Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2 together:

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

(1A) To the extent that the report relates to the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the year of the report, the report must provide information about where that expenditure was incurred by reference to the following:

(a) major cities of Australia;

(b) inner regional Australia;

(c) outer regional Australia;

(d) remote Australia;

(e) very remote Australia.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), after section 121FZO, insert:

121FZOA Publication of annual report

(1) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection 121FZO(1), the ACMA must give a copy of the report to the Minister.

(2) 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, upon which time it must be published on the ACMA website.

This parliament is being asked to set the rules for a new era in Australian storytelling. For the first time, global streaming giants will have obligations to invest meaningfully in Australian content. This is welcome. But unless this parliament insists on proper transparency, we will never know whether those investments are genuinely supporting the breadth of Australia—not just the big cities, not just the same postcodes but all Australians wherever they live.

My amendments are simple, practical and vital—transparency on where money is actually spent. My first amendment inserts subsection 121FZO(1)(1A). It requires streaming services, when they report their annual Australian program expenditure, to tell us where in Australia that money was spent—not vaguely, not selectively, but clearly and consistently—across the ABS remoteness categories, firstly major cities and then inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote Australia. This matters. Right now, we have no line of sight into whether Netflix, Stan, Disney +, Amazon and others are genuinely investing across the nation. We do not know whether regional creators, actors, crews and production companies, from Mildura to Mount Isa, from Shepparton to Alice Springs, are being given the opportunity to be part of this industry. Without transparency, there is no accountability. Regional Australians contribute to our culture, our creativity and our economy. They deserve to see themselves represented not just on-screen but in the opportunities created behind the camera. This amendment ensures that, when platforms spend their Australian content dollars, we will finally know whether regional Australians are included.

My second amendment creates section 121FZOA, which requires ACMA to publish each annual expenditure report and requires the minister to table those reports in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. If streaming platforms are meeting their obligations, good—let the country see it. If they are not, then parliament, industry and the public should know. Transparency should not be optional. It should not be hidden behind bureaucracy. When companies operate in Australia, earn revenue in Australia and benefit from Australian audiences, they should be accountable to all Australians. And I emphasise that this is not red tape. This is not imposing any new financial burden on platforms. They already track expenditure. My amendment simply requires them to share where it is spent and requires the regulator and the minister to ensure those reports see the light of day.

Australian content is more than entertainment; it is how we see ourselves, how our children understand their place in the world and how we preserve our unique culture in the face of overwhelming global media dominance. But, if Australian content is to be truly national, genuinely reflective of who we are, then regional and remote Australians must not be left behind. Creativity does not stop at the edge of a capital city. We have world-class talent right across this country. We have breathtaking landscapes, vibrant communities and compelling stories that deserve a platform. Transparency ensures that that opportunity is spread, not concentrated.

These are commonsense amendments. They strengthen accountability, ensure transparency, empower regional Australians and improve this bill without adding unnecessary burden on industry. I commend the amendments to the House and urge the members to support clear, open reporting so that all Australians, from the cities to the bush, benefit from the streaming and screen industries of the future—and I certainly hope that the Leader of the House supports these amendments.

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

I thank the member for Mallee. This gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the member for Mallee as one of a number of members from her party who have a long-term investment and interest—an investment in the political sense, not the monetary sense—in making sure that Australian content is well supported on our screens. I do acknowledge that.

As I said right at the start before we started the amendments, the bill that's before the House has gone through a lot of work to make sure that we are fully meeting our trade obligations and the government is not in position to be supporting various amendments. I do note the spirit of what the member for Mallee has moved. It does make a massive difference to communities when they see their stories on-screen. Only very recently, I was on the West Coast of Tasmania. The impact that the Bay of Fires series has had there is phenomenal. There are some series where you get a tiny bit that's done on location and then the rest of it is done with green screens in major cities. The programs that do really invest in different communities around the country are appreciated, and it matters. That said, it doesn't change the legal situation the government is in with respect to trade laws, so, while I'm very respectful of the reasons that this is being put forward, the government is not in a position to support the amendments.

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

The question is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mallee be agreed to.