Written by Associate, Lucy Diggle
Australia has officially ushered in a major regulatory shift in the entertainment sector! On the eve of 27 November 2025, Parliament passed the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 (the Bill).
For years, free-to-air broadcasters have carried Australian content quotas, while streaming services (think Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video.) have operated without similar requirements. The passing of this Bill closes this longstanding gap, by introducing binding obligations for global streaming platforms to invest in Australian stories, signalling a new era in Australia’s cultural policy.
The Roadmap to the Bill
To understand the significance of this Bill, it’s essential to look back at the past six years of intense lobbying and policy debate within Australia’s screen industry on the regulation of streaming services.
2019: Digital Platforms Enquiry
What was it? In 2019, the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry marked a turning point in Australian media regulation. It placed digital platforms on the reform agenda and signalled a shift toward platform-neutral rules, moving beyond regulations that historically applied only to free-to-air television. Until then, streaming services had operated outside the regulatory framework of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), which applied exclusively to broadcast services such as free-to-air TV. This gap – where traditional broadcasters faced strict Australian content quotas while streaming platforms had no equivalent obligations – became a key focus of the inquiry.
Its significance? The Digital Platforms Enquiry highlighted the need to modernise Australia’s content regulation framework to reflect the realities of digital content delivery, as streaming grew in popularity and transformed our viewing habits.
2020: Media Reform Green Paper
What was it? In 2020, the government released a consultation paper canvassing options for formal Australian-content obligations on streaming platforms. This was the first time specific ideas for bringing streamers into the local-content framework were floated.
Its significance? It marked the beginning of serious policy debate and lobbying, as concrete proposals for regulating streamers entered the conversation.
2019–2022: Weakening of Other Broadcast Quotas/Publication of Streaming Data
What was it? In 2020, the Coalition government relaxed children’s content quotas for commercial television, replacing them with a more flexible points system. During the same period, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) began publishing data on the expenditure of streamers, revealing growing concerns about under-investment in Australian content.
Its significance? This became a cautionary tale: when strict obligations are removed and content is left to market forces and voluntary commitments, Australian production drops. This reinforced the need for clear enforceable quotas. ACMA’s reporting also reinforced that voluntary spending by streamers wasn’t enough to sustain local production.
January 2023: Revive National Cultural Policy
What was it? The government launched its five-year cultural policy, setting out priorities for arts and culture and committing politically to introduce streaming content requirements by mid-2024.
Its significance? This was the turning point, a clear policy commitment that moved the issue from debate to action!
What Does the Bill Require?
Australian Content Requirement
Under the new framework, subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services with more than one million Australian subscribers must allocate a portion of their budgets to Australian programming.
The obligation is calculated as either:
– 10 per cent of total program expenditure for Australia; or
– 7.5 per cent of Australian revenue
with providers able to elect the revenue method for a three-year period (the Australian Content Requirement).
What Counts as an Australian Program?
The Bill incorporates a definition of ‘Australian program’ that is the same as in the Australian Content and Children’s Television Standard that currently applies to commercial free-to-air (i.e. Channel 7) and other subscription television broadcasting services (i.e. Foxtel).
Using the same definition that already applies to TV is intended to ensure consistency and clarity for producers and platforms and ensures everyone is playing by the same rules with regards to what counts as “Australian Content” for the purpose of meeting the Australian Content Requirement.
Eligible Program Formats for Investment
Investment under the Australian Content Requirement must be directed to new Australian drama, documentary, children’s, arts or educational programs. Reality TV, light entertainment, news, sport, and lifestyle shows generally won’t count toward the Australian content requirement. The policy reasoning for this is that it forces streamers to invest in more high-value, culturally significant content and narratives rather than formats that are traditionally cheaper to produce.
Timelines for Compliance
Streamers must meet annual expenditure requirements but can carry over shortfalls for up to two years. This means that rather than having to meet the exact target every single year, they have a two-year window to make up any shortfall, allowing flexibility to smooth out spending across multiple reporting periods.
Enforcement and Penalties
The legislation gives the ACMA strong enforcement powers. ACMA can issue infringement notices directly, avoiding lengthy court proceedings and enabling swift action.
Minor breaches (e.g., failing to lodge annual reports within 45 days): Penalties can reach 60 penalty units for corporations and 12 for individuals. These relate to administrative compliance failures, not the core investment obligation.
Serious misconduct (failure to meet Australian content expenditure obligations): Penalties are severe and can comprise up to 10,000 penalty units or ten times the amount that should have been spent, whichever is greater.
The legislation also includes anti-avoidance provisions, allowing ACMA to adjust figures where transactions are not at arm’s length. This measure is designed to prevent accounting tactics that artificially reduce reported spending on Australian content, for example, when a studio does deals with its own related entities, loading them up with extra costs so the program looks more expensive that it really is.
Critiques and Challenges
However, challenges still remain and many in the industry (especially abroad) remain critical of its shortcomings.
No Quantitive Requirements
The Bill does not prescribe a minimum quantity of content, such as a set number of titles or hours that streamers must produce. As a result, there are concerns that streamers could technically meet their obligations with only a handful of high-budget productions each year. This raises genuine questions about whether the policy will deliver sustained opportunities for Australia’s struggling production sector or simply fund occasional prestige projects.
No Promotional Requirements
Unlike comparable regimes in Europe and Canada, the Bill does not impose local content promotion requirements. Even if Australian programs are produced, there is no guarantee they will be given preference or even promoted in a way that allows viewers to discovery them within the streaming algorithms. Without discoverability obligations, Australian stories risk being buried beneath global content, undermining the cultural objectives of the legislation. This raises the question of how we meaningfully strengthen the Australian industry if audiences can’t find the content.
International Trade Agreements: A Contravention?
US trade officials have raised concerns that the legislation may conflict with the Australia -US Free Trade Agreement (FTA), arguing that mandatory local investment could be viewed as a trade barrier limiting market access for US-based streaming companies.
The FTA prohibits certain market-access restrictions, like limits on the value of transactions or conditions that disadvantage foreign service suppliers versus local ones. US Critics of the bill point specifically to non-discrimination obligations for digital products, which prohibit giving preferential treatment to digital content based on the nationality of the author, performer, or producer.
While Australia’s FTA schedule includes audiovisual ‘carve-outs’ intended to preserve Australia’s right to impose local-content rules for broadcasting, subscription TV, and ‘interactive audio and/or video services’ (a catch-all for new medial) these carve-outs are subject to strict limits.
Specifically, the FTA includes the requirement that any new local content requirements would not exceed certain levels or percentages. Opponents argue that this carve-out is too narrow and does not clearly accommodate the obligations set out in the Bill, which may fall outside its tightly defined scope.
It remains to be seen whether this diplomatic tension will complicate implementation.
What Happens Now?
For the Australian screen sector, this reform represents a significant cultural and economic opportunity. This will translate into more jobs for writers, directors, actors, and crew, and greater stability for production companies that have long relied on sporadic production opportunities. The legislation will also go a long way at strengthening Australia’s cultural sovereignty by ensuring that local stories remain visible in an increasingly globalised market! At Studio Legal we’re optimistic about this development and the opportunities it will create, opening new doors for Australian storytelling and our local production landscape!
The Bill will now be passed to the Governor General for Royal Assent, and take effect from 1 January 2026.
Further Information
Want to read more about film and television? Check out these other blog posts we’ve written:
– Location, Location, Location: A Producer’s Guide to Filming
– Chain of Title: A Crash Course for Producers
Need legal advice or have any questions on the above? Please contact us through our online form or via email at hello@studiolegal.com.au.
Written by Associate, Lucy Diggle
Published 1 December 2025.
Photo by Jakob Owens on Unsplash
DISCLAIMER
The information in this article is of a general nature. It does not constitute formal legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Please see the full disclaimer in our website terms. Please contact Studio Legal if you are seeking advice about a specific legal matter.