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.

Milton Dick

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

Allegra Spender

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

(1) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 20, insert:

20A Publication of reasons

If a registrable decision is published on the register of registrable decisions, the reasons for the decision must also be published on the register.

My amendment to this bill continues the theme of transparency, this time for the new NEPA. Under this bill, the NEPA will pay a central role in approving, assessing and enforcing environmental decisions. These decisions will help shape the health of our environment and the credibility of the new system. Yet, as the bill stands, the NEPA is only required to publish notice of a decision, not the reasoning behind it. Earlier, I spoke about my amendment to the EPBC bill, which would require the environment minister to publish a statement of reasons for decisions made under the act. This amendment mirrors that change. If NEPA is to be the trusted independent body that the community expects, its decisions must be clear, consistent and explainable. My amendment would require the agency to publish a short statement of reasons for each significant decision, particularly any approval, rejection or enforcement.

Tony Burke

I thank the member for the issues that have been raised. The government will not be supporting this amendment. Thousands of decisions are made under the EPBC Act every year, including things like issuing permits. Many decisions that would be published in the register are routine. Therefore, it would be undue administrative burden to require reasons to be published in every single circumstance. The current reforms, and specifically section 232 of the bill, provide that recommendation reports for approval decisions are published. This is an improvement on the current process that we have, where interested parties need to apply for a statement of reasons.

Angie Bell

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and to this set of bills. I wasn't able to speak on consideration in detail on this bill before the House, because the government shut me down. I'm not going to get the opportunity to ask the minister representing the minister for the environment the long list of questions that I had to ask. And now I'm going to be allowed just a couple of minutes to say why we do not agree with these bills in their current form. I understand I'm speaking to a bill around administration that is linked to the reform bill. I understand the procedure and that we are speaking to the amendment. But what I would like to do is highlight the difficulties with this bill from the opposition's point of view.

I have stakeholders on both sides—on the conservation side and on business, industry and productivity—coming to me saying that this is not workable for them. And what I would like to put to the House and to Australians across the country is that the coalition has been shut down time and time again today when we've been trying to talk about the flaws in this group of bills.

I want to talk to the environmental protection authority, which will now have sweeping powers. It'll have a CEO that will not be able to be fired by the minister. If the CEO of the EPA is not performing very well, there will be no scrutiny from the minister.

There are some other problems with this bill. Unacceptable impacts in the bills—

Milton Dick

I'm sorry to interrupt the member for Moncrieff, but this amendment is very prescriptive regarding registrable decisions. It's not a general debate. The member for Wentworth has moved her specific amendment, which is about 20A, publication of reasons. It's not a general debate, I'm sorry to inform you; it'll have to be about what is before the House, and the question I've stated is specifically about the member's amendment. It's very technical.

Angie Bell

I understand, thank you, that amendment and how technical it is. There are very many technicalities in these bills. There are technicalities in all of the bills. There are administrative bills. There are seven bills in total, in fact, and the coalition hasn't had the opportunity to speak even to the reform bill in the House, apart from the second reading debate. There are many technicalities in this bill, covering many areas of problems. The EPA, the unacceptable impacts, the net gain and the streamlined pathways are all technicalities in this bill that need to be addressed.

Judging by its shutdown that we've seen today of democratic debate, this is not a government that looks like it is prepared to do any negotiation at all around these bills. There are technicalities that will have unintended consequences throughout all of these bills, which this government doesn't seem prepared to hear about—on these EPBC reforms. It's important.

Milton Dick

The time has concluded.

Question negatived.

The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be agreed to. The member for Moncrieff is seeking the call for a point of order?

Angie Bell

I'm seeking the call to speak to the consideration in detail on the EPA bill.

Milton Dick

The member for Mackellar has listed her consideration in detail amendments, and the process is that we go through the ones that are listed as consideration in detail. I understand that you don't have any amendments yourself; you wish to speak to consideration in detail, and we will get to that to make sure that you do. I just remind the House that the result of the suspension motion that we have done, which is on the Notice Paper, is that there will be five minutes allocated for this debate. The member for Mackellar has the call to move her amendments.

Long debate text truncated.