Julian Leeser
Berowra · Liberal Party · Australia
“Third, the bill gives the minister unilateral power to impose conditions on higher education providers under the new section 36-65 of the HESA, which is introduced by this bill. The current version of section 36-65 of the HESA requires that there be an agreement in place with the provider. The new version does not.”
“Presumably, if you're a university and you get a bad decision, then your only recourse is judicial review, litigation or a constitutional writ. It's not a great option when the target of your litigation will be the minister who will make the future decisions that shape your ongoing financial viability.”
“This bill changes it from capped funding to capped places, but the places cost different amounts depending on the course. The Commonwealth contribution to a history degree is $1,316; agriculture costs $32,400. Could a university which typically teaches history be allocated 100 places and decide to convert them to agriculture?”
“I said very clearly that I understand the value of international students to Australia. I also said: We will want to make changes to the settings around international students, but I want the sector to know that we want to work closely with you to develop these policies and announce them in due course.”
“This so-called system steward, ATEC, can be bypassed at any time by a minister choosing to exercise this power. Again, this means universities are, under this bill, subject to extraordinary control by this minister or any future minister.”
“He said that Australian kids should be taught Australian values, which he defined as democracy, the rule of law, basic freedoms and a fair go.”
The complete record
Every one of 784 lines we hold for Julian Leeser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 16.
“In a submission to the universities governance inquiry last year, the existing regulator, TEQSA, specifically highlighted the complex governance and regulatory environment in which our institutions operate. It listed 13 different bodies which exercised some kind of oversight, influence or control of our universities. And that number rises to 14 once TEQSA itself is included. As Western Sydney University said, Australia's universities now operate under more than 300 pieces of legislation and regulation, a system it describes as a 'Frankenstein system'. This bill adds to that system. Submissions to the inquiry have made absolutely clear that the ATEC will be a regulator in all but name. Describing ATEC's function as 'stewardship' is not an answer.”
“The point of our tertiary education sector is not social development and environmental sustainability. It's education. It's learning. It's teaching. It's research. It's a dynamic, vibrant, competitive sector. It's support for our values and alignment with our national interests. If we are going to have a national tertiary education objective set out in legislation, it cannot be the one set out in clause 13. I want to say something about the second major flaw of this bill, which is that no serious commentator has looked at our tertiary education sector and concluded that it needs yet another regulator. Perversely, though, that is exactly the situation which this government has now found itself in.”
“Deakin University, in a submission that included a detailed paper from its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Iain Martin, about the social licence of universities, emphasised the need for universities to maintain their social licence and to consider the way they are seen by the public at large. He said, 'Either through action or inaction, we are readily accused of being politicised; the playthings of left-wing, inner-urban cultural elites, who possess social and economic capital.' He specifically described education, teaching and learning as the 'core responsibility' of university and specifically argues for excellence. It's a point well made and one the government has missed. In setting its legislative objective for the entirety of the tertiary education sector, this government has missed the mark.”
“The National Tertiary Education Union has slammed this ham-fisted attempt to ram more ideology into our universities and tertiary providers. It said: The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector. Deputy Speaker, you know that, when a member of the Liberal Party is quoting the National Tertiary Education Union in its criticism of a Labor bill, the bill is in real trouble.”
“Quite simply, that is not the appropriate focus of our higher education sector. It means that this is a bill about ideology, not improvement. To those opposite who say, 'Well, all we've done is adopt a recommendation of the Universities Accord,' I say that's not good enough. Governments accept and reject recommendations all the time. They're expected to have the intellectual curiosity to engage with those recommendations. They're expected to weigh consequences. They're expected to look carefully at proposals that are put to them and make decisions in light of the interests of all Australians and the electors who choose them to be in this place. Once it's in legislation, you own it; it's your policy. It's not just me making these criticisms.”
“Take, for instance, the ATEC's role in providing for domestic and international student allocations. Does driving social development affect those processes? Those are questions for the parliament and the people, not the ATEC. And why, regardless of the decision or the topic, is environmental sustainability shoehorned into the ATEC decision-making processes? It's a naked attempt to introduce cultural and political considerations into the decisions about our tertiary education sector. If environmental sustainability is relevant to the performance of ATEC's functions, it will be taken into account. That's basic administrative law principle. And if it's not relevant, it should not be taken into account. That is common sense. But under this bill, regardless of context, the ATEC is required to have regard to environmental sustainability.”
“Instead of talking about teaching, learning and research, the government says that our ATEC should be governed by vague and inappropriate references to 'social development and environmental sustainability'. What does social development even mean? It's an extraordinarily loaded term that goes to fundamental beliefs about the way our society should be shaped and the direction it should take in the future. It is a deeply, deeply political idea. It is the core focus of this parliament, the function of this place, to debate and contest the way our society should develop with ultimate accountability to the voters who ask us to represent them here. This is an undefined and heavily contested and entirely inappropriate function to confer on a bureaucratic body entrenched by law in the Department of Education.”
“But according to this government, this is the unifying objective or vision that's meant to shape our higher education sector out to the 2050s and an objective it wants to set down in law. Let me be clear. This government's national tertiary education objective says nothing about tertiary education, and why on earth not? If you were to stop the average woman or man in the street and ask, 'What do you think should be the objective of our tertiary education system?' they'd probably say something about teaching students or doing research or the other things you generally associate with education. These considerations simply do not make their way into the definition in this bill. That omission is bad enough in its own right. It is what the government has included that really makes the stick in the craw.”
“drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability. It's quite extraordinary. The words 'teaching', 'learning' and 'research' simply do not appear. There's nothing in there about the quality of our institutions. There's no consideration given to the way in which our tertiary system can align with or support our national interest. There's no reference to student experience. There's nothing about fostering dynamism, competition, innovation or efficiency. In fact, there's nothing at all which sets out the things you'd ordinarily expect in a statement setting expectations of an educational institution or a critical sector of our economy.”
“The second was to seek to define that objective in a way that seems completely divorced from the needs and purpose of our higher education sector and, worse still, to try and entrench it in legislation. The Universities Accord proposed a national tertiary education objective, and that's the objective which has found its way into the bill in section 13. And it's not just the objective of our tertiary education sector as a whole. It is an objective that ATEC will be required by law to take into account in the performance of every function and the exercise of every power. It's the iron rod that will guide this new regulator. So what does the objective say? The legislation says: … the National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to: a. promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and b.”
“I pause here to make this critical point. The higher education sector is more than just about our public universities. In fact, public universities make up only around 20 per cent of the higher education providers in Australia, and the tertiary education sector, which includes both higher and vocational education, is broader still. There are 4.86 million student enrolments in the independent sector. In our tertiary sector, more than 71 per cent of the enrolments are not in the public universities. But having just completed a consultation centred on the needs and demands of Australia's public universities, the accord set an objective for the remaining 71 per cent of tertiary students who arguably weren't adequately accounted for. This was the first extraordinary leap.”
“It's a turgid technocrats' policy that entrenches more bureaucracy. Labor loves to write its own hagiographies and they love to talk about education. When they go to write the next chapter of their own history, I fear these bills will be an unfortunate footnote. They are, to put it bluntly, not what Australia needs right now. I want to start at the top with the policy objective. The Universities Accord started with the point that the roadmap for Australian universities needs to start with a vision and a shared objective. That's unobjectionable as a statement of general principle. Of course, if you're going to embark on reform, you should have a sense of where you're going. But the accord process then made two extraordinary leaps. First, it produced an objective for the tertiary education sector as a whole.”
“I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These are the bills which establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, known as ATEC. Let me say at the very outset that these bills are very troubling. They establish a new regulator for an overregulated sector. They fail to articulate a clear vision for tertiary education in Australia but, at the same time, they tie it to inappropriate objectives. They don't deal properly with the independent or vocational and technical education centres and their links with universities. They are replete with problems of a technical or operational nature, and they've been criticised across the board.”
“Transitioning from military service is a major life change, affecting not only the veteran but the family as well, and Air Commodore Kooij's work is focused on building a more responsive and integrated transition system. I want to congratulate all these people who were honoured in the Australia Day honours list and encourage Australians to nominate their fellow Australians for similar recognition.”
“Marilyn Chilvers was awarded the Public Service Medal for outstanding public service to New South Wales in data research and analysis. Ms Chilvers's careers shows what it looks like when public service combines rigour with purpose, using evidence to provide outcomes and improve those outcomes, strengthen evaluation and help government better understand what works. Her work in human services outcomes and data linkage has helped inform investment decisions and improve service delivery for vulnerable people across our state. Finally, RAAF Air Commodore Kaarin Kooij gets the CSC and Bar for her outstanding devotion to duty as Director General of the Joint Transition Authority.”
“He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for helping maintain one of the most iconic sporting venues in the world. That stewardship requires knowledge, judgement and an uncompromising commitment to standards, and that's what Tom always provides. I know his family, especially his wife, Teresa, and his son, Jack, would be taking a full measure of pride in his award. The late Stuart Pittendrigh was recognised for service to horticulture and landscape architecture. He was a leader in his field for decades, combining his contributions to the Institute of Landscape Architects and the Institute of Horticulture, and was widely respected for the authority he brought to projects, professional standards and education. His work also touched major public spaces, including Barangaroo.”
“His career is a rare combination of technical excellence, professional leadership and a commitment to developing the next generation. He spent decades helping individuals and businesses recover after some of the worst days they'll face. Within the Australian and New Zealand Institute of Insurance and Finance he made an extraordinary contribution to professional standards and education, including long-term development of the diploma of loss adjusting. Tom Parker is a legendary greenskeeper. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to sport. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— The legendary Tom Parker is not a household name, but he is someone from whose work we have all benefited. Tom Parker was, for 20 years, the head curator at the Sydney Cricket Ground.”
“I want to acknowledge the local recipients from the Berowra electorate in the Australia Day Honours List. Jan Childs was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her contribution to the community of Berowra. Her contribution showed sustained, hands-on work for many years, particularly through the Berowra Rotary Club—which she led in the annual arts and crafts exhibition that celebrates local creativity and raises funds for good causes—and amazing contributions through girl-guiding through the Trefoil Guild and Girl Guides in Berowra, leaving a lasting mark on our community. Tony Morgan, whom I know through his work with the church communities in Hornsby, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service in insurance.”
“The incredible president of the SYMT and production manager is Chrissy Stimson. The cast includes Erin Pacholke, Danijela Novakovic, Jessica Bate, Nathanael Sherlock, Liz Grant, Aiden Hall, Sascha Masjuk, Eliza Pascoe, Hayley Mathie, Chloe Gardener, Harry Little, Karl Willison and Alex White. I got the privilege of seeing some of the rehearsals over the summer, and I encourage everyone in the electorate—indeed, everyone in the parliament—to buy a ticket to see this fantastic production by some outstanding young Australian musicians, actors and performers in the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre's production of 9-5 .”
“The Berowra electorate is home to some extraordinary young performing talent, and that talent will be on display at the Sydney Youth Musical Theatre's production of 9-5 , which will be running from 7-15 February at the Glenn Street Theatre. The SYMT's production will have lots of Dolly Parton's wonderful and famous songs. SYMT provides not only a place for entertainment for people but also a very important training ground for young artists and musicians. People go on to study at NIDA, WAAPA, the VCA and become recipients the Helpmann and Rob Guest awards. Some of the people involved in this production include director Adam Haynes, music director Jono Simpson, choreographer Caitlin Dennis, assistant director Lachie Donlevy and assistant choreographer Bella Speranza.”
“on indulgence—Can I associate the coalition with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Iranian regime is a criminal regime that commits human rights abuses against its own people, as we have been seeing, and they export terror and violence abroad, as we have suffered in our own country. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the government in the condemnation of the Iranian regime, in the support for those people seeking to change the regime and with the Persian community in this country.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns has said sorry to the Jewish community for his handling of the antisemitism crisis that led to the murder of 15 people at Bondi. The Jewish community wants to hear their Prime Minister say sorry. For the third time: why won't you say sorry too?”
“The choice for the Albanese government is in the implementation. The test for the government is how it uses these new laws. It must expel or jail hate preachers. It must list Hizb ut-Tahrir and its prayer halls. It must protect our borders from radical Islamists and the insidious propagandists who use Jews as a way of attacking Australia. It's a choice that doesn't end with these laws. The government must root out antisemitism from our schools, from academia and the universities, from the arts, from the trade union movement and from its own political base. Unless we do that, Bondi will not be the end of the story; it will be the midpoint of a story that gets so much worse.”
“We know that antisemitism is found in three groups—among Neo-Nazis who revel in the atrocities of the Holocaust, in the radical Islamists who take pride in October 7, and in the cultural left who foster and enable breeding grounds for hatred in our writers festivals, in artistic circles, on university campuses and in the so-called progressive organisations usually pretending to be about Zionism but mixed in with platitudes about human rights. As I said, Bondi represents a moment of choice, and the choice the Liberal Party makes this morning, as we have always done, is to stand with the Jewish community and law-abiding Australians. It's the choice to be constructive, to pass this legislation as a step in the right direction. That's the choice the Liberal Party has made. But the choice for the government of the day does not end today.”
“The Jewish community has seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. It ends in murder at Bondi after 800 days of failure. Antisemitism is an old hatred that wears different masks. First it was about religion. Then it was about race. Now it is about the Jewish state. But the hatred is always the same, and the result is always the same. And now that hatred has come here, to our country. The government has been warned about these things by its own antisemitism envoy, whose report was untouched for six months.”
“There were 800 days of warning signs between October 7 and 14 December, starting on 8 October in Sydney with the public rally where the day of kidnapping, murder, rape and torture of Jews was called 'a day of pride' and 'a day of victory', and exemplified in the occupation of the opera house the next day with chants of 'gas the Jews'; in the incidents where people drove around Melbourne looking for Jews to kill; in the countless acts of graffiti in our capital cities calling for Jews to be gassed and murdered; in the encampments at our universities where Jewish students and staff were harassed; in the endless week-after-week protests in our cities calling for the destruction of Israel and occupying our landmarks; in the sophistry and lies of the academic and intellectual class, who justified abuse by saying that it wasn't antisemitism but anti-Zionism and that they weren't enabling antisemitism but just arguing for peace; in the doxxing and deplatforming of Jewish artists and creatives; in the smashing of Jewish shops and businesses; in the physical assaults on identifiably Jewish people; in the firebombing of cars; in the attacks on the synagogues at East Melbourne, Caulfield, Perth, Hobart, Newtown and Allawah; and, of course, in the firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue.”
“Until recently Australia had an exceptional and unique story to tell about its Jewish community. Jews have been part of the story of Australia since the First Fleet. Australia came to be seen as a unique place good to the Jews. In turn, Jewish Australians have contributed to their country—famous names, like Monash, Isaacs, Lowy and Jessica Fox, and everyday people, with acts of service and gratitude that come from people living lives of peace and security. The grief from Bondi is twofold: it's not just the innocence lost, the families broken and the children scared and afraid; it's also the loss of the precious truth that Australia is good to Jews and the bitter sense that Bondi was predictable—we were warned.”
“Yesterday I stood here and said that the Bondi terrorist attack represented a moment of choice—a choice about the type of country we are and the type of people we want to be, a choice about whether we stay in the political cul-de-sac that we've been in for over 800 days or, instead, tackle the sources and causes of antisemitism in this country, a choice about whether to continue to treat antisemitism as just another political issue or to treat it as the moral and cultural problem it is, a choice made by people in this place about whether to drag heels or to deal with the issue with priority, alacrity and zealous determination, a choice by each member of this place about whether to change. The sad reality is that if we don't change then Bondi won't have changed anything.”
“Without change—without political change, without cultural change and without a reprioritisation of antisemitism as the foundational threat to this country—what we have seen will get worse. It's naive to think parliament could sit for two days and then move on as if that's enough to deal with this issue. If we have to, we need to deal with antisemitism every day this parliament sits to get the job done, until we restore an Australia that is good to the Jewish people and free and fair for all. Our times require leadership and goodwill. If we show it—if we work for it—then we can reclaim the Australia we remember and love and, in so doing, provide some comfort for all those who have lost so much. That is the choice before us today.”
“It's in the universities where Jewish students are harassed and Jewish academics are deplatformed. It's in the conferences where Jews are silenced, shut down, humiliated and called 'mutt' and where the term Zionist is used as an insult. In all these places we have witnessed failure of moral leadership, we have seen antisemitism excused with the word 'but' and we have seen hatred framed as artistic expression. It would be tempting to conclude with something poetic or sacred—a call, as it were, to give us hope. I can't do that today, but I will finish with a warning. We cannot continue the 800 days of neglect. Bondi will either be the crescendo to a bad chapter in our history or the midpoint to a story that gets worse.”
“The second group is the radical Islamists. They are a danger to our Australian community, and they are a danger to Muslim Australians. In my community the Persian community have for years stood against the mullahs of Iran and all their extremism, and I honour them. We must shut down the hate preachers and their extremist prayer halls. We must proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir—in fact it should have been done years ago—we must jail and expel the vile propagandists and their violence and we must be vigilant about those who seek to come here. The third group where antisemitism is rife in the cultural left. It's in the writers festivals that celebrate people who say their mission is to make Jews feel culturally unsafe. It is in the theatres where keffiyehs are donned and Jews are catcalled.”
“The sad reality is, if we don't change, then Bondi won't have changed anything. Bondi represents a moment of choice: will we stay in the political cul-de-sac we've been in for over 800 days, or will we tackle the sources and causes of antisemitism in this country; will our leaders continue to treat antisemitism and violence against Jews as a political problem to manage, rather than the moral and cultural problem that it is; and will our leaders drag their heels or deal with the issues with priority, alacrity and zealous determination? If we are to change, it starts with tackling the three groups where antisemitism has taken hold. The first group where Jew hate is festering is violent neo-Nazi groups. They move in small cells which must be disbanded. They're best tackled with more funding and stronger powers for our security services.”
“The loss of this idea is felt by every Jewish Australian, particularly when we see our children confused and scared about what is happening in this country. Bondi alone did not do this, but it has been accelerating in the 800 days between the Hamas attack on Israel and the Bondi attack—800 days of failure across our national life. The feeling in the Jewish community right now is visceral. It's of disappointment, of anger and of betrayal. The Holocaust survivor Eddie Jaku at the end of World War II left Europe for Australia because he couldn't resolve the question: where were my neighbours? Increasingly, Jewish Australians are asking the question: where are our leaders? Today is not about day-to-day politics; it's about the type of country we want and the type of people we are.”
“It's why, when my first child, my son whom I love, was born, I wrote: I want James to understand the particular perspective that comes from being a Jewish Australian, a religious minority that never numbered more than one per cent of this country, in a land which almost uniquely in human history has been good to the Jewish people. That same concept was so beautifully encapsulated by the wonderful words of the Deputy Prime Minister earlier today. There's much I grieve for today: the innocence lost at Bondi, the survivors of Bondi and the things they cannot unsee, the synagogues torched, the Jewish artists doxxed and frozen out, the university students harassed, the small businesses shut down—all of this pains me. But it is the loss of the truth that Australian is good to Jewish people that crushes me.”
“Today we gather to remember the victims, to support the injured, to comfort the mourners and to praise the heroes. We gather to reflect on the choices before us as a country. As a sixth-generation Jewish Australian I have always felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude for what this country has given my community. Jewish and Australian stories are deeply intertwined. My grandfather Sam served in the Australian Army in World War II. He was taken as a prisoner to the Thai-Burma railway. In that terrible place he drew strength from the freedom of the Australia he loved. Every week, no matter where the Australians held camp, Jewish services were held. Even in the horrors of the Changi prison camp, a place was consecrated as a synagogue.”
“It's in their interests too. So, again, I say to the minister: don't vote against the prominence of Australian content. This is a simple measure, with the wellbeing of the Australian screen industry at its heart. It's not a restrictive legislative formal obligation. It's a flexible, light-touch approach that leaves the platforms with the flexibility to determine the best way to give prominence to our stories, with a safeguard if necessary. The prominence and discoverability of Australian content should be front and centre together in this discussion. They are natural partners. I commend the amendment to the House.”
“Don't vote against prominence for Australian content. Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the ability to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to futureproof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy? After all, it's in the interests of all Australians that they can easily find Australian stories. It's in the interests of the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found. The ramifications of this type of measure are far-reaching. They affect the screen production industry, which we support. We want Australian content to be prominent and discoverable in an on-demand world. But there will be other industries in the cultural sector that will also take note.”
“If you listen carefully, you'll hear the safeguard's built into that mechanism. It has a clear purpose. It requires reasonable grounds. It includes an obligation to consult with the major streamers who'll be subject to the requirement. It says that the instrument will be disallowable. That means parliament has oversight. The amendment says that the instrument is time-bound. It can only last three years. But there's a clear power to amend or remake it. There's a requirement to comply, which is enforceable by civil penalty provisions, along the same lines as the civil penalty provisions that apply to prominence for television. There is also a requirement to review the prominence framework. I say to the minister: pass this amendment. Pass this amendment and vote for the prominence of Australian content.”
“We can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill passes will actually be easy to find for ordinary Australian families. That's why I'm moving this amendment today. This is about futureproofing the bill. It's a simple, light-touch regulatory model. It simply gives the minister a power—a power which frankly I hope the minister never needs to use. But the mechanism is straightforward. The amendment says: The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe requirements relating to the prominence and accessibility of eligible Australian content on major SVOD services if the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that it is appropriate to make the instrument to ensure eligible Australian content is readily accessible to Australian users.”
“Overwhelmingly, the streamers I've spoken to say that they do the right thing. They say that, if they're going to invest in a show, they want to give it the appropriate prominence so that it's seen and successful. They want a show that will come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose, and that's great. As I said earlier, no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in coming years. We don't know what the market impacts of this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video on Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, will be. We don't know how the market will change. We don't know what new players in the market will do with their catalogues.”
“This amendment relates to prominence, with 'prominence' meaning that Australian content is actually accessible to those who wish to watch it. It means it's easily found, visible and discoverable so that viewers can effortlessly choose Australian content if they want to. I've spoken to people in the sector and I know that this is a real issue for them. In the old days, prominence was built into the content requirement. Prominence and local content were a package deal. You couldn't have one without the other. The subscription video-on-demand model breaks that link. Just because you commission an Australian show doesn't mean it will be easily found. No-one wants that outcome. Streamers don't want that outcome. Streamers say they don't do this; the commercial imperative is otherwise.”
“I move the amendment as circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) the Coalition has been an unwavering supporter of the Australian screen industry for decades, and is responsible for: (a) establishing the producer offset, the location offset, the digital and visual effect production offset—which have underpinned support for the sector for almost two decades; (b) introducing the location incentive, which attracted billions of dollars of investment into Australia in the film industry; (c) providing in excess of $100 million in financial supports to the Australian screen production industry throughout the Covid pandemic; and (d) first proposing an Australian content guarantee for streamers in February 2022; and (2) after almost four years of inaction, the Government has asked that this Bill be passed in just four sitting days, having taken the industry by surprise and despite significant concerns about potential unintended consequences".”
“In the ordinary course, this bill would be the subject of an inquiry. We don't accept that the industry should face a potential financial penalty if this parliament conducts such an inquiry. This is an issue within the government's power to correct, and we ask them to do so. I thank the House.”
“Will it mean that an Australian company could be outbid by global streamers, forcing them to acquire low-quality content or pay inflated prices or both? Will the bill inadvertently put more local content behind pay walls? Will the bill damage local broadcasters, who have local drama and documentary quotas but provide that content for free, by driving up prices in the marketplace. Will this bill do harm to the services and platforms that are the backbone of local production? These are important questions, and important questions that should be ventilated in an inquiry. Let me be clear about the coalition's position. Our position on this bill is simple: we support Australian content, we support the Australian screen industry, and we support Australian content being accessible, visible and easily found on Australian screens.”
“We're led to believe that most streamers already meet the investment thresholds in the legislation. Will this bill actually change the current state of play, or does it only place a floor under the current investment levels, as the government has said, and shape new players considering entering into the market? A fourth question is: what are the unintended consequences? Do those unintended consequences adversely impact the Australian screen industry? Amongst the focus of the US-based streamers there is, of course, Stan, the only Australian owner streamer, which is an offshoot of Nine, a free-to-air broadcaster. Will this bill hobble Stan's ability to commission local Australian dramas and documentaries?”
“But the question is whether this bill fits within those carve outs and whether there are broader impacts on our relations with other countries. This is an issue which should be explored in an inquiry. Another question is: is the content requirement appropriate? When this bill passes there will be three different standards for Australian content depending on whether you're a broadcaster, a subscription TV provider or a streamer. What does the introduction of this new third standard mean for the market? How will it affect competition between the players? What impacts does it have on investment in the market? What impacts will it have on pricing when it comes to commissioning new shows? The third question is: does this bill make any difference at all?”
“I want to turn to other questions about this bill. As we said when the bill was first introduced, we back Australian content, but there are questions about how this measure will work. The first one is the question the minister reportedly described as a stumbling block in his own caucus room when he delayed the bill over a year ago. That question is: does this bill breach the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement? Chapters 10, 11 and 16 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement deal with electronic commerce, investment and cross-border trade and services. Under John Howard, the coalition had the foresight to include some reservations to those chapters. We included specific carve outs for audio-visual and broadcasting sectors. They are recorded in annexure 2 to the agreement.”
“After all, it's in the interests of all Australians to be able to easily find Australian stories, and it's in the Australian screen production industry that their stories are easily found. That's why I am moving a amendment to the bill. It's a very simple amendment, modelled on the light touch but highly effective approach of Paul Fletcher, which is to allow the minister to set requirements for the prominence of Australian content on streaming services. It's not a formal obligation; it's a power to take action in the future. That's why I described it as future proofing a few moments ago. It puts the prominence and discoverability of Australian content front and centre. This is the natural partner of an investment obligation. Why not have a proper inquiry into that type of issue in the context of the bill?”
“We don't know what new pressures will influence the major streamers in the years to come, and we can't guarantee that the Australian content that will be commissioned when this bill finally passes will actually be easy to find by ordinary Australian families. We know that the size of the Australian content catalogue is patchy. For some streamers in the Australian market, it is less than one per cent of their overall catalogue. So if you don't have much Australian content, why doesn't the bill deal with that? Why not have a mechanism to give the minister the power to deal with the prominence of Australian content on streaming services as a safeguard to future-proof this bill? Why not make this bill deal with more than just reporting an investment and do better as a cultural policy?”
“The commercial imperative is obviously otherwise. Overwhelmingly, the streamers that I have spoken to do the right thing. They say that if they are going to invest in Australia, they want to give it appropriate prominence so that it is seen as successful. They want the show to come up on the carousel when you log on to Netflix or Amazon Prime as a selection that you can easily choose from, and that's great. But no-one has a crystal ball. We don't know how the market will change in the coming years. There will be new players coming into the Australian market, and we don't know what their approach will be.”