Y08W24PA - Should Streaming Platforms Be Required to Carry Australian Content?

This week you wrote a formal submission arguing for or against mandatory Australian content quotas on streaming platforms. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate persuasive writing builds your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Persuasive – Formal submission

Persuasive writing argues for a position. Strong formal submissions are judged on whether ideas, structure, audience, language and conventions combine to convince a real reader who can decide.

Ideas & Content

A clear position supported with specific reasons and evidence. The writer considers why someone might disagree and addresses a counterargument fairly. Each claim is justified — the reader follows the logic without gaps.

  • Clear position, reasons and evidence: the argument is specific and justified; counterarguments are addressed.

Structure & Cohesion

The opening states the position clearly and directly. Each paragraph develops one aspect of the argument and connects to the case. The conclusion ties the argument together and reinforces the position.

  • Logical flow: paragraphs connect to build the argument; the reader sees how each point supports the position.

Audience & Purpose

The reader is treated as someone with real power to decide. Tone is respectful and professional, never sneering or dismissive. The writer anticipates doubts and addresses them rather than ignoring them.

  • Respect for the reader: the writer acknowledges that reasonable people might disagree; the tone is serious and fair.

Language Choices

Words are chosen to clarify and strengthen, not to confuse or inflate. Vague generalisations replaced with specific claims and concrete numbers. Loaded or unfair language is avoided — it weakens rather than persuades.

  • Precision and clarity: word choices support the argument; no vague generalisations.

Conventions

Spelling, punctuation and grammar are correct throughout. Formatted as a formal letter or statement, with clear paragraphs. These technical foundations signal that the writer is serious and competent.

  • Technical accuracy: the submission is professional and error-free; formatting suits a formal submission.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write a formal submission to a government review arguing for or against mandatory Australian content quotas on streaming platforms.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Language Choices and Structure & Cohesion. Ideas is where the submission excels — clear position, sound reasoning. Language and Structure are where it needs growth — sharper words and tighter paragraph links.

Ideas & Content

This submission excels in argument. The writer takes a clear position, supports it with specific reasons and addresses a counterargument fairly. The logic is sound; the reader understands why the writer believes what they do. Evidence strengthens each claim.

What markers scan for

  • The position is clear and stated up front, not buried.
  • Reasons are specific and supported with evidence or examples.
  • The writer acknowledges the other side and responds fairly.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Position is unclear or unsupported; claims are made without evidence and counterarguments are ignored.

  • Strong

    Position is clear and mostly supported; some evidence is present and counterarguments are briefly acknowledged.

  • Excellent

    Position is clear and well-supported with specific reasons and evidence; counterarguments are fairly addressed and logic is sound.

Language Choices

This is where the submission needs growth. The writer uses vague language where precise wording would strengthen the case. 'Australian content is good' doesn't persuade. Specific, concrete language — 'less than 5% of Netflix content is Australian-made' — would.

What markers scan for

  • Look for specific, concrete words rather than broad statements.
  • Check whether numbers, examples or named details support claims.
  • Notice where vague phrases like 'should do better' weaken the case.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language is vague or general; claims lack specific support and generalisations are common.

  • Strong

    Language is mostly specific with some vague phrases remaining; some concrete examples are used.

  • Excellent

    Language is precise and persuasive throughout; claims are supported with specific details, numbers or examples.

Structure & Cohesion

This is where the submission needs growth. Paragraphs don't always connect logically. Some jump from one idea to another without showing the link. The reader isn't always sure how one point builds on the last. Clear paragraph connections would strengthen the case.

What markers scan for

  • Each paragraph should follow logically from the one before it.
  • The link between each paragraph and the main argument should be visible.
  • Watch for paragraphs that feel disconnected or out of order.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Paragraphs aren't clearly connected; the argument jumps around and the reader works to follow.

  • Strong

    Most paragraphs are linked and the argument mostly flows; some connections could be clearer.

  • Excellent

    Paragraphs are clearly linked and build logically; the reader easily follows the argument.

Now read · Student sample

Should Streaming Platforms Be Required to Carry Australian Content?

Year 8 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 8 student.

To the Minister for Communications,

I am writing to urge the government to require streaming platforms operating in Australia to carry a minimum proportion of Australian-made content. Australian production companies employ thousands of people across the country. Screen Australia reports that in 2023, Australian television and film productions employed over 2,500 people in Sydney alone. Without mandatory content quotas, streaming platforms prioritise cheaper overseas content, and Australian production jobs disappear. If platforms must carry Australian content, they will invest in local productions and keep these jobs alive. Second, Australian audiences deserve to see stories that reflect their own country. When young Australians watch streaming services, they see American and British stories almost exclusively. They rarely see stories set in Australian towns, told by Australian writers or featuring Australian landscapes. This shapes what they think is normal or important. Australian stories matter for Australian audiences. Some argue that mandatory quotas prevent streaming platforms from choosing content their customers want to watch. However, research shows that when people discover Australian content, they watch it. The success of shows like Heartbreak High and Bluey demonstrates this. The problem is not that Australians do not want Australian content—it is that they do not find it easily on streaming services. Mandatory quotas would solve this discovery problem. I also believe that Australian content should be protected. International streaming giants have more power and money than Australian producers. Without rules to protect Australian content, the platform owners will simply choose whatever costs them least. Only government intervention can level the playing field. Therefore, I urge you to require streaming platforms to ensure that at least 10% of their content available in Australia is Australian-made. This policy will protect Australian jobs, ensure Australian audiences see their own stories, and give Australian producers a fair chance. Yours sincerely, A Year 8 citizen