Key points

• The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 (the Bill) introduces an Australian content expenditure requirement for certain subscription video on demand (SVOD) services with over 1 million paying subscribers in Australia.
• A platform’s expenditure requirement is either:
  • an amount equal to 10% of the service’s total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year, or
  • an amount equal to 7.5% of the revenue derived by the service from Australia in the relevant year.
• Broadcast television has long been subject to local content obligations.
• The Bill follows numerous parliamentary inquiries that have commented on the matter and was an action in the Albanese Government’s National Cultural Policy, Revive.
• Whilst introducing content obligations for streaming services has strong bipartisan support, the Opposition and crossbench are yet to express support for the Bill.
• The expenditure requirements proposed in the Bill are lower than amounts previously suggested by government and advocated for by industry. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that streaming services are already meeting the expenditure requirements proposed in the Bill.
• At the time of writing, the Bill had not been referred to or reported on by any parliamentary committees.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 6 November 2025
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Arts
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 (the Bill) is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) to require certain major subscription video on demand services (SVOD services) to ensure minimum levels of expenditure on new eligible Australian programs. The Bill will also amend the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 to facilitate the reform.

Background 

Key terms Subscription video on demand (SVOD): an industry term for services that provide on‑demand video content to subscribers in exchange for a regular, recurring fee (that is, not one-off purchases). Unlike traditional subscription TV, SVOD is delivered over the internet. Free-to-air television (FTA): the common industry term for the licensed broadcasting services provided free to the public in Australia. This includes commercial broadcasting services and national broadcasting services. Broadcast video on demand (BVOD): a term for video on demand services provided by the traditional Australian broadcasters free to the general public (e.g., ABC iview, 7plus, 9Now). Subscription television: licensed broadcasting services provided on payment of a subscription fee.

Changing viewing patterns in Australia

According to a 2024 Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) report (p. 3), more Australians watch SVOD services (69% in a 7-day period) than live FTA (46%) or BVOD services (43%). Deloitte’s Media & Entertainment Consumer Insights 2025 report found that 83% of Australian households subscribe to at least one SVOD service, with the average number of subscriptions being 2.3 per household when considering all respondents, and 2.8 when considering subscribers only (pp. 7–8).

Regulation of film and television services in Australia

Broadcast television, including FTA commercial television and subscription television, is regulated by the BSA. The national broadcasters are regulated by their respective enabling legislation – the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991.

Quotas for local content have long been required of commercial FTA, and subscription television services that provide drama channels must meet local drama expenditure requirements. Commercial FTA broadcasters are further subject to licensing fees (though these are currently paused).

Similar provisions do not apply to SVOD services, which are currently unregulated in Australia. SVOD providers voluntarily report to the ACMA on the number of Australian titles on their service and their expenditure on Australian content.

Imposing local content requirements on SVOD services is not a new idea. Conversations around the issue have been occurring for the better part of the last decade, since Netflix, Stan and other streaming platforms launched Australia in 2015. Multiple parliamentary inquiries and government reviews have considered the issue and suggested action.

In February 2022, then Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, announced that the government was developing:

A proposed Streaming Services Reporting and Investment Scheme to incentivise and, as needed, require large subscription video on demand (SVOD) services to invest in Australian content.

The Morrison Government released a discussion paper on the proposed scheme at the same time, and provided funding for it in the March 2022–23 Budget (p. 145).

Following the change of government later in 2022, the Albanese Government also committed to addressing the issue. Revive – the National Cultural Policy released on 30 January 2023 – included the action to ‘introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming platforms to ensure continued access to local stories and content in the third quarter of 2023 and to commence no later than 1 July 2024’ (p. 89).

In late 2024, the ABC reported that the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, ‘told Labor's caucus on Tuesday [5 November] that the interaction of any new local content rules with the US free trade deal was a stumbling block’, which would delay introduction of legislation.

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

The policy of introducing content obligations for streaming services has broad support across the Parliament. However, the Opposition and crossbench are yet to comment on the specific details contained in the Bill.

In a press release on 6 November 2025, Shadow Minister for the Arts, Julian Leeser, stated:

Since announcing our Australian content guarantee in 2022, the Coalition has called on the Albanese government to take similar action … Questions remain about aspects of the Billand whether it delivers for our screen industry.

The Australian Greens expressed a similar sentiment in a press release dated 4 November 2025:

The Greens have long campaigned for local content quotas on streaming platforms to support Australian stories on our screen … We will look carefully at the detail of the bill and reserve our position until we know it is strong enough to ensure a strong future for our screen industry, including children’s content.

The broader crossbench also supports content regulations for streaming services. On 8 October 2025, Zali Steggall, Kate Chaney, Dr Sophie Scamps, Dr Helen Haines, Senator Jacqui Lambie, Allegra Spender, Nicolette Boele, Dr Monique Ryan, Elizabeth Watson-Brown and Senator David Pocock co-signed a letter to the Minister for the Arts, ‘call[ing] on the government to deliver on its promise to legislate an obligation for streaming platforms to invest 20 per cent of Australian revenue in Australian stories by 30 June 2026’.

Key issues and provisions

Expenditure requirements

The key amendment of the Bill is item 3, which inserts a proposed Part 8C—Australian content requirements for subscription video on demand services into the BSA, comprising proposed sections 121FT to 121FZZ. The object of proposed Part 8C is ‘to ensure the development, production and provision of Australian programs by subscription video on demand services’ (proposed paragraph 3(1)(ec), at item 1).

Overview of the expenditure requirements Proposed Part 8C of the BSA will introduce an Australian content expenditure requirement for major SVOD services (≥1 million Australian subscribers). Rather than mandating quotas, services must invest either 10% of total program expenditure for Australia or 7.5% of Australian-derived revenue (if elected) on eligible Australian programs. The expenditure must relate to programs that are: eligible: drama, children’s, documentary, arts or educational (news, sport or advertising are excluded) new: not previously released in Australia (except in cinemas) and Australian: classified under the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children’s Television) Standards 2020 (includes New Zealand content and official co‑productions). Qualifying expenditure will include commissioning, acquisition, investment and pre‑production costs.

Expenditure requirement not content requirement

While the Minister’s second reading speech states that ‘the government is legislating for streaming services to have guaranteed Australian content’, and a press release foreshadowing the legislation referred to ‘content obligations’ for SVOD services, content quotas are not an explicit feature of the Bill.

Rather, the Bill introduces an expenditure requirement for major SVOD services. As outlined at proposed sections 121FZK and 121FZL, a major SVOD service is required to meet a certain level of expenditure on ‘new’ eligible Australian programs. There is no requirement for SVOD services to carry or provide a certain amount of Australian content.

This focus on expenditure is at odds with the quota requirements for commercial broadcasters – who are required to provide a certain amount of Australian content on their channels – but consistent with expenditure requirements for subscription television drama channels.

Which platforms do the requirements apply to?

The proposed expenditure requirements apply only to major SVOD services.

An SVOD service is defined (proposed section 121FX) as a service with a primary purpose, or a significant purpose, of providing a catalogue of audiovisual content on demand to paying subscribers, and which has paying subscribers in Australia.

In turn, for the purpose of proposed Part 8C, a major SVOD service is defined as a service that, at any time in the relevant year, has been an SVOD service with at least 1 million paying subscribers in Australia (proposed section 121FY). The SVOD service must also provide eligible programs – drama programs, children’s programs, documentaries, arts programs or education programs (proposed section 121FY(4) and 121FV).

The Explanatory Memorandum (p. 17) notes that Netflix, Amazon Prime, Stan, Apple TV+, Disney+, Paramount+, and Binge are expected to meet this definition, and that ‘it is expected that HBO Max would also meet this definition once it has established its presence in Australia’. Five of these providers currently voluntarily report their expenditure on Australian content to the ACMA.

How is the expenditure requirement calculated?

The Australian content expenditure requirement may be calculated in one of 2 ways (proposed section 121FZL):

• an amount equal to 10% of the service’s total program expenditure for Australia for the relevant year, or
• an amount equal to 7.5% of the revenue derived by the service from Australia in the relevant year.

Program expenditure is the default basis for calculation unless a platform elects to calculate their expenditure on a revenue basis (as per proposed section 121FZM).

Total program expenditure for Australia is the total of the expenditure incurred by the service provider in the relevant year on eligible programs that are, or are intended to be, provided on the service in Australia (proposed subsection 121FZN (1)).

As outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum (p. 28) a service’s total program expenditure for Australia includes:

• programs that are commissioned or acquired specifically for the Australian market,
• programs that are licensed by a streaming service for use on its Australian service, and
• programs available on a streaming service operating in Australia that are globally commissioned or licensed or otherwise not subject to a licensing payment specifically for the Australian market.

In the last case, each ‘streaming service in Australia must ascribe a proportionate value, or a “transfer price”, to these programs … calculated as if arrangements to provide such content on the service in Australia were entered into at arm’s length’ (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 28). There do not appear to be clear guidelines on how this ‘proportionate value’ is to be calculated. Without this guidance, there is a risk that streamers may inconsistently calculate the ‘Australian expenditure’ related to global acquisitions. Mr Matthew Deaner, CEO of Screen Producers Australia expressed a similar concern in evidence provided to the Senate’s Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into the National Cultural Policy, suggesting that streamers self-determining the value of an Australian licence for a globally acquired show would be ‘artificial’ and contrary to usual practice, leading to opaque and potentially insincere ‘Hollywood accounting’ methods. He further suggests that the regulator would need to have complete access to the accounting books of streamers in order to understand if expenditure figures provided were accurate (p. 43).

The revenue derived by the service from Australia appears easier to calculate. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that ‘revenue would include, but would not be limited to, revenue derived from subscription fees and advertising in Australia’ (p. 26).

How can the expenditure requirement be satisfied?

Platforms must expend at least the value of the Australian content expenditure requirement on eligible Australia programs, which are programs that are:

• eligible: drama programs, children’s programs, documentaries, arts programs or education programs, and not news, sports programming or advertising (proposed section 121FV, definitions for these program types are provided at proposed section 121FU).
• new: not previously released to the public in Australia (other than being shown in a cinema) at any time before the expenditure was incurred (subsection 121FZK(1)(c)).
• Australian: classified as an ‘Australian program’, a ‘New Zealand program’, an ‘Australian/New Zealand program’ or an ‘Australian official co-production’ as per the definitions in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children’s Television) Standards 2020 (the Standards) (or its successor) (proposed section 121FW and definitions at proposed section 121FU).

Importantly, in relation to being ‘Australian’, the Standards tightly define Australian and New Zealand programs as those that are ‘produced under the creative control’ of Australians or New Zealanders (see full definitions at sections 10–12 of the Standard). Official co‑productions are made under formal arrangements between Australia and the governments of various countries and managed by Screen Australia.

The classification of New Zealand content as Australian content is consistent with Australian content requirements for commercial broadcast television and subscription television.

Qualifying expenditure may be in the form of expenditure (see proposed sections 121FU and 121FZK) spent on:

• acquiring rights in relation to the program
• producing or commissioning the program
• investing in the program, or
• pre-production expenditure.

Compliance & enforcement

Flexibility of satisfying requirements: carry-over provisions

The Bill grants service providers flexibility in meeting their expenditure requirements. These requirements need not be met in the same reporting year as they are incurred; they can be carried over for 2 reporting years. That is, an expenditure requirement incurred in reporting year 1 must be acquitted by the end of reporting year 3 (proposed section 121FZI). If the carried-over expenditure requirement is not acquitted within this time, the provider of the service may be liable for a civil penalty, and the carried-over expenditure requirement continues to carry over to further reporting years (and may result in further civil penalties, see proposed section 121FZJ).

Similarly, if a service provider expends more money on eligible Australian content than is needed to satisfy its expenditure requirement in a given reporting year, the surplus expenditure amount may be carried over for 2 reporting years (proposed subsections 121FZI(6) and (7)).

How is compliance monitored?

Service providers must provide the ACMA with an annual report outlining their compliance with the Part, including details of their expenditure, revenue and number of paying subscribers in Australia (proposed section 121FZO). Not providing this report in the form and manner outlined may result in a civil penalty (proposed section 121FZP).

Further, proposed section 121FZT empowers the ACMA to compel providers to give the ACMA information and documents ‘if the ACMA has reason to believe that the person has information or a document that is relevant to the operation’ of new Part 8C. Not providing the requested information may result in a civil penalty (proposed subsection 121FZT(4)).

Key issue: power of the regulator to determine the scope of the Part

The Bill provides the ACMA with substantial powers to determine the scope and application of new Part 8C:

• The ACMA may determine that a specified program is or is not an eligible program, regardless of the definitions provided in the Bill (proposed subsections 121FV(3) and (4)).
• The ACMA may determine that a specified program is or is not an eligible Australian program (proposed subsections 121FW(2) and (3)). 
• The ACMA may determine that specified amounts of expenditure are taken to be or not to be qualifying expenditure amounts (proposed subsections 121FZF(1) and (2)).
• The ACMA may determine that specified amounts of expenditure are taken to be or not to be total program expenditure for Australia (proposed subsections 121FZF(3) and (4)).
• The ACMA may determine that specified amounts are taken to be or not to be revenue derived by an online content service from Australia (proposed subsections 121FZF(5) and (6)).
• Proposed subsections 121FZC(4)-(7) allow the ACMA to determine that specified persons are or are not providers of a specified online content service.

The Explanatory Memorandum notes that these powers are intended to be used in the case of ‘unforeseen circumstances’ and ‘ambiguities’ (pp. 21, 22); for example, to determine whether a program featuring a pottery competition ‘meets the definition of an arts program or whether it may be light entertainment and therefore [an] ineligible’ program (p. 15). In effect, however, these provisions allow the ACMA to flexibly determine whether a provider meets or does not meet the requirements of the Part, potentially shaping the scope and application of the Part in a significant way, including in ways that may diverge substantially from the underlying policy intent.

These determinations by the ACMA are not legislative instruments and are not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. However, ‘a person whose interests are affected by the decision to make the determination’ may apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of the decision (item 4, proposed addition to subsection 204(1)). The ACMA must also publish a copy of each determination under sections 121FV, 121FW and 121FZC on the ACMA’s website.

The ACMA has the power to determine that ‘online content services included in a specified class of online content services are exempt’ from Part 8C or specified provisions of the Part (proposed section 121FZD). This determination is a legislative instrument. The Explanatory Memorandum (pp. 20–21) provides an example of when this power could be used:

It is intended that the ACMA would only use these powers sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. For example, if an existing broadcaster has an online content service that is an exact mirror of its main service (such as Foxtel, being the main service, and Foxtel Go, being a duplicate of the main service), and that main service is already subject to local content requirements, it would not be intended to be captured by this Part. In this case, it would be up to the ACMA to consider whether this class of services should be exempt.

The ACMA may also determine that certain classes of expenditure or revenue are or are not to be accounted in various ways (proposed section 121FZG). These determinations are legislative instruments and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Interaction with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement

From late 2023, media reports began suggesting that the government’s proposal to introduce expenditure requirements for SVOD services may violate provisions of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). A blog post published by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in December 2023 argued that the proposed models appeared to contravene 2 articles of AUSFTA:

Article 16.4 of AUSFTA’s E-Commerce Chapter … prohibits preferential treatment for digital products based on the national origin of an “author, performer, producer, developer, or distributor.”

…

Article 11.9 of AUSFTA’s Investment Chapter (Performance Requirements) … prohibits measures designed to “achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content…”

It further stated:

AUSFTA does allow the Australian government to enact content requirements inconsistent with these rules, but only in the case where a finding is made that the amount of Australian content in the market is “not readily available to Australian consumers.”

In reality, this condition is not remotely close to being met…

On 6 November 2024, the ABC reported that Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, ‘told Labor's caucus on Tuesday [5 November] that the interaction of any new local content rules with the US free trade deal was a stumbling block’.

Both the Minister’s second reading speech and the Explanatory Memorandum (pp. 53, 55, 61, 62) state that the proposed requirements are consistent with Australia's international trade and investment law obligations.

For discussion of the interaction between content quotas and trade agreements see commentary on the interaction between the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and European broadcasting content requirements, including the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (pp. 77–83), which requires SVOD services to include at least 30% ‘European works in their catalogues and ensure prominence of those works’.

Development, production and provision of Australian content

Does the Bill support the stated policy aim?

Proposed paragraph 3(1)(ec) adds the following policy aim to the objects of the BSA:

 to ensure the development, production and provision of Australian programs by subscription video on demand services [emphasis added]

The 2020 report, Supporting Australian stories on our screens—options paper, authored by the ACMA and Screen Australia, provides 3 main arguments for why local content quotas should apply to SVOD services:

• Cultural significance: ‘Stories influence us in many ways, ultimately reflecting, shaping and challenging our perceptions of ourselves and each other’ (p. 14).
• International reach: commissioned Australian content is shared around the world, supporting Australia’s ‘global brand and standing’ and increasing tourism to Australia (p. 6).
• Economic impact: the screen sector contributes significantly to Australia’s economy. However, Australian content is expensive to produce and may be a relatively unattractive option for SVOD services without regulated quotas (pp. 5–6).

These arguments are echoed in the Minister’s second reading speech.

The Bill primarily supports these objectives by requiring regulated SVOD services to expend money on eligible new Australian content (supporting the development and production of Australian programs and having a potential positive economic impact). However, Free TV CEO, Bridget Fair has noted that expenditure requirements for SVOD services may have unintended economic costs by inflating the costs of producing Australian programs, negatively impacting other content creators, such as FTA broadcasters.

Further, the Bill does not require that a certain quantity of Australian content (or indeed any Australian content) be provided on regulated SVOD services. It is therefore unclear whether the objective of ‘providing’ Australian programs will be achieved by the Bill. As RMIT researcher Alexa Scarlata notes in an article in The Conversation:

We might see a few big-budget productions popping up sporadically, rather than a larger quantity overall. What good is that for our flailing production sector?

Will the Bill make a difference?

The expenditure requirements proposed in the Bill are notably lower than the amounts previously suggested by the Albanese Government and advocated for by industry.

The May 2024 Interim Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications’ inquiry into Revive stated that the government was considering 2 models for local content requirements, in consultation with industry:

A 20% expenditure requirement based on Australian revenue has been advocated for by stakeholders such as the Australian Writers’ Guild (p. 22) and Screen Producers Australia, crossbench Parliamentarians and the Australian Greens (p. 2).

In comparison, the Bill sets expenditure requirements at either 10% of the service’s total program expenditure for Australia or 7.5% of the revenue derived by the service from Australia.

Reporting suggests that the Government believes that all streamers, bar one, already meet the expenditure requirements outlined in the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum outlines (p. 59):

The required expenditure modelled earlier, estimates the expenditure requirement to be a spend of between $175 million to $200 million each year on new Australian content (approximately 48 to 53 hours of content) this would be consistent with the current expenditure for Australian adult drama, children’s and documentary programs by SVODs, which is an average of $193.4 million… This would confirm ongoing investment for future years. [emphasis added]

This suggests that, rather than encouraging increased expenditure in Australian content, the Bill acts to guarantee that current levels are maintained.

Other provisions

Notification requirements of SVOD services

Proposed section 121FZQ requires providers of SVOD services to notify the ACMA if, at any time, they have at least 250,000 paying subscribers in Australia. These services must further notify the ACMA if their circumstances change. Notifiable circumstances include if the service becomes (or ceases to be) a major SVOD service, if the service ceases to be an SVOD service, and if general identity details for the service provider change (proposed subsection 121FZR). The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, determine that other specified circumstances are notifiable circumstances.

Failing to notify the ACMA appropriately may result in a civil penalty (proposed subsection 121FZS(2)).

Mandatory review of Part 8C

Proposed section 121FZY requires the Minster to cause a review to be conducted of the ‘operation, effectiveness and implications of’ new Part 8C and related provisions. This must occur ‘as soon as practicable’ at least 4 years after the Part takes effect. The written report of the review must be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of being received by the Minister.