Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail

Opened the debate

Spender moved amendments to exclude producer offsets from qualifying Australian expenditure, arguing that taxpayer-funded offsets should not count as streamer investment. Spender also proposed mandatory reporting on subgenres, such as children's programming and documentaries, to ensure transparency and protect vulnerable sectors. Spender withdrew a previous amendment regarding intellectual property rights to avoid unintended consequences for writers' royalties. Spender argued these changes would strengthen the bill's integrity and prevent double-counting of public funds.

Government response

Burke stated the government would not support any amendments due to extensive legal work required to comply with trade laws. Burke explained that including producer offsets was consistent with other expenditure-based obligations, such as the NETI scheme. Burke clarified that while the government desired diverse content, it did not intend to force every individual streaming service to provide all genres. Burke argued that securing investment guarantees was the priority over additional regulatory measures like prominence requirements.

Opposition response

Leeser moved an amendment to grant the minister power to prescribe prominence requirements for Australian content if necessary. Leeser argued that investment alone did not guarantee content would be discoverable by viewers on streaming platforms. Leeser described the proposal as a light-touch safeguard to ensure Australian stories remained accessible. Leeser urged the government to support the amendment to futureproof the legislation against market changes.