The test of the outcome of this assertion leaves me perplexed, as it does not take into account the macroeconomic and regulatory realities of such a decision.
Reducing the deployment of streaming quotas to a simple reaction to decreased investments is an oversimplification of the complexity of regulatory motivations.
Such judgment often ignores broader political objectives, such as cultural protection or support for local employment, which preexist market fluctuations.
If the only reason was to compensate for an investment deficit, other, less intrusive levers could have been considered, but the Australian government has clearly chosen a more interventionist approach.
For example, Canada has imposed local content quotas for decades, not in response to a drop in investment, but to defend its cultural sovereignty against American production.