Milton Dick

The question now is the bill be read a second time.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Tony Burke

I present a chart showing the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2026. Copies of the program are being placed on the table, and I ask leave of the House to move that the proposed parliamentary sittings be agreed to.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2026 be agreed to.

In terms of the summary, it gets us back similar to what we have had over the last decade in non-election years, which is 18 weeks, or 66 days, of sitting.

Alex Hawke

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the way the government has handled the presentation of the sitting calendar this year. My office received a copy of the proposed sitting calendar at 1.43 pm today. That was 13 minutes before question time, so I thank them for those 13 minutes to consider the sitting calendar and what it entails. It's disappointing that it couldn't be provided with more notice, but there you have it. With all those extra staff, they were unable to get us that notice earlier.

Now I go to the substantive issues. The Leader of the House has brushed over a few things in the sitting timetable that he proposes for the House. The government is proposing that we sit 66 days next year, or just 18 weeks. With the exception of 2024, when we sat for 64 days only, you'd have to go back to 2020 to find another time when we sat for fewer days. That was during a once-in-a-century pandemic. To put it another way, the last time we sat for fewer than 66 days in the House of Representatives for a full year after an election was in 2011. If you went back to the future—if you got in that DeLorean, and you went back to 2011—who was the Leader of the House in 2011? Oh dear, it was the Leader of the House. He doesn't seem to like parliamentary sittings or scrutiny of the House of Representatives.

There is a question that I think this House needs to address. I've got a solution, being a constructive opposition member. Taking the Leader of the Opposition's instructions to all of us to be more constructive, we are going be more constructive. I've got a constructive solution to this issue. The question we all want to know, and the parliament and the people of Australia are asking is: will the part-time Minister for Climate Change and Energy be around to attend any of these sitting days at all? So I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House, something that all members in this House can support because we all want it:

That the Minister for Climate Change and Energy be required to attend each of the parliamentary sitting days in the House of Representatives during 2026.

A government member interjecting —

There are only 66 of them—to that interjection—therefore, this is not an onerous requirement on the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It is such a low amount that he should be present on those 66 days to answer the questions that we have, and, yes, we have a lot of questions. I recommend this motion to you. You want the minister to be here. We want the minister to be here. Who here would not like the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to be here? The member for Parramatta is not here, and it's unfair to ask this question when the member for Parramatta is not here, but I move my amendment. I encourage the leader to support this particular motion as amended.

Milton Dick

We’ve probably got a few problems with this amendment. I'll hear from the Leader of the House first.

Tony Burke

First of all, there was a reference made to 66 days and how far back you would have to go to find fewer. Other than last year, there was 2022. There was 2020. There was 2019, 2018, 2017—

Milton Dick

I want to deal with the amendment first.

Tony Burke

I think the easiest way is to save you from a ruling, and I'll just move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

I'm not particularly happy with the amendment because it's about an individual. If you're going to—

Tony Burke

I'm moving the question.

Milton Dick

The question is that the question be now put.

Anne Webster

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.

Tony Burke

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

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

Allegra Spender

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), after "nil expenditure", insert "but does not include any amount which may be subsequently recouped via the refund of part or all of a tax rebate on the program through any producer offset scheme".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 23 (after line 34), after subsection 121FZN(2), insert:

(2A) However, the service's total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year does not include expenditure incurred by the provider or providers of the service in the relevant year in commissioning an Australian screen business to produce an eligible Australian program unless, under the relevant agreement with the Australian screen business, the ancillary or secondary rights are all times retained under the ownership and control of the Australian screen business and the primary licensing rights revert to the Australian screen business after a period of 3 years, or 5 years if the program has been commissioned for a subsequent season.

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 24 (line 32), after "report", insert "disaggregated by subgenre".

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

(1A) The report must include the following information about each subgenre included in the report:

(a) the number of commissioned titles;

(b) the total production expenditure incurred in Australia;

(c) the number of hours of content produced;

(d) whether the content qualifies as "Australian content" under the National Classification Code or ACMA guidelines;

(e) the release dates and platform availability within Australia.

(1B) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is an example of a subgenre:

(a) scripted drama;

(b) documentary;

(c) children's programming;

(d) comedy;

(e) animation;

(f) reality and factual entertainment.

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 25 (after line 7), at the end of section 121FZO, add:

(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection (1), the ACMA must:

(a) publish a copy of the report on its website; and

(b) give a copy of report to the Minister.

(4) 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.

As I outlined in my speech on the second reading of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, screen content quotas for subscription video-on-demand services are long overdue. They're essential to ensuring Australians stories continue to be told. However, this bill does not go far enough to support and sustain the screen industry.

For this reason, I am moving some amendments which seek to address the loopholes that I identified earlier. These amendments are practical, targeted and designed to uphold integrity in the system. First, I will talk about the producer offset amendment. Producer offsets are government funded tax offsets covering 30 per cent of production costs. Although intended to support production companies and independent producers, a growing trend, particularly with streamers like Netflix, is for the streaming services to cashflow productions on the condition that the offset is later handed back to them. Under the current bill, the value of this offset can be counted as part of qualifying expenditure that streaming services must spend on Australian content. This means taxpayer money intended for the independent sector is treated as though it is the streamer's own investment even when the streamer is not actually contributing to these funds.

My amendment would exclude the value of the producer offset from qualifying Australian expenditure until streaming services genuinely spend more of their own money on Australian productions, particularly in cases where they currently can recoup part of the production costs through the offset, and avoid unnecessary complexity as offset arrangements are made at the contract stage and obligations are acquitted over a three-year period. This is a simple measure to ensure public money is not counted twice and that the purpose of the producer offset is preserved.

I think this is important. The producer offset is a piece of tax legislation I fought for very strongly, but I recognise that these offsets are expensive for the Australian taxpayer. This is money that the Australian taxpayer puts in. I think it really goes contrary to the intention of this bill, which is to get overseas platforms to invest in Australian content, to allow them to include taxpayer money in their Australian investment because it is demonstrably clear that Australian taxpayer money is not overseas money from these platforms in terms of investment in Australian content. So I do think this is an area where there is an issue. I appreciate there are other issues in terms of consistence with previous legislation for free-to-air and other platforms, but my understanding is that the producer offsets are not a factor in content in other parts of the system. So this is why that is not a particularly big issue and is one where I think there is a strong argument.

The second argument I would like to make is about mandating subgenre reporting to track investment in children's and documentary content. We know that key sectors, particularly children's programming and documentaries, are under significant pressure. Although these genres are eligible Australian programs, the bill does not require the streaming services to allocate any minimum level of investment across these content types. This bill already requires reporting to ACMA on business operations, including subscriber numbers and revenue. So my amendment would simply require streaming services to provide detailed information for each subgenre, the number of commissioned titles, total production expenditure, hours produced and stats on platform availability and provide ACMA and the parliament with transparent, accurate data to assess whether the investment is genuinely flowing into these vulnerable genres at the time of the statutory review. This report will be published online, provided to the minister and tabled in parliament. This amendment doesn't impose subgenre quotas, but it would ensure that the parliament has the evidence it needs to determine whether further action is warranted.

These amendments, I think, are well targeted. I previously also had an amendment in relation to the terms of trade—particularly protecting IP. I have withdrawn that at this stage on the basis that there is some concern that it could have unintended consequences on the writers' royalties. So I think further consideration of that amendment will need to be made to make sure that it doesn't interfere with writers' rights. But the principle of the amendment I had previously circulated but am not moving right now is that the terms of trade and intellectual property of our shows is actually really important. It is one of the most important ongoing streams of revenue for independent producers. It is the independent producers that all of these content quotas are intended to protect.

To summarise, these amendments are targeted, reasonable and designed to strengthen the effectiveness and fairness of the bill. They uphold the intent of the legislation while protecting taxpayers, supporting independent producers and ensuring the parliament can make informed decisions about the future of Australian content.

Tony Burke

I will start with the concept that is relevant to all the amendments, so will speak generally. People will be aware of the extent of the legal work and the challenges of making sure we keep this piece of legislation within trade law. Some of the pushback and back-and-forth has found its way into the media but members of the House would certainly be aware of that. For that reason and because of the level of legal work that has gone into the legislation, the government will not have an appetite to accept amendments, as a general rule, as we work our way through this. That said, I will still speak to give a position on the individual amendments as they are moved.

First of all, I respect the engagement that the member for Wentworth has had with the screen industry. She has a large number of people engaged in the screen industry in her electorate of Wentworth. She has publicly raised and asked about this issue in parliament and privately has sought regular briefings from me through her entire time here, wanting to make sure that not only did we get to an obligation for the streaming services but that it was as unambiguous as possible.

The effect of the first amendment would effectively take us from an obligation of 10 per cent to 13 or 14 per cent. That is the impact it would have. There are particular reasons under trade law as to why we are introducing legislation at the 10 per cent figure, so we would not be able to support an amendment that departed from that. In the comments of the member for Wentworth, there was a reference to how the producer offset was to be calculated against other obligations. Many of the free-to-air obligations, for example, relate to time not expenditure; therefore, it is irrelevant to those. The only expenditure obligation in the same way would be the NETI obligation that applies to Foxtel. In that situation there is not a discount in the form that this amendment would seek, so keeping it as is would be consistent with how the only other expenditure based obligation we have operates.

In earlier consultation I had been seeking sub quotas. We have pulled right back from sub quotas, based on the legal position we have been working ourselves through in trade law. I would not want there to be a reporting obligation that in any way confused that should we end up in a situation where this is challenged, so the government will not be in a position to support any of the amendments.

Allegra Spender

Thank you very much to the minister for your engagement on these amendments and also throughout the time on this very important legislation, which I would like to see passed here today, as much as anyone in this House—today or in the next couple of days. I take your point that you will not support the producer offset but I do think there is a case to be made here, that currently this is not being applied consistently. There are some companies who say they want the producer offset and there are some streamers who are not asking for the producer offset. If you addressed this now you would actually fix this going forward rather than have a situation where, I expect, over time, more of those companies will accept a producer offset. I do not think it is consistently used by all streamers or expected by all streamers; therefore, it wouldn't be part of their calculations at the current stage. That is why I think this is the right moment to deal with the producer offsets. I still make the case, very strongly, that Australian taxpayers don't expect our taxpayer money to be used to support content quotas for overseas filmmakers.

The actual percentage that the government has put into this legislation is significantly lower than a country like France. Again, the industry was seeking a much higher level but, by leaving it in, it reduces that further and that is the fundamental concern of the industry. You are right: it is about the NETI, not the free-to-air, so I apologise—my mistake. In relation to that NETI point, the point is the producer offset is not used under the NETI scheme. My understanding is that it has never been applied and there is no part of the NETI scheme where someone has used the producer offset as part of those calculations. It feels like we're, in this case, bringing something that is irrelevant in another scheme into this scheme and making it extremely relevant, and, unfortunately, weakening the strength of this piece of legislation. That's the argument. I appreciate all the constraints you have in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation, but I think these are going to be issues that will be significant factors for the screen industry. If there is any way to deal with the NETI scheme to make it consistent with this, that is where the government should be going.

Question negatived.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

Kate Chaney

I move the amendments circulated in my name:

(1) Page 9 (after line 25), after clause 17, insert:

17A Review of methodology for calculating amount of restoration contribution charge

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the methodology for calculating the amount of restoration contribution charge to be undertaken every 2 years.

(2) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within the period (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be published on the Department's website within 20 days after receiving the report.

(2) Page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:

19 Methods prescribed by regulations

(1) The method for working out the amount of restoration contribution charge that is prescribed by the regulations must take into consideration the following matters:

(a) administration, such as ecological assessment, entering into a legal agreement to secure the site, rates and taxes that are applicable, and the cost of meeting reporting requirements;

(b) forgone use, such as the opportunity costs for landowner due to forgone uses;

(c) management, such as the cost of implementing the management plan during the maintenance period, including labour, materials and equipment;

(d) insurance and risk, such as for infrastructure or equipment, such as fencing, and for unforeseen circumstances that may impact offset delivery).

(2) If the regulations prescribe a method for working out the amount of bioregional plan registration charge, the regulations must take into account the matters in subsection (1).

These amendments are about a critical but largely unexamined element of the EPBC reforms: how we price environmental offsets. If we get the price wrong, the entire system will fail. Offsets are meant to restore nature. But if the cost of environmental damage is not reflected in the price paid, offsets don't work. Across Australia we've seen what happens when offsets are underpriced. Developers pay a small fee, their projects go ahead, and governments are left with the impossible task of finding enough land, time and money to make nature whole again. The result is a growing ecological deficit—an environmental credit card that never gets paid off.

Under these reforms the amount a developer pays into the offsets fund will be determined by a method set out in regulations. My concern is that, without strong legislative guidance, that method could again undervalue the true cost of restoration. That's why I'm moving these amendments that require that the method for setting this restoration contribution charge takes into account the full range of real-world costs involved in delivering a successful offset.

When we talk about restoring ecosystems, the price isn't just the cost of planting a few trees. Restoration is complex, risky and expensive. My amendments ensure that the calculation of the offset price must consider a range of factors, including: the costs of establishing, maintaining and monitoring projects, which are the practical, on-the-ground expenses of doing the work; the costs of identifying suitable sites, including the time and expertise required to find land that actually supports restoration; the costs of acquiring that land, including stamp duty and transaction costs; contingency costs, acknowledging the fact that projects fail and that success often requires multiple attempts; the added costs of remote locations, where logistics and labour are more difficult; and the additional cost of scarcity: when suitable sites are few and far between, the price should rise accordingly.

If we ignore these factors, we're not setting a fair price; we're setting nature up to fail. In too many jurisdictions—New South Wales, Queensland and overseas—offsets have ben chronically underpriced. That underpricing flows through the whole system. It means that restoration projects are underfunded from the start. It means that the offsets fund doesn't have enough money to deliver what was promised. And it means that we end up with a pay-to-destroy model dressed up as environmental reform.

By clearly defining the factors that must be included in the offsets pricing method, we make the system transparent, predictable and credible. These amendments are about integrity—financial integrity and ecological integrity. They ensure that when we talk about offsets we're talking about real restoration, not accounting fiction. I commend these amendments to the House.

Tony Burke

I thank the member for Curtin for raising this issue and I respect absolutely that the role of offsets is something where integrity is critically important. As I've said in question time, the legislation also switches the concept from no net negative to net positive, which of itself is a significant change. The reasons the government won't be supporting these amendments are similar to some reasons I gave previously, but I'll give them now in response to the member for Curtin.

This government's environmental reforms will deliver better outcomes for the environment and industry. The bill's reforms will introduce new options for offsetting. Project proponents can either deliver an offset themselves or pay for the government to do it via a restoration contribution payment, or a combination of both. A new independent Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds or similar impacts. The government does not support these amendments because a new rulings power under the act fulfils the role of enabling the minister to determine that restoration contributions in all or particular circumstances are not appropriate as compensation for a particular protected matter. This mechanism does provide for flexibility and responsiveness by the minister as new information becomes available, including any advice of the Restoration Contributions Holder.

The proposed amendments would also remove flexibility and limit the environmental benefits of larger strategic restoration actions—for example, increasing connectivity or creating wildlife corridors. This approach would be better for the environment and better for business. We know the current offsets regime isn't working for industry or the environment, and we need to be able to do something differently to improve the system and deliver restoration at scale. The bill strikes a balance between allowing that to happen and learning the lessons from other offsets approaches that haven't worked.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I'll put the question immediately. The question is that the bill be read a second time.