Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Ryan argued the bill sets a low baseline of 10 per cent expenditure or 7.5 per cent revenue, which is significantly lower than the 20 per cent advocated by industry groups. Ryan criticised the lack of a content quota, noting the legislation only mandates expenditure without requiring platforms to carry specific amounts of Australian content. Ryan warned this could lead to short-term big-budget productions rather than sustained grassroots industry support.

Ambihaipahar supported the bill as essential for nurturing community-based creative organisations and ensuring diverse representation. Ambihaipahar highlighted that the legislation applies only to major streaming services, excluding niche or user-generated content platforms. The bill includes a carryover window of three years for spending and a mandatory review four years later to ensure accountability and adaptability.

Watson-Brown stated the Greens would support the bill in the House while reserving their position in the Senate. Watson-Brown emphasised the importance of local content for children, arguing they deserve stories reflecting their community rather than generic imports. Watson-Brown used the success of Bluey to illustrate the value of Brisbane-based production and cultural representation.

Coffey detailed the bill's provisions, including the 10 per cent expenditure obligation and the optional 7.5 per cent revenue pathway. Coffey noted the legislation amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority to enforce compliance. Coffey argued the bill provides certainty for workers and ensures Australian stories remain accessible across all major platforms.

Steggall welcomed the bill as a step forward but argued the thresholds might not be sufficient to reverse the decline in the screen sector. Steggall highlighted the collapse in children's content hours and the need for sub-quotas to ensure balanced investment across genres. Steggall planned to move an amendment to clarify the need for diverse investment and warned against foreign-owned companies benefiting disproportionately.

Briskey argued the bill levels the playing field by applying similar obligations to streaming giants as those faced by free-to-air broadcasters. Briskey emphasised the economic benefits for local crews and the cultural value of seeing diverse Australian experiences on screen. The legislation was described as a practical reform with flexibility for companies and a review mechanism to ensure effectiveness.

Spender supported the bill but identified significant loopholes, including the ability for streamers to count taxpayer-funded producer offsets as qualifying expenditure. Spender argued this subsidises multinational balance sheets rather than increasing genuine investment. Spender circulated three amendments to exclude offsets, protect intellectual property rights for producers, and mandate genre-specific reporting.

Campbell argued that the bill protects Australian cultural identity by requiring streaming services to allocate a minimum of 10 per cent of their program spending or 7.5 per cent of revenue to local content. Campbell noted that while streaming subscriptions have risen significantly, there were previously no content requirements for these platforms, unlike free-to-air broadcasters. Campbell emphasised that the legislation supports the screen industry, which contributes billions to the economy and supports thousands of jobs, and welcomed the flexibility allowing services to carry over investment credits.

Miller-Frost stated that the bill fulfils a commitment in the national cultural policy, Revive, to ensure access to local stories across all platforms. Miller-Frost argued that without intervention, cheap imported content risks drowning out Australian voices, undermining the uniqueness of Australian society. Miller-Frost explained that the requirement applies to services with more than one million subscribers and allows for a three-year compliance period to accommodate investment cycles, with a statutory review scheduled after four years.

Templeman described the legislation as a long-overdue reform that aligns streaming platforms with historical obligations placed on radio, television, and pay TV providers. Templeman argued that global market forces do not prioritise local content without regulation, citing similar measures in Europe and Canada. Templeman highlighted the economic benefits, noting the screen sector employs around 55,000 people, and praised the bill's flexibility, which allows platforms to choose between expenditure or revenue-based compliance and carry forward surplus investments.

Burnell argued that the bill ensures fairness by requiring streaming giants to invest in Australian stories if they profit from Australian audiences. Burnell stated that the legislation supports the next generation of creatives and provides certainty for the screen industry, which supports over 50,000 jobs. Burnell emphasised that the requirement targets major players while exempting smaller services, and noted the inclusion of civil penalties to enforce compliance, ensuring that local content remains visible amidst global offerings.

Chaney backed the bill as a major reform tackling the screen sector's vulnerability caused by the absence of prior duties on streaming platforms. She stated the law protects cultural identity and offers job security for creative staff. Chaney said she would back a change suggested by the member for Wentworth to leave producer offsets out of eligible costs, seeking to stop fake cuts to Australian spending and keep intellectual property rights with local firms.

Moncrieff argued that the bill corrects a legislative gap that allowed streaming services to operate without content requirements while free-to-air and pay TV broadcasters faced quotas. Moncrieff stated that the legislation strengthens local industries, supports small businesses, and provides career pathways for young creatives in his electorate. Moncrieff emphasised that the bill ensures diverse representation on screen and imposes civil penalties for breaches, with ACMA administering the obligations through disallowable instruments.

Khalil argued that the bill is essential for preserving Australian cultural identity and supporting the screen industry, which faces declining employment opportunities. Khalil stated that streaming services now dominate media consumption, yet previously had no obligation to invest in local content. Khalil highlighted the importance of telling First Nations and multicultural stories, and noted that the legislation provides the stability needed for creatives to sustain their careers, ensuring a steady pipeline of work rather than sporadic employment.

lead

Jarrett supported the bill as a delivery of the government's national cultural policy, Revive, which aims to renew the arts and cultural sector. Jarrett argued that the legislation ensures Australians can access local stories on streaming platforms, mirroring content requirements already applied to traditional television. Jarrett noted that streaming services with more than one million subscribers must invest at least 10 per cent of their spending or 7.5 per cent of their income in local content. Jarrett emphasised that this support is vital for the domestic screen sector, preventing the loss of local skills and ensuring quality productions continue. Jarrett also highlighted the economic benefits, including job creation for diverse creative roles and the promotion of Australian culture globally.

Byrnes argued that the bill protects Australian cultural identity and supports jobs by requiring streaming services to invest in local commissions or acquisitions. Byrnes highlighted the Illawarra region's growing role in film production, citing recent projects and the support provided through the Revive Live program for local music venues. Byrnes stated that the government is committed to ensuring the future of Australian cultural exports starts at home, with tangible benefits for regional communities. Byrnes commended the bill for creating an environment that attracts investment in Australian products and people.

Elliot supported the bill as a necessary update to content requirements, ensuring streaming platforms contribute to Australian stories similarly to traditional broadcasters. Elliot explained that the legislation amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to introduce enforceable obligations for on-demand services, overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Elliot noted the bill includes practical measures such as allowing spending to roll over for three years and mandating a statutory review four years later. Elliot emphasised the economic impact on regional areas like Richmond, where film productions create significant employment opportunities and support local businesses.