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

Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:15): I move the amendment as circulated in my name: (1) Page 41 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Additional amendments Broadcasting Services Act 1992 1 After Part 9E Insert: Part 9F — Australian content prominence framework for streaming video on demand services 130ZZY Interpretation In this Part: Australian content prominence framework has the meaning given by subsection 130ZZZA(3). eligible Australian program has the same meaning as in Part 8C. major SVOD service has the same meaning as in Part 8C. 130ZZZ Australian content prominence framework (1) 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.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the requirements may relate to: (a) the display, location or positioning of eligible Australian programs through the user interface for a major SVOD service; or (b) the accessibility of eligible Australian programs to users of a major SVOD services; or (c) the proportion of programs on major SVOD services that are readily accessible through the main user interface that must be eligible Australian programs.

(3) An instrument made under this section is an Australian content prominence framework. (4) An Australian content prominence framework comes into force when it is made and remains in force for a period of 3 years unless it is repealed earlier. (5) Without limiting subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Minister may amend or repeal an Australian content prominence framework.

(6) The Minister must consult with providers of major SVOD services before making, amending or repealing an Australian content prominence framework. 130ZZZA Compliance with Australian content prominence framework (1) A person who provides a major SVOD service must comply with an Australian content prominence framework that is in force. (2) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision.

Exception (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person if: (a) the person is subject to a requirement under that subsection; and (b) the person fails to comply with that requirement; and (c) that failure to comply is because of circumstances that are outside the control of the person. Warnings (4) If the ACMA is satisfied that a person has contravened subsection (1), the ACMA may issue a formal warning to the person.

(5) For the purposes of this Act and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, a warning under subsection (4) is taken to be a notice under this Part. 130ZZZB Review of this Part Review of this Part (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of: (a) the operation, effectiveness and implications of: (i) this Part; and (ii) the remaining provisions of this Act to the extent to which they relate to this Part; and (b) whether any changes could be made to this Part, or the provisions mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), in order to improve the operation and effectiveness of this Part or those provisions.

(2) The review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the 4 year period starting on the day that this Part commences. Report (3) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. The report must not include information that is commercially sensitive.

(4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after receiving the report. 2 After subsection 205F(5AD) Insert: (5ADA) The pecuniary penalty payable by a person in respect of: (a) a contravention of subsection 130ZZZA(1); or (b) a contravention of section 205E that relates to a contravention of subsection 130ZZZA(1); must not exceed: (c) if the person is a body corporate—whichever of the following is greater: (i) 10,000 penalty units; (ii) if the Court can determine the value of the benefit that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, has obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attributable to the contravention—3 times the value of that benefit; (iii) if the Court cannot determine the value of that benefit—2% of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the period of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the contravention occurred; or (d) if the person is not a body corporate—2,000 penalty units.

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 safeguards 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.