Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) the Coalition has been an unwavering supporter of the Australian screen industry for decades, and is responsible for:

(a) establishing the producer offset, the location offset, the digital and visual effect production offset—which have underpinned support for the sector for almost two decades;

(b) introducing the location incentive, which attracted billions of dollars of investment into Australia in the film industry;

(c) providing in excess of $100 million in financial supports to the Australian screen production industry throughout the Covid pandemic; and

(d) first proposing an Australian content guarantee for streamers in February 2022; and

(2) after almost four years of inaction, the Government has asked that this Bill be passed in just four sitting days, having taken the industry by surprise and despite significant concerns about potential unintended consequences".

This amendment relates to prominence, with 'prominence' meaning that Australian content is actually accessible to those who wish to watch it. It means it's easily found, visible and discoverable so that viewers can effortlessly choose Australian content if they want to. I've spoken to people in the sector and I know that this is a real issue for them.

In the old days, prominence was built into the content requirement. Prominence and local content were a package deal. You couldn't have one without the other. The subscription video-on-demand model breaks that link. Just because you commission an Australian show doesn't mean it will be easily found. No-one wants that outcome. Streamers don't want that outcome. Streamers say they don't do this; the commercial imperative is otherwise. Overwhelmingly, the streamers I've spoken to say that they do the right thing. They say that, if they're going to invest in a show, they want to give it the appropriate prominence so that it's seen and successful. They want a show that will come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose, and that's great. As I said earlier, no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in coming years. We don't know what the market impacts of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video on Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, will be. We don't know how the market will change. We don't know what new players in the market will do with their catalogues. We can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill passes will actually be easy to find for ordinary Australian families.

That's why I'm moving this amendment today. This is about futureproofing the bill. It's a simple, light-touch regulatory model. It simply gives the minister a power—a power which frankly I hope the minister never needs to use. But the mechanism is straightforward. The amendment says:

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe requirements relating to the prominence and accessibility of eligible Australian content on major SVOD services if the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is appropriate to make the instrument to ensure eligible Australian content is readily accessible to Australian users.

If you listen carefully, you'll hear the safeguard's built into that mechanism. It has a clear purpose. It requires reasonable grounds. It includes an obligation to consult with the major streamers who'll be subject to the requirement. It says that the instrument will be disallowable. That means parliament has oversight.

The amendment says that the instrument is time-bound. It can only last three years. But there's a clear power to amend or remake it. There's a requirement to comply, which is enforceable by civil penalty provisions, along the same lines as the civil penalty provisions that apply to prominence for television. There is also a requirement to review the prominence framework. I say to the minister: pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and vote for the prominence of Australian content. Don't vote against prominence for Australian content. Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the ability to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to futureproof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy? After all, it's in the interests of all Australians that they can easily find Australian stories. It's in the interests of the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found.

The ramifications of this type of measure are far-reaching. They affect the screen production industry, which we support. We want Australian content to be prominent and discoverable in an on-demand world. But there will be other industries in the cultural sector that will also take note. It's in their interests too. So, again, I say to the minister: don't vote against the prominence of Australian content. This is a simple measure, with the wellbeing of the Australian screen industry at its heart. It's not a restrictive legislative formal obligation. It's a flexible, light-touch approach that leaves the platforms with the flexibility to determine the best way to give prominence to our stories, with a safeguard if necessary. The prominence and discoverability of Australian content should be front and centre together in this discussion. They are natural partners. I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context