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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), after "nil expenditure", insert "but does not include any amount which may be subsequently recouped via the refund of part or all of a tax rebate on the program through any producer offset scheme".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 23 (after line 34), after subsection 121FZN(2), insert:

(2A) However, the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year does not include expenditure incurred by the provider or providers of the service in the relevant year in commissioning an Australian screen business to produce an eligible Australian program unless, under the relevant agreement with the Australian screen business, the ancillary or secondary rights are all times retained under the ownership and control of the Australian screen business and the primary licensing rights revert to the Australian screen business after a period of 3 years, or 5 years if the program has been commissioned for a subsequent season.

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (line 32), after "report", insert "disaggregated by subgenre".

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 3), after subsection 121FZO(1), insert:

(1A) The report must include the following information about each subgenre included in the report:

(a) the number of commissioned titles;

(b) the total production expenditure incurred in Australia;

(c) the number of hours of content produced;

(d) whether the content qualifies as "Australian content" under the National Classification Code or ACMA guidelines;

(e) the release dates and platform availability within Australia.

(1B) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is an example of a subgenre:

(a) scripted drama;

(b) documentary;

(c) children's programming;

(d) comedy;

(e) animation;

(f) reality and factual entertainment.

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), at the end of section 121FZO, add:

(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection (1), the ACMA must:

(a) publish a copy of the report on its website; and

(b) give a copy of report to the Minister.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

As I outlined in my speech on the second reading of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, screen content quotas for subscription video-on-demand services are long overdue. They're essential to ensuring Australians stories continue to be told. However, this bill does not go far enough to support and sustain the screen industry.

For this reason, I am moving some amendments which seek to address the loopholes that I identified earlier. These amendments are practical, targeted and designed to uphold integrity in the system. First, I will talk about the producer offset amendment. Producer offsets are government funded tax offsets covering 30 per cent of production costs. Although intended to support production companies and independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with streamers like Netflix, is for the streaming services to cashflow productions on the condition that the offset is later handed back to them. Under the current bill, the value of this offset can be counted as part of qualifying expenditure that streaming services must spend on Australian content. This means taxpayer money intended for the independent sector is treated as though it is the streamer's own investment even when the streamer is not actually contributing to these funds.

My amendment would exclude the value of the producer offset from qualifying Australian expenditure until streaming services genuinely spend more of their own money on Australian productions, particularly in cases where they currently can recoup part of the production costs through the offset, and avoid unnecessary complexity as offset arrangements are made at the contract stage and obligations are acquitted over a three-year period. This is a simple measure to ensure public money is not counted twice and that the purpose of the producer offset is preserved.

I think this is important. The producer offset is a piece of tax legislation I fought for very strongly, but I recognise that these offsets are expensive for the Australian taxpayer. This is money that the Australian taxpayer puts in. I think it really goes contrary to the intention of this bill, which is to get overseas platforms to invest in Australian content, to allow them to include taxpayer money in their Australian investment because it is demonstrably clear that Australian taxpayer money is not overseas money from these platforms in terms of investment in Australian content. So I do think this is an area where there is an issue. I appreciate there are other issues in terms of consistence with previous legislation for free-to-air and other platforms, but my understanding is that the producer offsets are not a factor in content in other parts of the system. So this is why that is not a particularly big issue and is one where I think there is a strong argument.

The second argument I would like to make is about mandating subgenre reporting to track investment in children's and documentary content. We know that key sectors, particularly children's programming and documentaries, are under significant pressure. Although these genres are eligible Australian programs, the bill does not require the streaming services to allocate any minimum level of investment across these content types. This bill already requires reporting to ACMA on business operations, including subscriber numbers and revenue. So my amendment would simply require streaming services to provide detailed information for each subgenre, the number of commissioned titles, total production expenditure, hours produced and stats on platform availability and provide ACMA and the parliament with transparent, accurate data to assess whether the investment is genuinely flowing into these vulnerable genres at the time of the statutory review. This report will be published online, provided to the minister and tabled in parliament. This amendment doesn't impose subgenre quotas, but it would ensure that the parliament has the evidence it needs to determine whether further action is warranted.

These amendments, I think, are well targeted. I previously also had an amendment in relation to the terms of trade—particularly protecting IP. I have withdrawn that at this stage on the basis that there is some concern that it could have unintended consequences on the writers' royalties. So I think further consideration of that amendment will need to be made to make sure that it doesn't interfere with writers' rights. But the principle of the amendment I had previously circulated but am not moving right now is that the terms of trade and intellectual property of our shows is actually really important. It is one of the most important ongoing streams of revenue for independent producers. It is the independent producers that all of these content quotas are intended to protect.

To summarise, these amendments are targeted, reasonable and designed to strengthen the effectiveness and fairness of the bill. They uphold the intent of the legislation while protecting taxpayers, supporting independent producers and ensuring the parliament can make informed decisions about the future of Australian content.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start with the concept that is relevant to all the amendments, so will speak generally. People will be aware of the extent of the legal work and the challenges of making sure we keep this piece of legislation within trade law. Some of the pushback and back-and-forth has found its way into the media but members of the House would certainly be aware of that. For that reason and because of the level of legal work that has gone into the legislation, the government will not have an appetite to accept amendments, as a general rule, as we work our way through this. That said, I will still speak to give a position on the individual amendments as they are moved.

First of all, I respect the engagement that the member for Wentworth has had with the screen industry. She has a large number of people engaged in the screen industry in her electorate of Wentworth. She has publicly raised and asked about this issue in parliament and privately has sought regular briefings from me through her entire time here, wanting to make sure that not only did we get to an obligation for the streaming services but that it was as unambiguous as possible.

The effect of the first amendment would effectively take us from an obligation of 10 per cent to 13 or 14 per cent. That is the impact it would have. There are particular reasons under trade law as to why we are introducing legislation at the 10 per cent figure, so we would not be able to support an amendment that departed from that. In the comments of the member for Wentworth, there was a reference to how the producer offset was to be calculated against other obligations. Many of the free-to-air obligations, for example, relate to time not expenditure; therefore, it is irrelevant to those. The only expenditure obligation in the same way would be the NETI obligation that applies to Foxtel. In that situation there is not a discount in the form that this amendment would seek, so keeping it as is would be consistent with how the only other expenditure based obligation we have operates.

In earlier consultation I had been seeking sub quotas. We have pulled right back from sub quotas, based on the legal position we have been working ourselves through in trade law. I would not want there to be a reporting obligation that in any way confused that should we end up in a situation where this is challenged, so the government will not be in a position to support any of the amendments.

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

Thank you very much to the minister for your engagement on these amendments and also throughout the time on this very important legislation, which I would like to see passed here today, as much as anyone in this House—today or in the next couple of days. I take your point that you will not support the producer offset but I do think there is a case to be made here, that currently this is not being applied consistently. There are some companies who say they want the producer offset and there are some streamers who are not asking for the producer offset. If you addressed this now you would actually fix this going forward rather than have a situation where, I expect, over time, more of those companies will accept a producer offset. I do not think it is consistently used by all streamers or expected by all streamers; therefore, it wouldn't be part of their calculations at the current stage. That is why I think this is the right moment to deal with the producer offsets. I still make the case, very strongly, that Australian taxpayers don't expect our taxpayer money to be used to support content quotas for overseas filmmakers.

The actual percentage that the government has put into this legislation is significantly lower than a country like France. Again, the industry was seeking a much higher level but, by leaving it in, it reduces that further and that is the fundamental concern of the industry. You are right: it is about the NETI, not the free-to-air, so I apologise—my mistake. In relation to that NETI point, the point is the producer offset is not used under the NETI scheme. My understanding is that it has never been applied and there is no part of the NETI scheme where someone has used the producer offset as part of those calculations. It feels like we're, in this case, bringing something that is irrelevant in another scheme into this scheme and making it extremely relevant, and, unfortunately, weakening the strength of this piece of legislation. That's the argument. I appreciate all the constraints you have in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation, but I think these are going to be issues that will be significant factors for the screen industry. If there is any way to deal with the NETI scheme to make it consistent with this, that is where the government should be going.

Question negatived.

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

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 27), after section 121FT, insert:

121FTA Object of Part

An object of this Part is to ensure that subscription video on demand services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories, by making balanced genre investments across culturally significant genres, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content.

This bill ensures that streaming services contribute fairly to the Australian screen sector, supporting our stories and our creative workforce. I start by thanking the minister and the government for their engagement and for acting on this longstanding commitment to protect the screen industry. I appreciate the government's engagement on the bill and willingness to discuss concerns that have been raised by local constituents, members of the industries and members of the screen industry as well as streamers. I've met with a number of streamers; I have Stan located in my electorate, and I have met with a number of others.

We know the sector requires investments across culturally significant types, including drama, children, documentary, arts or education content. These different types of content help to define Australia's identity. They tell our stories, reflect our lived experience and create shared cultural touchstones. We know drama gives us stories that last, whether that's Mystery Road, The Newsreader, Total Control, Love My Way or Black Snow. These are shows that Australians gather around and remember for decades to come.

Despite quotas being placed for commercial broadcasters, investment in drama, documentary and children's content has been falling significantly. Children make up almost 20 per cent of the population. They require specific content that reflects their world, one that is age-appropriate, educational and distinctly Australian. It's critical for their early education and social development and for building a sense of belonging. Yet the children's sector has been amongst the hardest hit by declining investment.

The amendment I've circulated seeks to amend the objects to make very clear the intent, which I understand has been indicated by the government, that the investment and this requirement on streamers be across all types of content, from drama to documentary to children's content. It amends the objects clause with a new part 8C of the bill, to clarify the intention of the bill to ensure that streaming services contribute to the development, production and dissemination of Australian stories by making balanced genre investments across all types mandated in the bill, including drama, children's programming, documentary, arts programming and educational content.

This amendment would embed the bill's purpose explicitly into the legislation and would ensure that ACMA's oversight and compliance align with the overall intention of the bill. This is significant, given the broad discretion in the bill for ACMA to make the rules. ACMA's oversight needs to align with parliament's clear expectation that investment be balanced across all culturally significant genres and that Australian stories remain central to our screen environment.

The bill is an important step to guaranteeing Australian stories and voices on our screens. It recognises that investment in a broad range of culturally significant areas is important for the strength of our national identity. However, we need to safeguard that intent. The framework must be implemented with clarity, accountability and ambition. We can't afford to get this wrong. I've heard from the minister that there will be a review period and that, in four years time, we will assess whether spending has been balanced across all types of content. But, when the screen industry employs over 60,000 Australians, drives a huge amount around creative export and shapes how we Australians see ourselves in our place and in the world—at a time when investment is so critical in these areas and has been falling so dramatically—this amendment just seeks to make sure that it is clear around the intention that the investment should be across all types of content.

We know the stories matter. They deserve to be told, to be seen and to be supported by a system that values their contribution to our economy, our identity and our shared future. And, whilst I know that speeches can be meaningful and explanatory memoranda are meaningful in assisting ACMA in assessing—especially in four years time, when the review occurs—I think it is very important to give a very clear direction to streamers as to the objects and the intention of the government in this legislation: wanting there to be investment across all sectors. We can't just assume it will be done. By making it explicit in the objects, we make clear the expectation of investment across all areas. I had wanted to move amendments around specific subquotas, but I understand the legal difficulties around that—but that is why I submit that this objects amendment is the best way forward.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a similar way to what I said earlier, I want to acknowledge the member for Warringah for an engagement that has been going on for some years now on this particular issue. It's important for the commitment that's been shown on this issue to be acknowledged.

As I said earlier, we're not in a position to be amending the bill at all. But, if I can refer specifically to the issue of the objects proposal—you could take it either way in terms of what's being said, so I think it's important that I clarify. In terms of the different subgenres, I do want to see—across the full suite of streaming businesses that are out there—and make sure that we end up getting the sort of diversity that's just been spoken about and that's reflected in the amendment. I don't, however, believe that it's essential for each individual streaming business to be providing that full range. There will be some streamers, for example, that decide that providing a serious level of children's content is important to them and go down that path. There will be others who go down a specific path, in seeking an audience, that is deliberately aimed at not having children among their audience.

I wouldn't want us to be in a situation or a conversation about objects and what we're to trying to achieve here that left any ambiguity in terms of the government's position on that, which is that, no matter who it is sitting on the lounge, we want Australian content in the different varieties that have been referred to be available to them. But I certainly wouldn't want there to be an impression that the government was seeking to have a situation where every single streaming service had to provide the full range. I think different levels of specialty is a reasonable business model for them. But part of what the government is wanting to achieve here is that the full range of Australian content that people love is guaranteed to be available on streaming services—in the same way that, historically, you could get it on free-to-air, on the public broadcasters and on cable television.

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

I thank the minister for that clarification, but it does raise a pretty concerning red flag. It does mean that sectors like documentaries or children's content could fall off the map completely over the next four years for the government's having failed to ensure that there is streaming investment in those sectors. What could very well result from this is a complete loss of those Australian stories from our screens because of decisions by international streaming companies to only focus on dramas. Then what will have happened is that we will have in fact failed to protect, through this legislation, and to save Australian stories across the full gamut of what is required to support stories. The storytelling is so important, but there's also the cultural identity and why it is so essential that we continue seeing Australian content. There is the importance of preserving the jobs and the industry in this sector, and there is also making sure that that diversity of content is made. So what assurance, then, can the government give that those in sectors such as children's programming and documentaries will not completely disappear over the next four years while we wait for the review period?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just very quickly—and I won't respond further—the situation we're in right now is that there is no guarantee of anything. That's the situation we're in right now. The purpose of the legislation is to start to get some guarantees on the expenditure on Australian content.

Question negatived.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to 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.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for both his contribution earlier and his contribution just now with respect to the amendment he's moved.

When we started the consultation, prominence was one of the issues we put on the table to work through. The pushback from those who didn't want it was some of the strongest pushback we had, on the basis that there was an argument that we were seeking to interfere with their IP. Also, the trade complications on dealing with this were viewed as being pretty serious. But, secondly, an argument put by the streamers—which was not unreasonable—was that if they've spent a whole lot of money on a production then they are going to want to make sure eyes are on it.

The government, having considered those arguments, took the view that the most important thing was to make sure the investment in the content took place, because the business demands would cause these streamers to want to make sure that what they had invested in was being viewed. As I said, the issues about prominence are around the value of the regulation versus the outcome when weighed against some of the pushback and trade issues we're dealing with. On balance, we made a decision that we were better off securing a guarantee of the investment than going down this additional path. But I completely respect the reasons the amendment is being moved.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Berowra be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.