broad that streamers could sweep in costs with little connection to Australian content—internal IT allocations, corporate overheads, padding out numbers—and without creating a single Australian job or minute of Australian screen time. The requirement that costs fall under development, pre production, production or post production could be manipulated. We are relying on ACMA to scrutinise these costs with a fine-tooth comb, when we know and expect that services will work hard in some cases to minimise their obligations.

If we are serious about transparency we cannot rely on a post-hoc audit by a regulator already stretched across everything from social media to national security laws. Stakeholders have been very clear: without firm guardrails like the guidelines used by Screen Australia, this system will be easy to game and hard to fix. These guardrails may be included in regulations or published by ACMA once powers are granted but it is essential we monitor them closely and review any potential manipulation at the statutory review.

A second issue is also fundamental. Under this bill, streaming services can count taxpayer funded producer offsets as part of their Australian expenditure. That is not investment; that is substitution. Although these offsets are specifically designed to support independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with Netflix, is for the streamer to cash flow production on the condition that this government offset—the taxpayer funded offset—is handed to them.

Producer offsets exist to strengthen the independent sector, not to subsidise the multinational balance sheets of these streamers. When these offsets were first introduced, the minister for the arts said at the time, 'Its intention was that the independent sector should be beneficiaries of the producer rebate.' When a $10 million project ends up costing a streamer only $7 million yet they can count the full $10 million, the public carries the burden while the streamer claims the credit. I understand this was retained for consistency with free-to-air transmission quotas; however, no such trend is occurring in that sector, and, if it did, it too would need reform. This has been raised with me by different screen producers personally, talking about how this is a growing trend. Perhaps the government is not aware that increasingly streamers are saying 'Okay, we know how much producer offset you are going to get. We want that back to be able to fund this show.' This is of real concern because this is very, very substantial government backing of the Australian screen industry, which will be used to, effectively, subsidise the big companies whose content quotas we are trying to manage.

Thirdly, another gap is the absence of any requirement for Australian producers to retain their IP. Without their IP they lose the economic and cultural lifeblood of their work. A simple safeguard allowing streamers a 36-month licence period, after which rights revert to the Australian production company, would ensure Australian stories remain in Australian hands. It would prevent the erosion of Australian identity in the global digital market and avoid scenarios where beloved programs are reshaped for foreign audiences, for example by re-recording Bluey with American accents. We invest in Australian stories not because of their content but because of their culture.

And, fourthly, there is a lack of stipulated investment. Children's and documentary content continue to suffer from chronic underinvestment. While the bill sets an overall quota, it does not protect genres uniquely vulnerable in the market. Sub-reporting for genres would at least give us the data needed at a review to determine whether further action, including sub-quotas, is necessary.

Finally, there are quotas that simply legislate the status quo. This is the final challenge with this bill. We need to be honest about the numbers. The bill's proposed thresholds—10 per cent of expenditure or 7.5 per cent of revenue—sound ambitious, but the government's own explanatory memorandum tells a different story. It states that the total expenditure required of major streaming services would be between $175 million $200 million each year on Australian content, consistent with current expenditure for Australian adult drama, children's and documentary programs by SVODs, which is on average $193.4 million. In other words, by the government's own modelling, these quotas do not meaningfully increase investment. They simply legislate what the streamers are already spending. This bill risks locking in the status quo at a moment when the Australian screen sector desperately needs growth, ambition and renewal.

Legislating to prevent further reduction in investment is an excellent start, but these numbers are not good enough. If our goal is a thriving, world-class industry capable of telling Australian stories to Australian and global audiences, then we cannot congratulate ourselves for maintaining the current baseline. We do need settings that drive additional investment, nurture emerging creatives and build a sustainable pipeline of Australian content for the future. All of these loopholes lessen the positive impact that this legislation can have on our screen industry. This is why I've circulated three amendments which aim to fix some of these problems, which I will discuss more in the consideration in detail. These amendments are (1) excluding any producer offsets recouped by streaming services from qualifying expenditure; (2) settings terms of trade such that any agreements about an eligible program provide business and ancillary rights to the production company with primary licensing rights returning to said company after three years or after five years if the program has been renewed; and (3) mandating the reporting of sub-genres in required reporting to ACMA and the minister. I urge the government to consider these reasonable and fact based amendments, which respond to the challenges of the screen industry and the complexity of managing and regulating this industry.

In conclusion, this bill moves us in the right direction, but we cannot pretend it's enough. Our screen industry is too important, too vulnerable and too full of potential for us to settle for the status quo. Australian stories enrich our culture, strengthen our community and help us see ourselves on screen. The bill lays important groundwork, and I support it, but we should remain ambitious, and I wish I had seen a more ambitious bill. I look forward to working within this parliament and with my community to build for a stronger, fairer and more vibrant screen future that our nation deserves.

See this speech in context