.png)
A Treaty Is Not a Pipeline: What Western Australia Can Learn from India’s Other Co-Production Relationships
WAIFC Research & Insights | September 2026
Australia’s Audio-Visual Co-Production Agreement with India presents a significant opportunity for the Australian screen sector.
For Western Australia, however, an important question remains: how do we turn the existence of a treaty into actual projects, partnerships and sustainable screen-industry activity?
The experience of countries that established co-production agreements with India before Australia provides some useful lessons.
The United Kingdom’s agreement with India has operated since 2008. New Zealand’s agreement came into force in 2011, and Canada’s in 2014. Australia’s agreement was signed much more recently, in March 2023.
Looking across these relationships suggests an important principle:
A co-production treaty creates a pathway. It does not, by itself, create a pipeline of productions.
KEY FINDINGS
- Australia’s India co-production agreement is considerably newer than comparable arrangements involving the UK, New Zealand and Canada.
- New Zealand’s first identified feature using its India treaty arrived approximately six years after the agreement came into force.
- Mature jurisdictions continue to invest in producer engagement, project development and market relationships long after treaties are signed.
- Incentives and treaties create opportunities, but commercially viable projects still require producers, finance, development, distribution and industry connections.
- Western Australia can potentially shorten its learning curve by studying international experience and focusing on project conversion rather than treaty promotion alone.
Learning from countries that came before Australia
Official co-production agreements can provide considerable benefits.
Qualifying productions can potentially be recognised as national productions in both countries, opening pathways to incentives, financing, talent, locations and markets that may otherwise be more difficult to access.
But international experience also demonstrates that establishing the legal framework is only the beginning.
🇳🇿 New Zealand
New Zealand’s audiovisual co-production agreement with India has been in force since 2011.
The New Zealand Film Commission identifies Beyond the Known World, released in 2017, as the first feature film to utilise the agreement — approximately six years after the treaty came into force.
More recently, New Zealand has renewed its engagement with India.
In 2024, NZ Film Commission Head of Co-Production and Incentives Chris Payne attended NFDC Film Bazaar in Goa, undertaking approximately 50 meetings with producers and organisations including India Cine Hub and Invest India.
Importantly, the discussions extended beyond attracting Indian productions to New Zealand. They included co-production, intellectual property, post-production, VFX and opportunities flowing in both directions.
There is also a much broader screen relationship beyond official co-productions. NZFC reported that 128 Indian films were released theatrically in New Zealand in 2023, generating more than NZ$9.8 million at the local box office.
This points to an important distinction for Western Australia: the success of an India screen strategy should not be measured only by the number of official treaty co-productions.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
The UK–India Film Co-Production Agreement entered into force in 2008, giving the UK almost two decades of experience with the framework.
The UK also combines treaty access with an established screen-financing ecosystem, tax incentives, major production infrastructure and deep creative and commercial connections with India.
Yet active intervention continues.
The British Film Institute and other industry organisations continue to support UK–India co-production activity, producer engagement and initiatives designed to help filmmakers understand international financing and the treaty pathway.
That is instructive.
Even after many years, producer education, project development, financing and matchmaking remain important parts of converting a treaty into productions.
🇨🇦 Canada
Canada’s audiovisual co-production agreement with India has operated since 2014.
Canada provides another useful comparison because it has one of the world's most established international co-production systems.
Across Canada's overall network of treaty partners, Telefilm Canada reports more than 60 official co-productions annually, representing approximately C$500 million in production volume each year.
Those figures cover Canada's entire international co-production system rather than India specifically, so they should not be interpreted as evidence of the performance of the Canada–India treaty alone.
They nevertheless demonstrate what becomes possible when treaties sit within a mature ecosystem incorporating producers, certification, financing, tax incentives and international market relationships.
What does this mean for Western Australia?
Australia is still at a relatively early stage.
Its agreement with India was signed in March 2023, compared with agreements that have operated for approximately 12 to 18 years in Canada, New Zealand and the UK.
Australia therefore has an opportunity to learn from those jurisdictions rather than waiting another decade to discover the same practical challenges.
Western Australia already has significant elements of the proposition: federal screen incentives, state production incentives, locations, creative talent, post-production capability and expanding production infrastructure.
But the existence of those assets does not automatically make an Indian project commercially viable in WA.
An Indian producer considering Australia may still need to identify an appropriate Australian co-producer, understand treaty requirements, structure financing and rights, manage cash flow, meet Australian production costs, navigate incentives and certification, establish distribution pathways and ensure that the creative and financial structure genuinely qualifies as a co-production.
The challenge is therefore not simply attracting interest.
It is converting interest into projects that can actually be financed and produced.
Perhaps we should measure the pipeline differently
One lesson emerging from the international comparison is that Western Australia should be cautious about measuring success solely through the number of films attracted or the number of official co-productions announced.
A more useful framework could examine the entire project journey:
Relationship → project identification → producer matching → development → financing → co-production assessment → production → distribution → repeat collaboration
That approach would also allow government and industry to understand where projects are being lost.
Is the barrier production cost?
Is it access to finance?
Is it difficulty finding the right Australian co-producer?
Is there insufficient Australian creative participation for treaty qualification?
Is the project better suited to an inward-production incentive rather than official co-production?
Is distribution uncertain?
Or does a project simply require considerably more development before it becomes commercially viable?
Understanding those questions may ultimately be more useful than assuming that another incentive, delegation or promotional campaign alone will solve the problem.
Not every collaboration needs to be a co-production
There is another important lesson.
The Australia–India screen relationship should be broader than the treaty itself.
Some projects may appropriately become official co-productions. Others may involve Indian productions filming Western Australian locations, Australian stories accessing Indian talent and markets, post-production and VFX, documentaries, distribution partnerships, education and training, talent exchange or independently financed productions.
The objective should be to find the right pathway for each project, rather than attempting to make every India-related production fit the treaty.
This is particularly relevant for Western Australia.
India already possesses extensive studio, production and post-production infrastructure. WA therefore needs to be realistic about where it offers genuine comparative value.
Locations, cross-cultural stories, Australian and Indian talent collaboration, particular technical capabilities, incentives, market access and projects with an authentic reason to operate across both countries may present stronger opportunities than simply attempting to relocate productions that can be produced more economically in India.
What role can WAIFC play?
WAIFC does not see its role as replacing Screen Australia, Screenwest, government agencies, producers or funding bodies.
There is, however, an important space between these institutions.
A producer in India may have a story but no Western Australian partner.
A WA producer may have an India-related project but limited connections into the Indian industry.
A project may have potential but require early guidance towards the appropriate government, financing, production or industry contacts.
Government may also benefit from understanding why interested projects ultimately do not proceed.
This is where an industry bridge can be useful.
WAIFC's role can include bringing people together, facilitating producer and industry connections, developing relationships with Indian screen institutions, identifying practical barriers, connecting opportunities with the appropriate organisations and helping build a stronger two-way relationship between Western Australia and India.
It is an enabling role — not a funding or certification role.
Compressing the learning curve
Perhaps the most important finding from comparing New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada is simply the amount of time involved.
These countries established their formal co-production relationships with India many years before Australia, yet industry development and relationship building continue.
Western Australia does not need to replicate that learning curve.
It can study what has happened elsewhere, speak directly with the institutions and producers involved, understand what has and has not worked, and apply those lessons to its own circumstances.
The opportunity is therefore bigger than asking:
“How do we attract more Indian films to Western Australia?”
A more useful question may be:
“How do we build a sustainable two-way screen relationship between Western Australia and India that produces commercially viable projects, creative opportunities and long-term economic and cultural value?”
The treaty provides an important framework.
Turning that framework into a functioning screen relationship will require something more: projects, producers, finance, trust, market knowledge and sustained connections between people.
That is where the real work begins.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an official film co-production?
An official co-production is a production made under an applicable treaty or arrangement between participating countries that satisfies the requirements of their respective competent authorities. Approved productions can receive national status and may access benefits available to qualifying national productions, subject to applicable rules.
When was the Australia–India Audio-Visual Co-Production Agreement signed?
Australia and India signed the agreement on 10 March 2023.
Does a co-production treaty guarantee government funding?
No. A treaty creates a framework through which qualifying productions may receive official co-production status. Individual incentives, funding programs and eligibility requirements remain separate.
How long did New Zealand have an India co-production treaty before its first identified treaty feature?
New Zealand's agreement came into force in 2011, while the New Zealand Film Commission identifies Beyond the Known World, released in 2017, as the first feature to utilise the arrangement.
What role can WAIFC play in Australia–India film co-production?
WAIFC can act as an industry connector between Western Australia and India by facilitating relationships, producer connections, industry engagement and practical pathways to the appropriate screen organisations. WAIFC is not a funding or co-production certification body.
Sources and further reading
This article draws primarily on published information from Screen Australia, the New Zealand Film Commission, Telefilm Canada, the British Film Institute, the UK Government and India's India Cine Hub.
Key sources include the Australia–India co-production information and official co-production statistics published by Screen Australia; NZFC material on the India–New Zealand relationship and Film Bazaar engagement; Telefilm Canada's co-production statistics and India treaty information; UK Government and BFI information concerning the UK–India agreement and UK co-production framework; and India Cine Hub's official co-production guidance.
WAIFC will continue to engage with industry and consider international evidence as part of its work supporting stronger screen connections between Western Australia and India.