Already, and this is the daily art.
This is the daily ohs oh, now it makes sense. Good morning and welcome to the Daily Ours. It's Thursday, the sixth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.
I'm Lucy Tassel.
Think back to the last time you logged in to your Netflix, Disney Plus or any streaming service and ask yourself this, how much oussie content do you remember seeing? If you're struggling to imagine a single local production, the future could look very different. That's because, after years of discussion, the federal government has announced it will introduce legislation requiring
streaming services to boost their spending on Oussie content. Today we will explain everything you need to know about this announcement, what it means for the film and television industry here, and how the streamers themselves are responding. But first, today is a big and excite day because we have a culture newsletter. It's launching this afternoon. If you want to be one of the first people in the country to read it, sign up at the link in our show notes.
Okay, up, before we get into the details of this announcement, can you explain what's the state of play in Australian media.
Yes. So some really important context for this story is that for decades Australia has had really strong content requirements for free to air television. So commercial free to air the ABC and SBS have their own kind of charters and requirements around local content, but commercial networks so seven, nine and ten must broadcast an annual minimum of fifty five percent Australian content between six am and midnight on their primary channels, so more than half of their annual
content in those hours has to be Aussie programming. They also have to meet minimum our requirements on their non primary channels each year. So for example, Channel nine has that fifty five percent requirement, but a channel like nine GEM has slightly different rules.
Yeah.
PayTV like Foxtel also has obligations to invest in Australian content, and these are rules that have been in place for decades. They're considered an essential way to protect local productions that might otherwise struggle to compete with the massive budgets of overseas content, particularly out of the US and the UK.
You've mentioned freeware channels, and you've mentioned PATV channels, but you haven't mentioned where I think I mean, I don't know about the statistics, but where I think most Australians are watching most of their TV these days, which is streaming services. Do they have any requirements?
In short? No, And this is the gap that the government is trying to close with this new policy. So when streaming platforms arrived in Australia around ten years ago, if you can believe, the likes of Netflix, Amazon's Prime Video were able to build huge audiences without the same obligation to invest in Australian stories as linear TV traditional TV competitors, and as we've seen with many examples of new media, digital media regulations basically just have not kept
up with the popularity and the boom of streaming. So the television landscape has changed, but the rules haven't.
So what's the government's plan to change that?
So it's announced this proposal that would apply to streaming services with more than one million Australian subscribers, so that's Netflix, Disney Plus, Prime Video, probably Apple TV plus, although it doesn't publish local subscriber numbers. These platforms, though, will need to invest at least ten percent of their total Australian expenditure or seven and a half percent of their Australian revenue in new Aussie content. Now that content must be drama,
kids programming, documentaries or art and educational programs. And the rule also requires post production to happen in Australia, which is important because it opens more opportunities for more local jobs editors, composers, etc. Now, when it comes to stand and Paramount Plus, even though they are owned by Australian freedowares nine and ten, they will also be subject to these requirements.
I'm a little bit confused about how much streamers are actually going to have to spend. So you mentioned ten percent of expenditure and seven point five percent of revenue. How will that actually work.
Yeah, it's confusing, let's be honest. But I dug into this a little bit more. Expenditure refers to what a platform spends on content shown in Australia, so, for example, licensing fees what it costs them to secure the rights to showing a program to Ossie audiences, whereas revenue refers to how much money a streaming platform earns from its subscribers. One of the government's proposal, platforms can choose which model
they want to follow. So for example, let's say streaming service spends one hundred million dollars annually in total on content for Australia. Their expenditure, they would need to ensure at least ten million dollars a year is going towards new Australian productions. Alternatively, if they generate one hundred million dollars in revenue from Aussie subscribers, they would need to invest at least seven and a half million dollars in
local content. So the idea here is, you know, giving platforms some flexibility while ensuring that there is a meaningful investment back into the Aussie industry. But in reality the contributions from some of these platforms will be much bigger. Let's look at Netflix. It reported local revenue of one point three billion dollars expenses of about one point twenty five billion dollars in the last financial year. So you know we're talking about significant investment.
Yeah, and are we talking about all content from these streamers or only new content.
New content specifically, So this isn't about streaming services increasing their spend on Australian content that already exist. It's not about Netflix saying okay, what are the pre existing Australian shows that we can secure the rights to Arts. Minister Tony Burke said that since coming here, these services have created some extraordinary shows, but quote this obligation will ensure that those stories, our stories continue to be made.
You mentioned that this is a proposal that's been kind of just stating for a while. What's taken so long.
Debate has been going on around this for almost as long as these platforms have been available here. There was some momentum in twenty twenty one the former Coalition Governments, Arts and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher put forward a five percent proposal for local content quotas for streamers. The scheme was voluntary, though, and it was criticized by labor as not going far enough. In January twenty twenty three, the
Albaneze government actually committed to introducing streaming quotas. They said a deadline of July one, twenty twenty four, but obviously that came and went with no legislation, and over the past two years there has been extensive consultation with the streamers and free to air broadcasters and various industry bodies as part of these efforts to kind of get this off the ground, but clearly there have been several complications along the way. One of the big concerns has been
around imposing content quotas on largely US owned platforms. There was some tension around, you know, whether or not this would violate the free trade agreement that exists between Australia and the US. US government report on Foreign Trade Barriers published in March actually highlighted the planned streaming quotas here, warning the White House would quote continue to monitor the issue to ensure Australia's compliance with the free trade agreement.
I mean, it's interesting to bring up the free trade agreement because I was of the understanding that US tariffs on Australia will also in violated of that free trade agreement because they're making trade not free.
Well exactly. Obviously, since Donald Trump's reelection, the whole trade conversation has been turned upside down a little bit. But I guess the argument here could be that with those added tensions because of ongoing tariff negotiations with Trump, you know, could these quotas be seen as a potential provocation to worsen or intensify strain on those other negotiations.
Okay, I see, let's talk about the streaming platforms themselves. We haven't heard from them yet. What have they said in response to this proposal.
So the streamers have been pushing back hard. They have argued as a collective that they already invest heavily in local content. So there's this industry body called the Australian New Zealand Screen Association and they represent Netflix, Prime Video, Disney Plus, Stan and Paramount Plus. All of those services have teamed up to reject earlier versions of the quota proposals.
They actually published these findings as a group this year through a report called Streaming for Australia, which highlighted what it called quote evidence that demonstrates that the contribution we have made to Australia's creative economy is meaningful. According to the report, streaming services invested nearly three billion dollars on new Australian and quote Australian related programs between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty four to become quote the largest investors
in Australian content today. Netflix in particular warned all the way back in twenty twenty one, when those first conversations were happening with the Morrison government that mandatory quotas could have serious negative consequences and quote inadvertently lead to a reduction in the volume, variety and quality of Australian content rather than increase it.
Okay, what has the Australian screen industry said.
Well, in contrast to how the streaming platforms have responded, this has been a mostly positive response. Screen Produces Australia called it a landmark announced after years of global streaming services benefiting from local audiences quote without contributing fairly to
the creation of Australian stories. We reached out to independent Aussie TV and film production company Wooden Horse Joint CEO Richard Finlayson told TDA, Like most independent producers, Wooden Horse quote welcomes the new quota requirement, but he said they had hoped to see a higher percentage of revenue committed
to Australian content. Finlayson also noted that the French government interestingly has enforced legislation requiring streamers to invest at least twenty percent of local revenue in French and European content. In a statement to TDA, he said, quote seven point five percent feels like a low bar when you consider that premium drama series are now costing between twenty five to fifty million dollars. Yeah, okay, there's a lot of money in streaming and streaming productions.
Yeah yeah. What have we heard from other political parties?
The Greens won the quota to be higher. They're calling for a twenty percent reinvestment, like we have heard from within the film industry. They also want a sub quota specifically for children's television. I reached out to the Shadow Minister for the Arts, Julian Lisa, and he said that the Coalition has always fought hard for Australian creatives. He accused Labor of spending four years basically doing nothing after the Coalition first announced a plan for streaming services in
twenty twenty two. He said, quote the government's announcement leaves many questions unanswered, like how much new money will actually be invested into screen production and quote we need to be sure that the announcement delivers for the Australian screen industry.
The Government obviously has a lot of hurdles to overcome before this actually comes into effect. But when it does, what do you think it'll look like?
In theory, the hope is or the hope from the government is that we see a lot more Australian content on the home pages of those streaming services we are so familiar with, so you know, dramas, docos, kids shows, more work for writers and actors, directors, crew members, all the supporting businesses around film and television production Communications Minister annaka Well's said quote, we want to make sure, no matter which platform people are watching, Australian stories are part
of their experience. So the hope is, you know, with more Aussie content being made, we will see more stories that resonate with us. There's also a hope that you know, this content will find international audiences and elevate the profile and notoriety of Australian productions. I think it's also worth flagging that there are a lot of practical details that still remain unknown, things like exactly how spending will be audited,
what specifically qualifies as Australian content. But Lucy, it's been a long and complicated process to get here. It's not over yet, but the legislation is due to be tabled today, so we will know a lot more pretty soon.
Thanks so much for explaining that, Emma, and if you are interested in more culture stories, like this. You can sign up to our new newsletter debuting today at the link in our.
Bio TDA Culture I Get around It, Get around It.
We will be back this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have a great day. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Dunda Bungelung Kalkudin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.