Compared to current arrangements, though, it's huge. Right now, the streamers are under no obligation to commission, to screen or to promote Australian content. The result is that Stan commissions around four Australian originals a year, while Netflix has so far commissioned one (though it has co-funded a number of others). By contrast, the traditional broadcasters are highly regulated. Between 6am and midnight, 55 per cent of content screened on the commercial networks must be Australian (the ABC and SBS are exempt). They also face sub-quotas for scripted content (drama and comedy), children's content and documentary. Illustration: Matt Davidson Credit: Understandably, the commercial networks reckon it's grossly unfair that they should be forced to make content that is more expensive and less popular than reality, sport or news while their streaming competitors aren't. But rather than argue for a level playing field by imposing similar quotas on the streamers, they would rather have a wholesale review of conditions they have described as "onerous". At the least they'd like to get rid of children's content (the shows are expensive, the audiences are tiny, and the ad yields minuscule). They'd also like the definition of drama to be broadened – to include reality shows such as The Bachelor and Married at First Sight.

The Senate report recommended against any such relaxations, and it's a good thing too: unshackled from obligations, the commercial networks would merely chase the most profitable option, while the streamers would continue to do whatever their metrics suggest will work. Australian drama, comedy and so on would likely all but disappear from our screens. There will be some people who shrug their shoulders and say "so what?" to that prospect, who feel that leaving everything to the market is just fine. But a culture that does not grapple with and reflect upon its own concerns – that does not tell its own stories – is at great risk of losing its identity. If the networks have their way, shows such as Married at First Sight will count towards their drama obligations. Credit:Nine Admittedly, the cultural value argument is hard to win in an age of economic rationalism, which is why Screen Australia commissioned Deloitte to calculate the contribution of the screen sector in dollar terms. It found that in 2015-16 the screen production sector contributed about $1.35 billion to the economy. In addition, around $725 million worth of tourism could be attributed to screen content, and $252 million to exports of that content.

It even tried to put a figure on the warm and fuzzy notion of "consumer welfare benefit", which it calculated at a whopping $17.4 billion that year. But almost none of that would happen without government support – in the form of direct federal and state subsidies and through a system of tax rebates that the Senate report suggests should be streamlined and unified. A culture that doesn't tell its own stories risks losing its identity: Ladies in Black stars Alison McGirr, Angourie Rice and Rachael Taylor. Credit:Anna Steel Instead of differing rebates for film and TV, it suggests a single rebate of 40 per cent, regardless of what screen the content is destined for. It's a simple and sensible response to a complex set of challenges. What's more, the costs to the Tax Office would be more than offset (by a factor of six or more, the committee heard) by the economic activity generated (activity that, in turn, generates tax yield). There's no question change is needed if the local production sector is to survive. Free-to-air TV no longer commands the audience it used to. Viewers increasingly consume scripted content via the streaming services, uninterrupted by ads. The theatrical distribution circuit for most Australian movies has collapsed. Local comedy and drama must compete for viewers with the best from around the world, which means its quality (and cost) simply has to rise.

In short, the screen production sector faces an existential crisis. And because that sector is so dependent on government assistance and regulation, it needs the government to respond. Sadly, it has steadfastly refused to do so. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen This report from the Senate committee is not the first to put recommendations before the government. In December 2017, a House of Representatives committee delivered its report, which made several recommendations along similar lines. Also in December 2017, a departmental review was handed to the government, but we don't know what it said about the future of Australian and children's content because the government has refused to release those findings, despite a Senate vote compelling it to do so. It's worth noting that this week's recommendations came from Hanson-Young alone. Two Labor committee members made a separate recommendation, urging the government to "immediately release the report" by its own department. The two Coalition members offered nothing at all. The conclusion is plain, and grim. The screen sector is evolving rapidly but the regulatory regime that governs it is not. It remains a product of a bygone era in which we could choose between three or four TV channels, where movies played in cinemas for months, and where the telephone line was for making calls and nothing else.