Drama and Discontent

Anachronistic content laws are hobbling Australia’s free-to-air networks as they try to compete against powerful global streaming services. By Tim James.

The media we consume – as well as when, where and how we consume it – is dramatically shifting. We are now surrounded by screens delivering instant content from around the world.

Yet Australia’s free-to-air television networks are still bound by content requirements that were originally legislated in 1961. 

The latest version of those requirements, from 2005, say that 55 per cent of the content broadcast by the networks between 6am and midnight each day is Australian. There are other sub-quotas regarding Australian adult drama, documentaries and children’s programs.  

It’s an archaic and ineffective policy for an industry that is now competing globally. It’s also hypocritical in a country where the media is supposed to be free. 

Ironically, some of the people who defend government-imposed content restrictions also champion their own right to free speech. The state should not interfere, they say.  And they’re right.  So why should the state dictate terms to media networks, particularly when those networks are under relentless competitive assault from streaming services and other forms of media? 

Likewise, we don’t object when Australian programs and films do well overseas (as many have), so why should we restrict overseas content from succeeding with audiences here?

After all, consumers should decide what they want to watch, not the government.

Australians now have access to an unprecedented variety of choices from around the world. Streaming services will continue to grow in response to consumer demand for choice and convenience.

The rise of these services has hit the free-to-air networks hard. What were once media behemoths are now all struggling to survive. In recent weeks the Seven and Nine Networks have made it clear they cannot and will not be able to adhere to the content requirements in the future. In respect of children’s content, Seven’s CEO James Warburton told the Sydney Morning Herald: "The substantial cost in producing this content, which in some instances is watched by such a low number of viewers that it falls under ratings measurement thresholds, further handicaps us against unregulated, foreign digital platforms.” Other networks agree. 

The present policy homogenises content and hampers first-class local media production because some content is being created in effect to comply with the regulatory requirements. This is typical. Government mandates tend to have unforeseen negative consequences, especially for consumers.

An unrestrained market, on the other hand, would deliver dynamic and more competitive content at a time of the consumer’s choice. Content makers and networks both need to play to their strengths and carve out niches rather than be bound to strict content compliance.  

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance union says that global streaming services must be required to show the same proportion of Australian content as the free-to-air networks.

“There needs to be a level playing field regardless of the platform that audiences view programs on,” MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy recently told Mumbrella.

It sounds right in principle. But rather than expand regulations, why not reduce them?

It would be infinitely more complex to enforce compliance on streaming services than on free-to-air networks. But more important than the cost is the principle. 

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said in op-ed for the Sydney Morning Herald in December, “It is timely to ask whether there are ways to move to lower regulation” here. In the same piece, he spoke of the “new opportunities for the Australian film and television production sector as a result of the extraordinary global growth of the streaming sector.” Fletcher is also looking at a range of related media rules (not just the content requirements) noting they were mostly made at a time when the internet did not exist.  

There’s no doubt that Australian stories on Australian screens are a positive, but they should rise to meet the market, rather than being the subject of strict regulatory mandates. Lifting Australian content and media players out of an archaic regime would help to achieve that. For Australian media companies, whether producers or broadcasters, it’s a case of diversify and meet consumer demand, or die.