Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026. The coalition supports a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media sector. Quality journalism is one of the foundations of our democracy. It informs public debate. It holds governments and institutions to account. It gives voice to communities that might otherwise go unheard. And it ensures Australians have access to accurate, reliable and diverse sources of information. This is especially important in regional Australia, where a local newspaper, radio station or digital outlet may be the only source of detailed reporting on issues that matter to local communities.

The legislation before the parliament seeks to establish a new news media bargaining incentive scheme following the Albanese government's decision to abandon the coalition's news media bargaining code. As we consider these bills, it is important that we understand not only what is being proposed but also the history that brought us to this point. The reality is that Australia did not arrive at this debate by accident; it was the coalition that first recognised a growing imbalance between global digital platforms and Australian news publishers. It was the coalition that commissioned the ACCC to investigate that problem. And it was the coalition that delivered the world-leading news media bargaining code.

In 2019, the former coalition government asked the ACCC to examine the growing market power of digital platforms and the implications for competition, journalism and the sustainability of Australian media businesses. The inquiry confirmed what many publishers already knew: digital platforms had become unavoidable gatekeepers between news organisations and their audiences. News businesses continued to carry the costs of producing journalism, employing reporters and maintaining editorial standards, yet an ever-growing share of advertising revenue was flowing to global technology companies. The market had fundamentally changed. The bargaining power between publishers and platforms had become deeply unequal.

Initially, the coalition pursued a voluntary code. We wanted commercial agreements. We wanted the parties to negotiate in good faith. But, when that failed to produce meaningful outcomes, we acted. In 2021, the coalition delivered the mandatory news media bargaining code. The code was based on a straightforward principle: if digital platforms derive significant value from Australian news content and the audiences it attracts, they should contribute to the sustainability of Australian journalism.

The code worked. It delivered more than 30 commercial agreements reportedly worth around $250 million annually to Australian news organisations. Importantly, those agreements were commercial agreements. Funding flowed directly between news businesses and digital platforms. Government was not in the middle. Government was not allocating funding. Government was not deciding who received support. The market was encouraged to correct a bargaining imbalance through negotiated commercial outcomes. The code became a global benchmark. Countries around the world looked to Australia as the pioneer of a new approach to supporting public-interest journalism in the digital age. That achievement should not be forgotten; nor should it be rewritten.

The problem was not that the media code failed; the problem was that Meta chose to walk away from the table. In April 2024, Meta announced it would not renew its commercial agreements with Australian news publishers, and that created a significant challenge—nobody disputes that. But, faced with that challenge, Labor had an important choice to make. The government could have strengthened the existing framework. It could have explored ways to better enforce the intent of the code. It could have examined measures that ensured platforms could not evade their responsibilities simply by withdrawing from commercial negotiations. Instead, Labor chose a different path. It chose to dismantle the code and start again.

The result is a news media bargaining incentive scheme, now before the parliament, following a two-year delay. Australian news organisations have paid a very heavy price. Under the new framework, major digital platforms with Australian digital advertising revenue exceeding $250 million will either enter into commercial agreements with Australian news publishers or pay a charge. The charge is set at 2.5 per cent of Australian digital advertising revenue. Platforms must enter into at least eight qualifying commercial agreements to fully utilise the offset arrangements. Expenditure on agreements with larger publishers attracts an offset of 150 per cent. Expenditure on agreements with small and medium publishers attracts an offset of 200 per cent. In practical terms, every dollar spent supporting a small or medium publisher counts as $2 against the platform's liability. Where commercial deals are not done, revenue collected through the charge will be redistributed through a statutory news journalism payment scheme.

On its face, the objective is sensible. The coalition agrees that digital platforms should contribute to the sustainability of Australian journalism. The question is whether this framework achieves that objective more effectively than the coalition's code. It is a question that deserves really close scrutiny.

The government's own estimates suggest the scheme will generate between $200 million and $250 million in support for Australian journalism through either commercial agreements or payments under the framework. Those figures invite an obvious question: what is actually better than the system that Labor abandoned? The coalition's code reportedly supported agreements worth around $250 million a year. After several years of consultation, extensive negotiations and an entirely new legislative framework, the government's own estimates suggest the Australian news media will actually go backwards.

That is why the coalition wants to see the charge increased. This is why many media organisations have questioned whether Labor's changes represent an improvement at all. Australians are entitled to ask whether dismantling the existing framework was necessary if the result is a scheme that produces similar outcomes while introducing additional complexity. That question becomes even more important when we examine how the new scheme will operate.

The effectiveness of the framework depends entirely on the accurate calculation of Australian digital advertising revenue, and that is a very critical point. The charge imposed on technology companies is calculated using their Australian digital advertising revenue. If that revenue is understated, liabilities are understated. If liabilities are understated, the support flowing to Australian journalism is diminished. If liabilities are understated, the incentive to negotiate meaningful commercial agreements is weakened. The entire framework relies on confidence that revenues are being properly measured and accurately reported, and that is why the coalition believes the Australian Taxation Office must have robust powers to access information and verify the revenue declarations made by digital platforms. Revenue can be allocated in complicated ways. The parliament must ensure that the integrity of the scheme is protected and that avoidance opportunities are minimised. Without confidence in the calculation of revenue, confidence in the scheme itself is undermined.

The coalition also believes careful attention must be paid to the operation of the news journalism payments scheme. One of the most significant differences between Labor's framework and the coalition's code is the role of government. Under the coalition's code, the objective was to facilitate commercial agreements between publishers and platforms. Under this scheme, where charges are collected, substantial funding will be distributed through a government administered statutory process. Ninety per cent of any revenue collected will be distributed according to a statutory formula. The distribution is linked primarily to editorial journalistic staffing. Ten per cent will be reserved for grants, with five per cent specifically allocated to the Australian Associated Press. The coalition recognises the value of the AAP and the important role it plays in Australia's media ecosystem. We also recognise that many smaller publishers face genuine challenges. Regional publishers, local news organisations, community outlets and independent startups—these organisations often operate with limited resources while performing an invaluable public service. They deserve the opportunity to participate in the benefits generated by the scheme. However, any government administered funding arrangement must be transparent, accountable and subject to appropriate safeguards.

There are serious questions about media and multicultural media grants. There's evidence that recipients have not been properly vetted, with funds going to groups which have platformed extremists and undermined social cohesion; that grants have been made to advertising agencies and soft media outlets that don't appear to produce core news or public-interest journalism; and that grants have been strategically used by government ministers at critical points of the electoral cycle in order to secure favourable coverage from media outlets. This is not acceptable.

Public confidence in journalism depends not only on sustainable funding but on confidence that support is being provided fairly, transparently and independently. That principle matters. Australians want media organisations to scrutinise governments, not depend on them. They want journalists asking difficult questions, not feeling constrained by funding arrangements. That is why transparency and accountability must remain central considerations as the scheme is implemented. The coalition will continue to monitor the operation of these arrangements carefully.

The coalition remains committed to ensuring that those who derive significant value from Australian news contribute fairly to its production. We remain committed to supporting sustainable journalism and strong regional media. We remain committed to preserving a diverse and independent media landscape. We remain committed to ensuring that policy in this area delivers practical outcomes, rather than simply creating new layers of complexity.

While aspects of these bills warrant close scrutiny and, in our view, further improvement, the objective remains an important one. Australia needs a strong media sector. Australia needs independent journalism. Australia needs news organisations that can continue to serve their communities, hold power to account and strengthen our democracy. That objective is too important to get wrong. For those reasons, the coalition wants to see this bill strengthen in the best interests of Australian journalism, Australian consumers and our great democracy.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) acknowledges the Coalition's News Media Bargaining Code delivered significant commercial support for Australian journalism;

(2) notes that Australian publishers have endured more than two years of delay and uncertainty while the government refused to designate social media companies under the Code; and

(3) is unconvinced that the News Bargaining Incentive Scheme, as currently drafted, will provide more support for Australian journalists and publishers than was delivered under the Coalition's News Media Bargaining Code".

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Basem Abdo (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the news bargaining incentive bills before the House. I often speak in this place about the importance of backing Aussie made, often in the context of Australian industry and manufacturing, as many of us do on this side of the House. But this principle that we hold isn't limited to just physical goods and components. It also applies to other things Australians consume such as the media and news that Australians depend on every day. Good quality journalism is the backbone of our vibrant and successful democracy. It plays a significant role in the work that all members of this parliament do every day. It not only keeps us accountable but also helps us inform and engage the community on the work that goes on in this place. Whilst that may come across as just an ordinary point that we might take as a given, the reality is that, in many places, access to good quality journalism is under increasing pressure.

These bills recognise that good quality journalism also plays a vital role in keeping Australians connected to their local communities. Local and regional news outlets play a critical role in keeping Australians informed on the issues that are nearest to them and keeping them connected to events and activities happening in their communities. These local outlets help locals and communities across Australia stay informed on issues that impact their day-to-day lives—issues that may not be picked up by the larger outlets or, as is becoming increasingly prevalent, by their social media algorithms. Local media also plays an important role in keeping members of the community connected to one another. It does this by promoting community organisations, sporting organisations and community events. We know how important this is for regional communities, where regional and rural Australians are at greater risk of becoming isolated, but this also plays an important role in outer suburban communities like mine.

My electorate of Calwell is a young and diverse community with many young families and new Australians. We recognise that good quality journalism is costly to produce and that the revenue media outlets traditionally depended on has declined, being replaced by a handful of global platforms. We know of many journalists who started off in local papers and went on to inform the landscape of larger media outlets, even across the world. Without reform we run the risk of local outlets no longer being able to provide the same opportunities going into the future, and local and regional news outlets are the most vulnerable to this change. Diversity in media matters to public interest journalism and to democratic oversight. The value of journalism is not simply in the stories that are published but in the diversity of voices and perspectives that are able to be heard. A strong and diverse media sector means Australians have access to different perspectives, different experiences and different ways of understanding the issues that affect their lives.

That diversity is particularly important in a democracy. We should not want Australians relying on a small number of large platforms or algorithms to determine what news they see and what issues they understand and even influence the way things are understood in an increasingly narrow way. We need a media landscape where there is room for national outlets, independent journalists, local newspapers, regional broadcasters and community media, because each of them can provide something different. Local journalists in particular have a connection to their communities that larger national outlets simply cannot replicate. They know the local issues, they know the people involved and they understand what matters to the communities they serve.

That is why protecting the sustainability of Australian journalism is so important. We are not just protecting businesses or newspapers. We are protecting the diversity of voices that Australians can access and ultimately the strength of Australia's democracy. We all know and understand that access to information has changed. The methods through which we consume our media have changed. In fact, our entire relationship with the media landscape has changed. The way Australians consume news today is vastly different than it was even a decade ago. For many Australians the morning newspaper has been replaced by a news notification on their phone, a social media feed or a story shared by a friend. We can access more information from more sources than ever before.

But with that increased access come new challenges. The platforms Australians use to access news are increasingly controlled by large global technology companies. The way information is presented to us can be shaped by algorithms, commercial incentives and changes to the way these platforms operate. That means that the future of Australian journalism cannot simply be left to these devices and platforms, which offer accessibility in an increasingly narrow way. And, as we interact with new and emerging technologies—the full extent of which we do not yet know or appreciate—we need policies and legislation that can keep up with that pace of change.

We need to make sure that, as technology changes, Australian journalism is not left behind. We need a regulatory framework that recognises the changing way Australians access information while continuing to support the journalists, newsrooms and media organisations that do the work of producing quality journalism in the first place, because, while the technology through which we consume news may change, the fundamental value of journalism does not.

Australians still need journalists who can investigate issues, hold institutions to account, verify information and tell the stories of their communities. Our policies need to ensure that Australian journalism can continue to perform that role, regardless of how the technology or platforms through which we access that journalism may evolve. We know that quality journalism is costly to produce, while the commercial revenue that has traditionally supported news production has declined as digital advertising has shifted to a small number of global platforms. A small number of global digital platforms now capture significant digital advertising revenue, while many Australian news businesses remain under financial pressure. Without action, Australians risk losing local and regional news services, media diversity, public interest journalism and democratic accountability.

This government recognises that public interest journalism is a public good and is taking action to help build a stronger local media presence in Australia, made here in Australia by Australians, and the bill before the House serves to do just that. The government's approach is practical and allows for a market based approach designed to support a sustainable, diverse and independent Australian news sector. The measures build on and strengthen the world-leading News Media Bargaining Code, which has been in place since March 2021, ensuring that it remains effective in a changing digital environment. And it will apply a 2.5 per cent charge to Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services.

The government's clear preference, however, is for platforms and news businesses to reach commercial agreements rather than for platforms to pay the charge. If platforms derive value from Australian news they should help sustain it, either by investing directly through commercial agreements or by paying the incentive charge. Any revenue collected through the NBI will be returned in full to the Australian news industry through the News Journalism Payments scheme. Payments under the News Journalism Payments scheme will be allocated based on the size of the media outlet, including the number of journalists an organisation employs, including the freelancers, recognising that the more journalists employed, the greater the investment in public interest journalism.

The eligible roles set to benefit include journalists, photojournalists, videographers, data and visual journalists, and editors and producers directly involved in producing core news content. Using journalists as the basis for payment recognises the essential work they do in investigating, analysing, reporting and producing the news Australians rely on each and every day. A 20 per cent uplift will apply for journalists employed in regional and remote Australia by small and medium news organisations and by news organisations serving diverse communities, including First Nations Australians and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

Culturally and linguistically diverse news outlets play an important role in the settlement journey of new Australians. They also help keep Australians connected with the rest of the world. This feeds into our understanding and engagement with a changing world and, in doing so, helps strengthen Australia. Often the focus is on Australian news delivered in language so people can better understand and engage with the issues of the day. This is an important part of the exercise of democracy, ensuring that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds have access to information in a language they understand so they can participate fully in the public discussions around them that impact Australian society and public life. This recognises the additional challenges of employing journalists in regional and remote Australia and the financial pressures facing smaller and community focused publishers.

Together, these bills strengthen the news media bargaining code, support commercial investment in Australian journalism, return any incentive revenue to the sector and help secure a sustainable, diverse and independent news industry for the future. Ultimately, this is about making sure that our policy settings keep pace with the world around us. Technology will continue to change the way Australians access, consume and engage with the news, and we cannot know exactly what that change will look like in the years ahead, but what we do know is that the need for quality, independent and diverse Australian journalism will not change. In fact, one could argue it will become even more important and crucial. Our government's response recognises that technological change should not come at the expense of the journalists and news organisations that keep Australians informed, hold institutions to account and connect our communities.

By strengthening our regulatory framework and supporting investment in Australian journalism, we are ensuring that our media sector can adapt to technological change while continuing to serve the public interest. That is what these bills are ultimately about, making sure that, as technology changes, Australian journalism has a sustainable future and Australians continue to have access to the diverse and trusted news they need.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and the associated bills, which together establish the news bargaining initiative. I want to start somewhere very specific. In my electorate, there is a newspaper called the Shepparton News. It was founded in 1877, when a printing press was hauled up from Echuca by a bullock team, and it's been in the hands of the McPherson family since 1888. For most of the last century it was on the kitchen tables of the Goulburn Valley five days a week. Since the middle of last year, it has been printed two days a week, Tuesdays and Fridays. Forty minutes north, in Echuca, the Riverine Herald has been publishing since 1863. It has gone from three print editions a week to two.

Why? It's because close to 80 per cent of those mastheads' readers now get their news on a phone. The company has invested in an app and in newsletters and in audio and video. It is doing what a sensible business does when the audience moves. But I would ask the House to sit with what change actually represents. A newspaper that came out five days a week and, for a short time, six days a week now has two print editions. The journalism hasn't stopped—the journalists are still there—but what has gone is the advertising revenue that used to pay for them, and it has gone to the digital platforms that are the subject of these bills. That's the whole argument in just a couple of regional mastheads.

The coalition supports the objective of this legislation, and I want to put on the record why. It was a coalition government that asked the ACCC to develop a code in 2019, and it was a coalition government that made that code mandatory in 2021 when the voluntary approach went nowhere—and it worked. Two platforms were captured, more than 30 commercial agreements were struck and something in the order of $250 million a year began flowing into Australian media to support newsrooms. Some of that money came to my electorate. Country Press Australia collectively bargained on behalf of more than 80 rural and regional titles. Small publishers who could never have negotiated alone with a trillion company suddenly had a seat at the table. That was the point of the code, and on that measure it succeeded. But then, in 2024, Meta walked away. It announced it would not renew and made clear that, if it were designated, it would simply remove Australian news from its platforms altogether, which under the code as drafted meant there was no power to compel it to pay anything. The government had a choice at that moment, and the former chair of the ACCC Rod Sims argued for a straightforward fix: deem the platforms to have published Australian news so that switching news off didn't switch their obligation off. But instead the government spent the better part of two years dismantling the code and building a new one.

So we come to these bills 18 months late. I want to acknowledge what has been achieved in that time, because a lot of it was achieved by people who do not have a lobbying budget, and Country Press Australia is an example. They asked for the regional loading in the distribution model to be lifted from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Now it's 20 per cent. They argued that four commercial agreements was nowhere near enough to satisfy a diversity requirement and that six was still not enough. The bills now require us to have eight. They asked for stronger offset for deals with smaller publishers. The offset for small and medium publishers is now 200 per cent against the 150 per cent for the majors. A 25 per cent per-deal cap has been reinstated so that no single agreement can wipe out a platform's liability. These are meaningful wins, and they were won by regional publishers turning up with evidence again and again over two years. I had many discussions with them, and I want to thank them for it. But I still have some concerns, and I'll raise them now because I'd rather this scheme work than just pass.

My first concern is what we mean by the word 'regional'. When the Public Interest Journalism Initiative built the national data set on the Australian news, it drew exactly this distinction. It classified professional local news outlets separately from community scale outlets, which is described as tending to be non-commercial, produced by volunteers, sometimes without journalistic training and covering hyperlocal matters. It applied professional ethical standards to the first category and did not apply them to the second, because they are different things doing different work. If this scheme is going to distribute money on a formula tied to the number of journalists employed, then the loading has to attach to organisations that employ journalists. That's not gatekeeping; it goes to the entire logic of this bill.

Another issue is the lack of data. We are not quite legislating in the dark when it comes to regional journalism, but the light has dimmed. For five years this parliament has had access to something genuinely valuable: a monthly, publicly available record of what is happening to news production in this country. The Australian News Data Project tracked openings, closures, mergers, service reductions and the end of print editions town by town from January 2019. It told us there had been 519 market changes and 161 outlet closures between 2019 and 2024. It told us that roughly two-thirds of the contractions were in regional Australia. It told us that, as at the end of 2024, there were 1,222 news outlets in this country and that 1,061 of them were local. That project ceased on 31 December 2024, when its funding ended. The task passed to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. To be fair to ACMA, it hasn't dropped it. It published its first report on news media in Australia in 2025. It refreshed its interactive data reports in May this year. Its outlet register is current to March 2026. But the first report is also the only report, and the next one's not due until 2027. The monthly market-change tracking—that granular, closure-by-closure record of which towns are losing what—is not being maintained in the same form that it was. We are about to establish a scheme that redistributes money on the basis of where journalists are employed and we have no continuous national record of where newsrooms are opening and closing. The data is not there. I would ask the government to direct ACMA to maintain and publish a continuing regional news register, updated at least twice a year, with the market-change data restored.

I want to close on why this matters. It's easy to present this as a subsidiary to an industry, but it is not that. Local journalism is not just a service that a community consumes; it is a piece of infrastructure that a community runs on. No-one knows that better than the member for Riverina, who was an editor of a regional newspaper before he came into parliament. It is the reason a council knows its planning decisions will be read out. It is the reason why a water authority can explain itself. It's the reason a hospital board's decisions are contested in a public space, rather than settled in private. It sits in the same category as roads, bridges and telecommunications—democratic infrastructure largely invisible until it fails and, when it fails, it costs money.

Research published by the Journal of Financial Economics examined what happened to local government finances in the United States after a local newspaper closed. The finding was that municipal borrowing costs rose by between five and 11 basis points in the years following a closure. The authors were careful to establish that the effect was causal, not a reflection on the town's underlying economic decline. They also found higher government wages and larger deficits—sound familiar?—and a greater likelihood of costly refinancing arrangements. The effect was strongest in places that had the fewest newspapers to begin with. The conclusion was simple: local newspapers and other local media organisations hold local institutions accountable and, in doing so, they keep the cost of government down. And don't we need that?

I support these bills. The coalition built the original code, and we want a scheme that works. But passing this legislation is not the achievement. Country Press Australia have put this well. The real test is whether it translates into genuine commercial agreements across a broad and diverse Australian news industry. If in two years time the platforms have done eight deals with the eight largest media companies in the country and the Shepparton News, the Riverine Herald, the Country News, the Seymour Telegraph, the Numurkah Leader and the Cobram Courier are in exactly the position they are in today then this parliament will have passed a law and changed nothing. So we owe it to them to make sure this legislation works in a way that saves local journalism and local news organisations and allows them to continue doing what they have done—holding governments to account, holding local institutions to account, telling the stories of the people who live in regional and rural Australia and facilitating the discussion that is going to move our beautiful parts of regional and rural Australia forward.

Carol Berry (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

By introducing the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills, the Albanese Labor government is supporting local journalism and standing up for some key pillars of Australian values and society. We are protecting the news that matters, we are protecting Australian jobs, we are promoting fairness and we are supporting a healthy democracy.

Local journalism in Australia faces a serious challenge. The problem is not that people have fewer stories to tell, or that the news is any less important—far from it. The problem is that the economics of journalism have become a whole lot tougher, especially if you are producing local content. The decline of traditional newspaper advertising, the migration of audiences to digital platforms and the financial pressures facing media organisations have reduced the resources available for vibrant newsrooms in many communities. Revenue from advertising that used to help pay for Australian journalists is now shifted to large global digital platforms. A small number of global digital platforms now capture significant digital advertising revenue, while many Australian news businesses remain under significant financial pressure.

Some regional areas have become so-called news deserts, where there are few, if any, journalists regularly covering local affairs. With fewer journalists reporting on local issues, there are fewer journalists holding those in power to account. Into that vacuum enters social media. Social media can spread information quickly, but it does not replace quality professional journalism. A social media post can be valuable for a campaign or to distribute information, but often these posts are not fact-checked or referenced against multiple sources, which is the expectation we have of objective and ethical journalism. Misinformation becomes accepted fact, and anger and grievance can be unduly amplified. Without action, Australians risk losing local and regional news services, media diversity, public interest journalism and democratic accountability. This is a major concern for local news and local jobs and a concern for Australian democracy itself.

By introducing this legislation, the Albanese Labor government is supporting local news organisations in my electorate of Whitlam and across the country. In short, we are protecting the news that matters. For example, when we saw an increase of domestic violence incidents in our local community, that was reported on by the local press. When there are issues around bed blocking in our local hospitals, this is covered by our local press. When there have been governance issues with our local university, this has been covered by our local press. When there are road closures due to upgrades of our roads, our local press reports the construction and the impact on nearby residents. When a new community mural was painted, promoting random acts of connection during Loneliness Awareness Week, our local press covered this story and promoted its message. When one of our local councils passed a resolution adopting a tiny homes pilot program, it was our local news that shared how this can affect and benefit our community. These are the stories that only local media outlets cover. These are the stories that affect the everyday lives of people in my electorate, strengthening local communities and enhancing local connections. And this is the news that matters.

By introducing this bill, the Albanese Labor government is protecting the news that matters. This news becomes particularly important during a crisis. Australia has experienced devastating bushfires, floods, droughts and other emergencies. During such events, people need accurate information about roads, evacuation centres, warnings, weather and emergency services. Local news also strengthens social connections. Local journalism can report on community events, sporting clubs, cultural festivals, local achievements and the important work of volunteers. These stories may not appear significant from a national perspective, but they contribute enormously to a sense of belonging. Australians need journalism produced in their own communities by people who understand those communities while also being exposed to perspectives beyond their immediate concerns.

Through this legislation, the Albanese Labor government is also protecting Australian workers, particularly those in regional areas such as my electorate of Whitlam, and these local jobs are critically important. Local journalists often have a deep knowledge of their communities and can communicate information in ways that are relevant to local audiences. Their reporting can help people understand not just what is happening nationally but what is happening in their own community.

Diversity is equally important. Australia is a multicultural, multilingual and geographically diverse country. Where newsrooms include journalists with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, they ask questions that give voice to a more diverse range of issues. Diverse journalism can challenge assumptions about who matters, whose experience deserves attention and what constitutes an important story. This is especially significant for communities that have historically received limited news coverage. First Nations media, multicultural media and community based outlets can tell stories from perspectives that larger organisations might overlook.

In Australia, where distance, cultural diversity and regional inequality can often separate people from one another, local journalism helps create the shared knowledge on which democratic participation depends. National reporting helps Australians understand the country. Local reporting helps them understand where they live. Diverse reporting helps them understand one another.

Australians believe in fairness. When global digital platforms benefit from the work of Australian media organisations and journalists, we expect them to pay their fair share. Australians expect that, if you produce a piece of content, you should benefit from the proceeds. If your article is featured on a digital platform's website, you should receive some benefit from any revenue that results from your article being there. If platforms derive value from Australian news, they should help to sustain it. These bills work to fix just that.

Through these bills, the Albanese Labor government is also supporting a healthy democracy, and a healthy democracy depends on more than just elections. It depends on citizens having access to reliable information, hearing a range of perspectives and being able to understand how and why decisions are being made and whether they are being made in the interests of their communities. For Australia, this makes diverse, locally made and locally focused news particularly important. From metropolitan newspapers and public broadcasters to regional newspapers, community radio, independent digital outlets and First Nations media, locally produced journalism helps Australians understand the issues that affect their lives and gives communities a voice in the democratic process.

One of the most important roles of journalism in any democracy is to provide citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions. Australians vote for governments at a federal, state and local level, but political decisions can often seem distant or not grounded in everyday community experience. National news can explain major issues such as the economy, climate change, immigration or foreign policy, but it can't always show how these issues affect a particular town, suburb or region. But local journalists can. They can report on a council decision that will change a neighbourhood, a hospital facing funding pressures, a local school struggling to attract teachers or a regional community dealing with drought or flooding. This makes democracy tangible and relevant. People can see the connection between public decisions and their everyday lives.

Democracy also relies on accountability, and politicians, councils, government departments and other powerful institutions are more likely to face scrutiny when journalists are present in the communities they serve. A local reporter can attend council meetings, speak regularly with residents and follow an issue for months or even years. This sustained attention can uncover problems that need to be exposed in order for better decisions to be made. Without local journalism, decisions affecting thousands of people can sometimes receive little or no independent scrutiny. Citizens need to know whether promises have been kept, whether public money is being spent appropriately and whether people in positions of authority are acting in the public interest. Local journalism can provide this oversight at a level where national media cannot always operate effectively.

Good journalism informs people and challenges governments, corporations and popular assumptions. Its value lies in independent reporting, verification and a willingness to investigate matters that those in power may prefer to keep hidden. A strong democracy should not depend entirely on a small number of large media organisations deciding which stories deserve national attention. Ultimately, democracy works best when people can see themselves in the media, hear voices different from their own and obtain trustworthy information about the decisions shaping their lives.

These bills establish the administrative framework for the news bargaining incentive. The purpose of this incentive is clear: we want platforms and news businesses to do commercial deals to help sustain our local journalism.

These bills apply criteria to identify the largest digital platforms with significant search or social media services and substantial Australian digital advertising revenue. We will target those platforms with the greatest market power and the greatest capacity to contribute. This is not about raising revenue for government. Any revenue raised will be returned in full to the Australian news sector through the news journalism payments scheme.

These bills ensure digital platforms that benefit from Australian news contribute to its long-term sustainability. The government's approach is practical, market based and designed to support a sustainable, diverse and independent Australian news sector. These measures build on and strengthen the world-leading news media bargaining code, which has been in place since March 2021, ensuring it remains effective in a changing digital environment.

Public interest journalism is a public good, and addressing the bargaining imbalance between digital platforms and Australian news businesses is essential to sustaining quality Australian journalism. The news bargaining incentive, the NBI, applies a 2.5 per cent charge to Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services. The government's clear preference is for platforms and news businesses to reach commercial agreements rather than for platforms to pay the charge. Platforms can reduce their NBI liability through eligible commercial agreements, with offsets of 150 per cent or 200 per cent for agreements with small and medium news businesses. Platforms must have agreements with at least eight eligible news organisations to reduce their NBI liability to nil, with no single agreement accounting for more than 25 per cent of their total liability, supporting diversity across the sector.

These bills recognise good-faith commercial agreements entered into since 1 January 2025 by allowing them to offset NBI liabilities, reflecting the government's clear commencement date for the NBI. Payments under the news journalism payments scheme will be allocated based on the number of journalists and organisation employees, including freelancers, recognising that the more journalists that are employed, the greater the investment in public interest journalism. Using journalists as the basis for payments recognises the essential work they do in investigating, analysing, reporting and producing the news that Australians rely on.

Together, these bills strengthen the news media bargaining code, supporting commercial investment in Australian journalism, returning any incentive revenue to the sector and helping to secure a sustainable, diverse and independent news media industry for the future.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) | Link to this | Hansard source

At its heart, this debate is not about tax settings, offsets or administrative frameworks; it's about whether Australia continues to have a diverse, independent and sustainable media landscape. A healthy democracy requires informed citizens, vigorous public debate and journalists who are willing to ask difficult questions. It requires a plurality of voices, not a concentration of information in the hands of a few powerful global actors. It requires local journalism, regional journalism and community journalism. It requires people who know their communities and tell their stories. That is why the coalition has always recognised the importance of supporting Australian journalism and defending media diversity.

The House should remember how we arrived here. The news media bargaining code was not created by the Labor government. It was a coalition reform, starting in 2019, when we in government tasked the ACCC with addressing the imbalance between global digital platforms and Australian news publishers. The resulting voluntary negotiations failed, so the coalition stepped in with the world-leading news media bargaining code 2021. The code addressed the bargaining imbalance between major digital platforms and Australian news organisations. It delivered more than 30 commercial agreements, worth an estimated $250 million annually, to Australian news businesses. It demonstrated that governments do not have to accept a situation where Australian journalism carries the cost of producing news while multinational big tech companies capture much of the value. The coalition acted, we showed leadership and we delivered results.

Meta's decision not to renew agreements in 2024 clearly exposed weaknesses in the framework and created uncertainty for publishers. Labor were not prepared for the fight in government. They didn't enforce the code and dismantled the framework instead. What followed were two years of drift from the Albanese government. The government announced its intention to replace the code in December 2024, yet the legislation was not introduced until this month, August 2026. That's two years of uncertainty for news organisations, two years during which publishers had no clarity about future arrangements and two years in which regional and independent publishers had every reason to worry about their long-term sustainability. If local journalism matters, governments should act with urgency. Instead, Labor spent two years developing a replacement for a coalition framework that was already delivering outcomes.

The Nationals will not oppose this legislation, the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and cognate bills, in the House. We recognise the importance of securing ongoing support for Australian journalism. We recognise the need for a mechanism that encourages commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news journalism. We recognise that Australia's media sector continues to face significant economic pressures. Most importantly, we recognise that regional journalism cannot be left behind. But our lack of opposition does not mean a blank cheque. It does not mean pretending the legislation is perfect. It does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns about its operation. It means taking a constructive approach while continuing to fight for improvements.

As the shadow minister for regional communications and as a resident of regional Australia, I know, and my Nationals colleagues know, that journalism is not merely another industry. It is civic infrastructure. Local journalists cover councils, courts, schools, hospitals, water policy, agriculture, sporting clubs and community events. They are also the first on the scene at natural disasters and major accidents and often know a lot more about what is happening on the ground than metropolitan or national media. Local newspapers, television stations and radio stations hold local institutions accountable. Local media celebrates local achievements. Local media strengthens community identity. Local media builds social cohesion. No metropolitan newsroom can properly replace local journalists embedded within their communities. Local media employs local people. It also remembers local history. Outside media might swan in for a flood or a bushfire, but then they go. Local media are there helping, holding governments to account for the delivery of recovery services after the spotlight is gone. Once a regional newsroom closes, the damage is huge and difficult to reverse.

As I've said before, those who live in Sunraysia feel invisible to ourselves with no local television presence. WIN Television has established a service, and credit to them, but it's not yet got local journalists on the ground. That's the awful bind regional media outlets face—declining advertising revenues, a commitment to local news and fierce competition with offshore social media companies. Once local stories stop being told, a community's identity falls away.

That is why provisions recognising regional journalists and smaller publishers are welcome in this bill. The increased weighting for regional journalists reflects an important truth: a diverse media landscape requires strong regional media. I flagged that we in the Nationals will be closely watching the outcomes of this scheme and its loading for small and medium publishers. While the formulas in the bill preference small to medium publishers, which publishers are they? What we cannot allow is metropolitan based publishers in already relatively saturated media markets to grow from this incentive as regional media fails.

National stories inform us about Australia, but local stories connect us to our communities. They tell us who we are. They document our triumphs and our challenges. They preserve local history and local culture. They create belonging. This is particularly important in regional Australia, where local media often serves as the central thread connecting communities spread across vast distances. A democracy is stronger when local voices are heard. A democracy is stronger when communities can see themselves reflected in the media they consume.

Media diversity is not simply about having more publishers; it's about preserving different perspectives, different experiences and different voices. Australia is like a diamond with many facets. The CBDs of Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane look very different to life in regional Australia. It is one reason we, the Nationals, exist—to show the real face of regional Australia, to be the voice of regional Australia to the rest of the nation. If Australians are glued to their phones, doomscrolling three-second videos from overseas, and if local stories are not told, we risk merging into some singular global zeitgeist. Local stories from regional Australia matter to our national identity. That's why the coalition's work on the news media bargaining code mattered so much to us in 2021 and why it is so important that we patch up the damage from Labor's two years of delay in ensuring the code delivers for all Australians.

The coalition believes the government had settled on a 2.5 per cent charge rate on a digital platform's advertising revenue, which was too low. We have argued the levy should increase to 2.75 per cent. If this scheme is intended to incentivise commercial agreements then the incentive must be meaningful. The coalition does not believe big tech should be rewarded with a softer arrangement after delaying negotiation for years. We cannot reward Meta's behaviour, their stalling, which has saved them many millions of dollars with a rate that doesn't reflect the real impact of that delay. I note that the government estimates that this scheme will see about $200 million to $250 million in deals. That's less than what the coalition's code was achieving five years ago. We want stronger incentives for platforms to come to the table and support Australian journalism. The success of the scheme depends on one crucial question: how much Australian digital advertising revenue are these companies actually earning? If revenue is understated, liability is reduced. If liability is reduced, support for journalism falls. It's that simple.

The coalition has therefore proposed stronger powers for the ATO to obtain information and estimate revenue where platforms fail to cooperate. We cannot have a system that relies on multinational corporations marking their own homework. Publishers need certainty. Newsrooms need certainty. Journalists need certainty. Local regional media outlets need certainty to pay the bills, including for staff, and to have revenue certainty. Only then can they invest and expand. The coalition has proposed requiring commercial agreements to be concluded before the start of each calendar year. News organisations should not spend months wondering whether funding arrangements will continue. Certainty encourages investment. Certainty supports employment. Certainty helps keep journalists in newsrooms.

This debate also arrives at a remarkable moment in digital and technological history. Artificial intelligence is reshaping the way information is created, distributed and consumed. Increasingly, people receive summaries rather than reports, answers rather than investigation and conclusions rather than analysis. I mention AI because this incentive program will need to be agile to respond to the current reality that AI is accessing news stories behind paywalls already, and therefore news publishers are not getting revenue from their articles. With AI poised to supersede searching or googling for information in the very near future, we cannot let this incentive scheme become redundant as soon as the ink dries on the legislation.

The more sophisticated technology becomes, the more vitally important critical thinking becomes. We cannot let Australians today accept that the media platform answer must be correct. The error rate will feed into our institutions and way of life, potentially with fatal consequences. We must ensure that journalism continues so that critical thinking survives. We must keep exercising the collective Australian brain or it will atrophy, and we will be pulled in the directions that AI—or foreign actors behind it—send us to achieve their priorities or purposes.

Young Australians need to learn how to analyse evidence, how to compare competing claims, how to identify assumptions and how to develop their own conclusions. They need to learn how to think, not what to think. Strong journalism and strong critical thinking go hand in hand. One provides information; the other enables citizens to evaluate it. Together they form part of the foundation of a strong democracy.

The coalition will not oppose these bills, but neither will we ignore their shortcomings. We are proud of the coalition's record in creating the original bargaining framework. We are disappointed that Labor took more than two years to replace it. We are determined to improve this legislation through practical amendments. Most importantly, we remain committed to preserving what really matters: a diverse media landscape, sustainable journalism, strong regional news services, thriving local voices and Australians equipped to think critically and engage actively in democratic life. Democracy depends on more than institutions. It depends on informed communities, it depends on local voices, and it depends on ensuring that Australian journalism continues to have a future.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

A strong democracy depends on a strong and independent media. It depends on journalists who investigate, scrutinise and ask difficult questions. It depends on Australians having access to reliable information about their communities, their governments and the world around them. It depends on our ability to sustain professional journalism in an information environment that is increasingly fractured and under pressure.

This is something that is very close to my heart. I began my working life as a journalist at community radio as well as at our national broadcasters, SBS and the ABC. So I know that a mountain of work goes into producing journalism that people can trust—the phone calls you make, checking sources, reading documents, challenging claims and making sure that what you put to air or to print can be backed up. That work matters.

In our current information environment, misinformation and disinformation can spread around the world in seconds. Social media algorithms amplify the most provocative content, with no regard for accuracy, and at the moment artificial intelligence is making it increasingly easy to produce convincing false information, images, audio and video. In this environment we need to support journalism that helps Australians to distinguish fact from fiction. We need to fund journalism that helps Australians to distinguish fact from ideology.

Over the past two decades in Australia, the business model that has traditionally funded our journalism has been fundamentally disrupted, as digital platforms—the majority of them run by giant companies from overseas who have scant regard for Australian communities or Australian democracy—have increasingly sucked our attention. So, too, have they sucked advertising revenue away from local news organisations. As these platforms have been growing and increasingly capturing advertising revenue, they have also used traditional Australian media outlets for content. They've taken, they've made our information environment poorer, and they've contributed to misinformation and disinformation in our communities. So it is entirely appropriate that these platforms make a genuine contribution to addressing those problems.

Together these bills reinforce the News Media Bargaining Code and support the sustainability and diversity of Australian journalism. They establish a clear principle that, where significant digital platforms derive enormous value from the Australian digital advertising market, they should have a strong incentive to reach commercial agreements with the Australian news organisations that produce journalism. From 1 January 2025 the News Bargaining Incentive will apply a charge equivalent to 2.75 per cent of Australian digital advertising revenue earned by significant search and social media services.

The purpose of the scheme is not just to collect that charge. This legislation is deliberately structured to encourage commercial agreements. Platforms can reduce their liability through eligible agreements with Australian news organisations, receiving offsets worth 150 per cent of these agreements. For agreements with small or medium news businesses, that offset increases to 200 per cent. To reduce their liability to nil, platforms must have eligible agreements with at least six different news organisations.

That is important, because a healthy Australian media landscape cannot just mean a handful of large metropolitan organisations. We also need regional and local journalism. We need smaller and independent publishers. We need organisations that serve First Nations Australians. We need culturally and linguistically diverse media outlets. And we need journalists to be telling stories that might never make a national bulletin but are enormously important to the communities they serve.

If, in this environment, a platform chooses to pay the charge rather than enter into commercial agreements, that money will still support Australian journalism. The News Journalism Payments Bill establishes the News Journalism Payments scheme to distribute any revenue raised through the news bargaining incentive to eligible Australian news organisations. It's also important that it puts journalists themselves at the centre of how these payments are calculated. Eligible organisations will receive payments based on the number of journalists they employ, including freelancers. That includes journalists, photojournalists, videographers, data and visual journalists, editors and producers—all those directly involved in producing core news content. The more journalists an organisation employs, the greater its payment.

There is also a 20 per cent uplift for journalists working in regional and remote Australia and for organisations that serve diverse communities, including First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. And I want to reiterate that this is a really important feature of this scheme, because our government understands that local journalism matters and that diverse voices matter. Again, going back to my own firsthand experience—and a shout-out to community radio and Arts Alive, which is still going strong, and to all the folks at 2CUZ FM in Bourke, where I spent a number of months, and to the people in regional Victoria and Warrnambool, where I worked with the ABC—I understand how important local journalism and local voices are in all those communities.

A local journalist is often the person who's sitting through the local council meeting, covering the community campaign, talking to the local sporting club or small business and asking questions about decisions that otherwise might receive no scrutiny at all. These journalists perform that role across vast parts of our country, and it is important for all of us that they get to stay. When those outlets and those journalists disappear, we lose more than just another job in the media industry. We lose knowledge, we lose scrutiny and we lose someone whose job it is to ask questions on behalf of their community.

This scheme makes sure that the funding that's intended to support journalism actually supports journalism. Recipients will have obligations to maintain their journalist workforce in respect of the payments they receive across the relevant period. We've also allocated five per cent of any revenue raised through the News Bargaining Incentive to a separate grants program supporting small publishers and startups to build their businesses and produce news for their local communities. I'm sure this will continue to be a focus for government as we continue to support a diverse media environment.

These reforms come at an incredibly important time for journalism and for our communities. We now have access to more information than we have had at any point in human history, but, too often, more information does not mean better information. A false claim can reach hundreds of thousands of people before a journalist has made a phone call, checked the facts, spoken to an expert or verified a source. The systems through which we currently receive our information too often reward what is provocative or divisive, not necessarily what is accurate. Many of the large platforms where we now receive our information drive based on reach and eyeballs, not on quality of information, and they have little regard for the consequences for our communities and our country of their spreading misinformation and disinformation.

The algorithm is driven by maximising profit, and there is no thought to the consequences for our democracy. But democracy relies on people having access to reliable information. It relies on Australians being able to understand the decisions being made by governments and others, to scrutinise those decisions and to ultimately make an informed choice at the ballot box. It relies on us being able to have conversations as a community based on a shared understanding of what's going on, and professional journalism is one of the institutions that helps make that possible.

Reputable news organisations are accountable for what they publish. That does not mean journalists always get everything right or that Australians should accept everything they read in a newspaper, hear on the radio or see on the television without question. A healthy democracy should have sceptical citizens and robust debate. But there is an enormous difference between disagreeing over ideas and being unable to find out the facts. We should be able to fiercely disagree about what's happening and what governments should do while still having confidence in the basic information that underpins that debate. That is why strong independent journalism is such an important part of our democratic infrastructure. I know it is something that people in my community understand and value, and I know they support quality journalism. They support a strong and independent ABC and a diverse media landscape.

I have now experienced this environment from different sides—as a journalist asking questions and now as a member of parliament, being asked them and answering them. I firmly believe our democracy is stronger because of media scrutiny and media independence. That's why these bills matter. They're not about telling journalists how to do their job or how to write, they're not about protecting media companies from competition or technological change, and they're not about protecting governments from scrutiny. They're about making sure that we are providing a framework to support Australian journalism to continue as we enter this fractured information age, making sure we give Australians access to journalism that they can trust.

I realise that protecting the right of Australians to know what's going on and to have access to basic facts isn't a value that is universally shared across this parliament. We have members who actively thrive on feeding misinformation and disinformation. Senator Hanson, the Leader of One Nation, puts herself out there for interviews with a far-right influencer who's mixed with Neo-Nazis and a far-right podcaster who was, in fact, jailed for stalking journalists. At the same time, One Nation bar the ABC and other media outlets from their press conferences. It's just another way that Senator Hanson treats Australian people with disdain. She doesn't even respect them enough to be subject to scrutiny and to stand up to mis- and disinformation, running on the politics of fear and division with no consideration of how we build our communities, how we share our stories and how we make sure that we all understand what's happening around us.

This government recognises the value that journalism creates. We support local, regional, independent and diverse news organisations. We do want to make sure that we continue to have journalists in our communities, in our courts and in our parliaments, asking questions and establishing facts.

Our democracy is precious. We protect it through strong institutions, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary and an engaged community. We also protect it through a strong, diverse and independent media. At a time when misinformation and disinformation are becoming easier to produce, faster to spread and harder to identify, that work is vital. These bills support the people who do that work and help ensure Australian journalism remains strong and sustainable into the future.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills come at an important moment for the future of public-interest journalism in Australia. At a time of misinformation, disinformation and declining trust in institutions, robust public-interest reporting is more important than ever before. Every day, journalists provide the scrutiny, accountability and trusted information that keep our democracy strong. That work happens on the national stage but also across communities in Australia. Local papers cover council decisions, court proceedings, schools, local businesses, community events and emergencies. They give a voice to the multicultural and First Nations communities, to regional towns and suburban neighbourhoods—a voice that larger media organisations can't always reach.

But the mastheads and the outlets doing this work are operating in a media environment that has dramatically changed in recent years. Journalism has been transformed by the rise of global digital media platforms. These platforms have become central to how Australians, especially young Australians, are accessing their news. They're capturing an increasing share of Australia's media landscape. But the business model that has traditionally funded journalism has not adapted to that change. Advertising revenue has shifted to digital platforms, which is putting growing financial pressure on news organisations and the journalism that they produce.

This is not a new problem. The Morrison government's news bargaining code was an attempt to address this issue of the sustainability of public-interest journalism by using the bargaining power of digital platforms to support Australian journalism. The code generated between $200 million and $250 million a year through commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news businesses.

But, critically, like many things produced by the Morrison government, that code didn't work. Tech companies were able to simply opt out of the code by removing news content from their platforms. This happened briefly in 2021, when Meta, then Facebook, responded to the bargaining arrangements by removing news content entirely from its platform. While this proved to be only a brief blip, in April 2024 Meta announced that it would not renew commercial deals with Australian news media companies. Those were deals worth an estimated $70 million a year. This resulted in the news tab being removed from Facebook. Thankfully, we didn't see the worst-case scenario of a full news blackout across all Meta platforms, but that code is still failing Australians. Platforms can still reduce or withdraw their support for Australian journalism simply by changing how they choose to distribute and present news.

There could have been a much worse outcome in Australia under our current code. In Canada, the Online News Act came into effect in 2023. Meta subsequently blocked news from Facebook and Instagram in Canada, meaning that Canadians have now lost access to all news from publishers on those platforms. That remains a real risk with this legislation. To deny people access to news is to deny them immediate access to information about their country and about their democracy. For a generation that increasingly gets all of its news through social media, that would mean denying our young people access to the information that they need to actively participate in a democracy.

In front of the House, we now have a proposal that recognises that news does have value and that the digital platforms benefiting from the provision of journalism should contribute to its sustainability, while creating a financial obligation the platforms can't simply avoid by removing news. These bills collectively introduce the news media incentive. Under the scheme, significant social media and search services will have an incentive to enter commercial agreements with eligible Australian news businesses. If platforms don't enter enough eligible agreements, they will instead be liable for a charge based on their Australian digital advertising revenue. In that case, the money raised through that charge will be distributed to support Australian news journalism through the news journalism payments scheme.

I believe that what the government is proposing is better than what we've had previously. It will promote sustainability and diversity of the Australian news media sector, but, without further refinements, many small and medium-sized publishers will struggle to access commercial agreements with digital platforms. I'm glad to see that the Albanese government has backflipped on a carve-out for professional networking sites, bringing Microsoft owned LinkedIn within the scope of this incentive, but the government has still chosen not to include AI companies in the incentive, and that is a significant regulatory gap.

AI is rapidly changing how Australians find and consume information. Generative AI enabled platforms can summarise journalism and other forms of content. They can answer questions and provide information without users visiting the publisher. As a result, news organisations are now facing a zero-click era in which AI is reducing traffic to the original journalistic sources, potentially, to zero. Nine Entertainment reported that disruptions from AI were the reason that 30 staff from theAge and theSydney Morning Herald were made redundant last month. It wasn't the first batch of redundancies, and it will not be the last.

Excluding AI platforms from the incentive is a very significant missed opportunity for this government at the very moment that their market power and their impact on journalism is beginning to really accelerate. If the principle of this legislation is that digital platforms that benefit from Australian journalism should contribute to its sustainability, then that principle has to also extend to AI enabled platforms. I call on the government to address this regulatory gap so that the news media incentive covers all tech and search companies, including AI services, that profit from Australian journalism.

But the question is not only who is required to contribute to the incentive but also who ultimately benefits from it. The intention of these reforms is to promote diversity in Australian journalism, so I'm pleased to see the government has made changes to broaden the number of news outlets that tech companies have to strike deals with in order to avoid the charge. The minimum number of deals required to fully offset the charge has increased from six to eight, a change designed to open more opportunities for smaller and regional publishers. Further, each financial year, a digital platform may not use eligible expenditure in relation to any one news business to offset more than a quarter, 25 per cent, of the incentive. To encourage deals with smaller publishers, the charge is offset by a 150 per cent uplift rate for agreements with large businesses and 200 per cent if the deal is with small or medium-sized businesses. These elements address the risk that the news media incentive could consolidate funding among a handful of large media organisations while leaving smaller publishers unfunded. This is to ensure that the incentive doesn't create what the industry has called 'news deserts', where metropolitan coverage is funded, but regional coverage is not.

Despite these measures to broaden the beneficiaries of the incentive, the 25 per cent cap is still somewhat problematic. The cap limits the amount of incentive liability that can be offset through expenditure with any one news business, but it doesn't prevent a platform from concentrating its overall commercial expenditure within a small number of large media organisations. A platform could, in theory, allocate four companies 99 per cent of its money and split just one per cent among four additional companies. If the government's objective is genuine diversity, then the scheme should do more than prevent concentration in a single media organisation with that 25 per cent cap. It should actively foster the inclusion of larger numbers of smaller organisations within the platform's coverage.

The charge itself also deserves scrutiny. Following the exposure draft, the government's proposal for the charge has changed. The news media incentive charge was initially based on the annual total revenue of in-scope technology companies, but the final legislation narrows the charge base to the annual digital advertising revenue of those platforms, with the charge set at 2.5 per cent. There's a rationale for this change. It means that revenue from unrelated products like workplace software or cloud services is not inadvertently captured by the scheme. But the change has narrowed the base of the charge. If digital platforms and search companies fail to strike enough deals, they'll be forced to pay a charge that'll be 2.5 per cent of their Australian digital advertising revenue. The government has compensated for the narrowing of the revenue base by moving a small increase in the charge from 2.25 per cent to 2.5 per cent, but it is a modest accommodation which may not entirely make up for that shortfall.

Revenue collected from the charge will be distributed to eligible news organisations through the News Journalism Payment Scheme. These funds will support the production of core news content in Australia. Of the charge funds, 10 per cent will be set aside for grants which include five per cent to fund the Australian Associated Press in recognition of its public interest role and a further five per cent for small organisations that aren't eligible for funding from deals under this scheme.

This charge distribution mechanism favours larger organisations again. To be included on the Australian Communications and Media Authority's register of eligible news businesses for charge distribution, an organisation has to generate more than $150,000 in annual revenue. Clearly this is going to exclude many small and independent outlets, so there is an ongoing equity concern here. For example, of the roughly 200 Local & Independent News Association members, 35 per cent will fall under this threshold. The five per cent grant for small organisations is promising, but it's not sufficient to support the diverse range of publishers operating in Australia, particularly in regional areas. It's been recommended that at least 25 per cent of deals should be made with small- and medium-sized businesses, and that grants should specifically address small newsrooms. I will support amendments to this bill to increase the grant stream under sections 94 and 95 of the payments bill from five per cent to 15 per cent of the collected revenue charge with that in mind.

The final point that I'd like to address relates to how payments under the charge are calculated according to eligible editorial capacity. Essentially, this is the number of eligible editorial workers employed or engaged to produce news content. Given this focus, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance's submission on the exposure draft of this legislation stressed an important point—digital platform funding should support journalists' jobs. It shouldn't just flow through to shareholders or to executives. The purpose of this legislation is not to subsidise media companies for the sake of subsidising media companies. It is to sustain journalists and it's to support the journalists who are so vital to their work and who inform and engage us every day. That means that the government should consider stronger safeguards, requiring payments received under the scheme to support the employment of journalists and the production of public interest journalism.

If this legislation is to succeed, it must do more than simply transfer money from the big digital platforms to the big media companies. It has to strengthen journalism that Australians actually receive and read and learn from in our cities, in our suburbs and in our regions. It must support diverse newsrooms, sustain local reporting and ensure that the benefits of this scheme reach the communities that need them most.

I endorse the principle behind these reforms, but the parliament must ensure that the final scheme is broad enough to capture the platforms shaping our information environment, including AI services, that it is diverse enough to support more than the largest media organisations and that it is accountable enough to ensure that funding delivers more journalism, not simply more revenue.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and the associated bills. Politicians and journalists have a curious relationship. As a relatively new backbencher from Western Australia, I cannot claim to spend my days surrounded by the press gallery, but I certainly read what journalists write and say about politics, and I suspect they occasionally notice what people like me say and do. So it's less a relationship of constant physical proximity and more one conducted through articles, interviews, social media and the occasional phone call.

Politicians sometimes think journalists only call when there is bad news. Journalists sometimes think politicians only answer when there is good news. And there is probably enough evidence on both sides to keep that argument going for another 100 years. But underneath all of that is something far more important: a strong democracy needs a strong and independent media—not a media that agrees with government, not a media that gives politicians an easy run and certainly not a media that writes the headlines we would have preferred to have written ourselves.

If favourable coverage were the test for supporting journalism, I suspect most members in this House would develop very strong and rapidly changing views about which publications deserve support. Independent journalism exists in part to make people in positions of power uncomfortable. Journalists ask questions politicians would sometimes prefer not to answer. They examine government decisions and they investigate powerful institutions. Occasionally they even discover a politician has used 12 paragraphs to avoid answering a yes-or-no question. I am told this can happen!

Journalism has a role in our democracy that goes well beyond another product being sold in the market. It helps Australians understand what governments are doing, what businesses are doing and what is happening in their communities. But the business model that paid for much of that journalism has changed. For decades, newspapers, television networks and other publishers could rely heavily on advertising revenue. People advertised houses in the paper. Businesses advertised on television and radio. Classified advertising helped support local newspapers. That revenue helped pay the journalists covering our parliament, courts and communities. And then the internet transformed the market. Advertising moved online and enormous global digital platforms became some of the biggest beneficiaries. The journalism remained valuable, but an increasing share of advertising revenue that once supported it went somewhere else.

Between 2006 and 2022, commercial broadcasters' share of Australian advertising expenditure fell from 43 per cent to 17 per cent. That is a fundamental change in the economics of Australian media. Good journalism costs money. Someone has to employ the reporters who investigate and explain what is happening. Someone has to put journalists on the ground, in the courts, parliaments and communities, and someone has to edit, check and publish the work properly. A Facebook post written in 30 seconds is not a replacement for a journalist who has spent three days checking a story—although judging by some social media these days, plenty of people remain determined to test that proposition.

Australia first responded to the imbalance between digital platforms and news businesses through the news media and digital platforms mandatory bargaining code in 2021. That framework helped produce commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian media companies, but it had a weakness: a platform could potentially reduce or avoid bargaining obligations by simply reducing or removing news from its service. These bills address that problem. The principle is straightforward: if very large digital platforms derive substantial advertising revenue from their Australian operations, they should make a reasonable contribution towards sustaining Australian journalism.

Importantly, the government's preferred outcome is not collecting a charge. We want digital platforms and Australian news businesses to reach commercial deals. The charge exists to create an incentive. The news bargaining incentive applies only to very large social media and search services. A service group must have more than $250 million in relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. A social media service must have at least five million average monthly active Australian users, while a search service must have at least 10 million. So we are talking about some of the largest technology businesses operating in Australia.

Debate interrupted.