by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 18), after the definition of amount, insert:

annual income, of an entity for a financial year (the principal year), means:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the entity's annual revenue as set out in its annual accounts, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, for the most recent financial year (being the principal year or an earlier financial year) for which such accounts exist; or

(b) if the entity has an alternative 12-month financial reporting period—the entity's annual revenue as set out in its annual accounts, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, for the most recent alternative 12-month financial reporting period (being a period that ends at or before the start of the principal year) for which such accounts exist.

(2) Clause 6, page 7 (after line 6), after the definition of significant social media or search service, insert:

small news business corporate group, in relation to a financial year, has the meaning given by section 11A.

(3) Page 12 (after line 31), after clause 11, insert:

11A Meaning of small news business corporate group

A news business corporate group is small news business corporate groupfor a financial year if the sum of the annual income of each member of the group for the financial year is less than $20 million.

Note: For how to determine the annual income of a member of the group for a financial year if the member has an alternative 12-month financial reporting period, see paragraph (b) of the definition of annual incomein section 6.

(4) Clause 15, page 18 (lines 7 to 9), omit the paragraph beginning "To be entitled to an offset", substitute:

To be entitled to an offset, the service group must have new eligible expenditure for the financial year in relation to at least 8 different news business corporate groups, and at least 12.5% of that expenditure must be in relation to news business corporate groups with an annual income of less than $20 million.

(5) Clause 17, page 19 (line 12), omit "financial year.", substitute "financial year; and".

(6) Clause 17, page 19 (after line 12), at the end of subclause 17(1), add:

(c) the total new eligible expenditure of all members of the service group for the financial year, in relation to groups that are small news business corporate groups for the financial year, is at least 12.5% of the total new eligible expenditure of all members of the service group for the financial year in relation to all news business corporate groups.

(7) Clause 30, page 32 (after line 6), after subclause 30(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the operation and effect of the condition in paragraph 17(1)(c), including:

(a) whether the 12.5% figure mentioned in that paragraph remains appropriate; and

(b) whether the $20 million combined annual income threshold in relation to small news business corporate groups (see section 11A) remains appropriate.

The first set of these amendments would create a meaningful grant pool. They would lift the general grant stream from five per cent of levy revenue to 15 per cent, with the Australian Associated Press stream unchanged at five per cent. This would mean a total carve out of 20 per cent.

Five per cent is a non-substantive gesture. It's unlikely to sustain independent community-focused journalism, let alone grow it. Fifteen per cent can sustain journalism in communities that will never be commercially attractive to a global platform—regional towns, multicultural audiences, First Nations communities—and that a commercial deal will never reach.

The second group of amendments I have moved opens grant eligibility to the publishers who need it. At present, grants under this scheme are available only to organisations that cannot participate in the payments scheme at all. In practice, this is those organisations which are too small to register under the code and fall below the $150,000 revenue test. The consequence is a gap that strands every independent, suburban and regional outlet in this country. They are too big for the safety net and too small for a seat at the table. In Perth that includes the POST, the Fremantle Herald, the Examiner and the Midland Echoindependently owned newspapers in a city where almost every other community masthead now sits under a single proprietor. These amendments open grants to organisations with annual income under $20 million, whether or not they participate in the payment scheme, with priority given to those that do not. This would ensure grant funds reach the publishers currently shut out above the $150,000 threshold without displacing the smallest organisations already eligible.

These changes are modest. None of them cost the Commonwealth a dollar more than these bills already contemplate. They simply change who the money reaches. Communities deserve to be seen and heard, and that will not happen if this scheme only works for the largest voices. I ask the government to support these amendments today before this scheme is locked in for a decade.

I rise to speak in support of the amendments moved by the member for Curtin. Public interest journalism has arguably never mattered more. Small and independent publishers continue to create content for specialised communities like the Star Observer, Neos Kosmos and the Jewish Independent, all of which are in my community of Wentworth. Others serve specific local communities like the Beast, the Local Paddo and Eastern Suburbs Life. For under-25s, 71 per cent now access news through social media, and 60 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 24 have never used newspapers as a source of news, but young people haven't lost interest. Since 2024, interest in news among 18-to-24-year-olds has risen 12 percentage points to 47 per cent. Government has a responsibility to ensure news businesses receive a fair return of the value they contribute and that the news Australians find on these platforms is worth finding.

The previous bargaining code exposed a fatal flaw that platforms could simply remove news from their services and walk away without any obligation to pay for it. These bills fix that, and I commend the government for bringing these bills forward, but they also may inherit the code's other failure—deals overwhelmingly flowing to the largest players, while smaller and independent outlets are left behind. It is to these outlets that I want to speak to. The member for Curtin has raised a number of amendments that will support access to funding to smaller journalist organisations providing quality journalism, and I think this is absolutely critical, because we know that, even in the previous deal that was struck in this area, there were some small players that were included. This does not guarantee that they will be included in future deals.

Specifically, for instance, having spoken to a number of the smaller players, I know they talked about the challenges they had in dealing with the large players like Google and the concern that, had they not had philanthropic support to organise around doing deals with these large players, they would not have been included in the future. This is really what these amendments go to. We have to create an environment that allows small news sources and emerging news organisations to be supported. I do not believe, as the bill is currently structured, that this allows this. The member for Curtin has put some useful and constructive amendments forwards in terms of allowing this.

I recognise that the government has listened to stakeholders, including by lifting the offset rate to 200 per cent for deals with smaller publishers and by including freelancers and journalists headcounts. These were changes called for by the Local & Independent News Association, and they matter. As we consider these amendments, we must listen closely to those voices who are not clearly represented in the media most of us read every day, which are the small and special-interest publishers who serve communities that many of the major players will never reach. There is no guaranteed certainty that these minor players will get the support that they need to continue to innovate and serve communities, and this is why I support these amendments.

I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Curtin and to commend them to the minister and to the House. The principle behind this legislation is straightforward. Major digital platforms should not be able to derive value from Australian journalism without making a fair contribution to the people and organisations that produce it. I've argued for years that our news media are engaged in a David and Goliath battle with global social media and search platforms. These platforms have enormous market power and they increasingly control how news is distributed, how it is discovered and whether it is seen at all. This bill and these amendments are important attempts to correct that imbalance, but we must ensure that the legislation's benefits do not flow overwhelmingly to the largest media companies while smaller, local and independent publishers remain on the sidelines, so these amendments are really important.

The bill currently reserves only five per cent of any revenue collected through the charge for grants to smaller news organisations. These amendments would increase that share to 15 per cent. They would also expand eligibility for those grants to news organisations with annual income below $20 million, rather than limiting the program to the extremely narrow group of publishers with revenue below $150,000. Importantly, priority would be given to news organisations that are not otherwise eligible to receive payments under the main scheme.

In practical terms, these amendments create a fairer opportunity for small, local, independent and emerging publishers. This is particularly important all over Australia, but especially in Warringah. We're fortunate to have dedicated local publishers, including the Manly Observer, the Northern Beaches Advocate and the Tawny Frogmouth. These outlets report on the issues that directly affect our community, council decisions, local development, transport failures, environmental threats, small businesses, schools, community organisations and public health. During emergencies, they provide trusted and immediate local information. They attend the meetings that national outlets do not. They follow stories after the television cameras have gone, and they know the community because they are part of it. In 2024, I congratulated the Manly Observer on launching its own news app. It became a hugely popular news app in Australia's Apple App Store. That remarkable response demonstrated the demand for trusted local reporting, but it also demonstrated the length to which a small publisher must go to avoid being entirely dependent on the algorithms and commercial decisions of a global platform.

Local journalism should not have to survive solely through ingenuity, unpaid work and goodwill. Strong local journalism is also one of our most fundamental defences against misinformation. When trusted news disappears from people's feeds, it is not necessarily replaced by careful or verified reporting. It's replaced by rumour, outrage, conspiracy and divisive content designed to keep people scrolling. A healthy democracy needs national investigative journalism, but it also needs to have someone reporting from the council chamber at a local government level, a community level. It needs to have someone covering local court proceedings, asking questions about delayed road projects, investigating illegal vape sales near schools or connecting a family in crisis with local support. These amendments simply ensure that a meaningful share of the revenue is available to smaller organisations to broaden the range of eligible publishers and prioritise those that cannot access the principal payment scheme.

If the purpose of this bill is to sustain Australian journalism, then it must sustain journalism at every level, not merely organisations that already possess the greatest negotiating power. I urge the government and the House to support these amendments.

The government does not support the proposed amendments moved by the member for Curtin to the News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026. Many MPs on both sides of the House have highlighted the important role that public interest journalism plays in a healthy democracy and, in particular, the valuable work of small and special interest publishers. That's why we strongly believe the bill strikes the right balance to support the sustainability of new publishers, including small and regional publishers, with the continued provision of trusted public interest journalism and the employment of journalists in Australia.

Specifically for smaller publishers, the bill includes the requirement for platforms to enter at least eight commercial agreements to offset their liability under the charge and a 200 per cent weighting on commercial deals for small or medium-sized businesses. For this reason, the government does not support the proposed amendments moved by the member for Curtin.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move:

(1) Clause 17, page 19 (line 12), omit "financial year.", substitute "financial year; and".

(2) Clause 17, page 19 (after line 12), at the end of subclause (1), add:

(c) the combined eligible expenditure of all of the members of the service group in relation to any 2 news business corporate groups is no greater than half of the combined eligible expenditure of all of the members of the service group in relation to all news business corporate groups.

Almost 30 years ago, I had the privilege of beginning my cadetship at the Liverpool City Champion and later helped establish the Fairfield City Champion, so the connection to journalism for me is quite a personal one. That work taught me the value of local and grassroot journalism. The stories that matter most to people are often not the ones that reach national television or dominate the headlines; they are stories about a dangerous intersection, a struggling family business, a community group, a sporting group awards night or a local Rotary Club activity. Those are the ordinary, extraordinary stories of communities like mine—stories that connect our local residents to what's happening in their area or to individuals and organisations serving the local area. And they deserve to be told by the people who are part of the community and grew up in the community.

Neither the Liverpool City Champion nor the Fairfield City Champion exist anymore. Like too many local papers, they were priced out and swallowed up by social media giants and, of course, the bigger players. That loss is much more than the closure of a newspaper; it means fewer opportunities for our young, aspiring storytellers, especially those from multicultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds, to enter journalism, learn the skills of being a balanced reporter, research and analyse stories, ask questions, communicate, build confidence, hone their talent and tell the stories of their own communities through genuine, grassroots, shoe-leather reporting. It was also a chance to learn about death knocks—and that was, for me, getting into the ring.

For my community, this matters enormously. Rich in languages, cultures, experiences and perspective, those stories are Australian stories. They are the Australian story. But they do not make it onto our social media feeds, let alone to the top of a search engine. The loudest voices are heard. The largest organisations, those with the deepest pockets, are seen. Meanwhile, small local, regional, multicultural and independent outlets are shouting into the void and left to fend for themselves.

I can see the intention of this proposed legislation to change that, and I'm realistic about what these bills before us can and cannot do. They cannot revive every outlet, newsroom or cadetship that has already been lost, but I have hope that they can support resilient local journalists and independent news organisations that are still hanging on. They can give the next generation of aspiring voices, whether in a rural community or in a diverse community like Fowler, an opportunity to tell their community's stories. But, if this scheme is to strengthen media diversity, we must ensure smaller players are not again swallowed up or edged out by the largest ones.

I have moved a very simple amendment. As the bill stands, a platform can qualify for the offset by spending money on at least eight news groups. My amendments add one more test: no two of those news groups can take more than half of that spending between them. Put simply, at least half the money must go beyond the two biggest names on the list. It is a small change, but it matters. It means platforms have to make real agreements with a wider range of newsrooms, local, regional, multicultural, community and independent, not just the two that already have the loudest voices and the deepest pockets. Without it, a platform could tick the box of dealing with eight news groups while sending almost all of its money to just two of them. That would meet the letter of the law; it would not meet its purpose.

This amendment is not about punishing the big players. It's about making sure this scheme does not repeat what has already happened in this country, where the big get bigger and the smallest get swallowed up. Lifting up the weakest members of our society is the core of a true democracy. So too is ensuring that communities can tell their own stories, in their own voices. I support this bill and urge the House to support this sensible amendment.

I wish to support these very worthy amendments from the member for Fowler, who, as this House has heard, has a background in journalism and understands the importance of those local voices. I am from central western New South Wales, and against the odds we still have small, independent media outlets telling our local stories. We need to make sure that this legislation filters down to those smaller, independent organisations, which quite frankly are doing it tough. It's amazing that they still exist, but against the odds, through passion for journalism and telling our local stories, we have hardworking journalists out there telling the stories of regional Australia in our local communities. They need our support. What we want to make sure is that it's not just the large media organisations that benefit from this legislation because we need as many diverse local voices in country Australia as we can get.

I think that these amendments from the member for Fowler go to that and support that—supporting local independent journalism that actually is local and tells local stories rather than having a larger media group dominating. We need those smaller voices to be heard that support and advocate for the things that we hold dear and the things that we are fighting for. The reality is that the country is different from the city in so many ways. We've got some really big issues facing regional Australia at the moment. We need as many advocates and country voices out there fighting for us, and that's what these smaller independent media outlets do. So I commend the member for Fowler for bringing these really important amendments, and I would urge every right-thinking member in this House to get behind these amendments and not only support country journalism but support the smaller, independent media outlets that our country communities still rely so much on.

The government doesn't support the amendments proposed by the member for Fowler for similar reasons, which I won't relitigate, as for the amendments by the member for Curtin. I'll note that the member for Fowler said this is a small change, and I think that's the point. It would have a sizeable impact on the balance of the deal that has been struck here between continued provision of trusted public-interest journalism with employment of journalists in Australia and the small and regional publishers. In expanding the bill to eight commercial agreements to entice deals, we are doing what every single publisher who has come through my door and through the Assistant Treasurer's door—including LINA and the small and special interest group publishers—has asked, which is that the first priority of this be for deals to be struck. That is what we are trying to achieve, and this work is supposed to be the back-up if that doesn't work. So we believe that we have struck the right balance here and we will not be supporting the amendments.

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6), as circulated in my name, together:

1) Clause 6, page 5 (after line 1), after the definition of charge offset, insert:

coalition agreement has the meaning given by section 18A.

coalition member, for a coalition agreement, has the meaning given by section 18A.

(2) Clause 6, page 6 (after line 3), after the definition of new eligible expenditure, insert:

news bargaining coalition means two or more news businesses, at least one of which is conducted by a small or medium business entity, that act together (whether through a jointly owned entity, an unincorporated association, a common representative, or any other collective arrangement) for the purpose of negotiating or entering into agreements of the kind described in paragraph 18(1)(c) or 18(2)(d) with one or more social media services or search services.

(3) Clause 17, page 19 (line 16), after "subsection 18(1) or (2) (about commercial deals)", insert "or section 18A (about coalition deals)".

(4) Page 22 (after line 4), after clause 18, insert:

18A Expenditure under coalition agreements with news bargaining coalitions

Coalition agreements

(1) An agreement is a coalition agreement if:

(a) it is an agreement of a kind described in paragraph 18(1)(c) or 18(2)(d); and

(b) the other entity or entities under the agreement (disregarding subparagraphs 18(1)(c)(ii) to (iv) and 18(2)(d)(ii) to (iv)) are, or act on behalf of, members of a news bargaining coalition; and

(c) each news business on whose behalf the agreement is entered into is, just before the agreement is entered into, a member of a registered news business corporate group or a news business corporate group.

(1A) Each news business referred to in paragraph (1)(c) is a coalition member for the coalition agreement.

Expenditure taken to be incurred in relation to each coalition member

(2) If:

(a) a member of the parent entity's service group provides consideration under a coalition agreement; and

(b) the amount of that consideration would, apart from paragraph 18(1)(c) or 18(2)(d) (as applicable), otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 18(1) or (2) in relation to a coalition member;

then, despite the entity providing the consideration not dealing directly and exclusively with a single news business corporate group, subsection 18(1) or (2) (as applicable) applies as if the agreement had been made separately with each coalition member, to the extent of that coalition member's attributed share of the consideration.

Working out the attributed share

(3) A coalition member's attributed share of consideration provided under a coalition agreement is:

(a) the amount specified for that coalition member in the coalition agreement; or

(b) if no amount is specified for that coalition member as mentioned in paragraph (a)—the amount determined by the news bargaining coalition (however that determination is made by the coalition), and notified in writing to the Commissioner before, or within a reasonable period after, the consideration is provided.

Note: Paragraphs (a) and (b) leave the method of allocation entirely to the coalition agreement or to the coalition itself; this section does not prescribe, and the rules may not prescribe, a method or formula for determining a coalition member's attributed share.

(4) The sum of the attributed shares determined for a coalition agreement under subsection (3) must not exceed the total consideration provided under the agreement.

Anti-double-counting

(5) To avoid doubt, an amount counted as a coalition member's attributed share under this section is not also to be counted as eligible expenditure of the parent entity in relation to any other news business corporate group.

(5) Clause 20, page 22 (line 26), after "in relation to each news business corporate group", insert "(counting, for a coalition member's attributed share under section 18A, that share as new eligible expenditure in relation to the coalition member's own news business corporate group and no other)".

(6) Clause 20, page 22 (after line 31), after subparagraph 20(1)(b)(ii), insert:

(ia) for a news business corporate group whose only new eligible expenditure for the financial year is an attributed share under section 18A, and which consists only of small or medium business entities for the financial year—200%; and

I rise on these amendments because, as the bill is drafted, there is no explicit provision which allows for a coalition or collectively negotiated agreement to count as eligible expenditure. Section 18 requires payment to be made directly under an agreement with the members of a single news corporate group. This allows for individual papers which may be listed under one major group to enter into deals. It does not help those publishers which are independent. If a digital platform strikes one deal with a coalition of, say, three or 18 small regional publishers acting together, there may be ambiguity in this legislation about whether or not such an agreement would count as expenditure. There should be no uncertainty. We should be encouraging tech giants to negotiate with smaller publishers whenever we can.

Even if it does get counted, there's no mechanism to attribute it back to the individual mastheads for the purpose of the eight-group threshold or the small business offset rate. These amendments fix this gap directly. They insert a new section 18A, which treats a coalition deal as if it were a separate agreement with each participating publisher's own corporate group to the extent of the publisher's attributed share of the payment. How that share is worked out is left entirely to the coalition and the platform to negotiate between themselves, as the agreement will be individual. It simply requires that whatever shares are agreed add up to no more than what was actually paid. Each publisher's share then counts separately towards eight different group thresholds and towards the enhanced offset rate where the publisher is a small or medium business, with the safeguard to ensure that the same dollar can never be counted twice.

This is not a hypothetical problem. We have real lived experience of exactly this model working in this country. Country Press Australia negotiated on behalf of 240 regional and community publications. The Minderoo Foundation brought together 18 small independent publishers under the Public Interest Publishers Alliance. These arrangements exist because the ACCC recognised back in 2021 that individual small publishers have no real bargaining power against Google and Meta but a coalition does. Country Press Australia itself has welcomed the increase in number of required commercial agreements under this scheme on the assumption that regional independent publishers will be part of that count, but, under the bill as it stands, the assumption may not hold.

I want to let the minister know I'm not calling a division on these amendments. I recognise that the amendments were circulated late, though to be honest, we're frustrated. I'm frustrated that we're again debating this bill without the Senate inquiry. But I think that this is an area that would benefit from clarification because I think it is not clear in the legislation as written. It could be through an amendment or it could be through another mechanism to make sure that it's clear that an expenditure which is under a collectively bargained agreement negotiated through a coalition or bargaining representative can count as eligible expenditure. I think this is a genuine challenge and a genuine question that's been raised with me with independent publishers.

I raise the point that I raised in my earlier speech, which is that the minister and others—the Assistant Treasurer in particular—indicated that Google in the past had ended up with an agreement with a range of small publishers. That indicates that it's possible to strike bargains with small publishers. The great challenge of that, however, is that, having spoken to some of those small publishers who are part of that agreement, it was incredibly hard to get to the table to do that. They wouldn't have been able to do that as individuals. They did it because they were actually funded philanthropically to build a collective. And then, you know, there's enormous pressure. And sometimes in those cases, those deals fall apart. It was actually more the social pressure that enabled those deals to continue, because it would certainly have been easier for the major players not to be negotiating with these small players.

This is a difficult area. I think we all collectively want to support small, regional players. I do want to make sure that this legislation supports some sort of collective agreement for the smaller players to come together, because this is a concern that's been raised with me by the sector. I think it's a genuine question that those group of publishers have.

I thank the member for Wentworth for her amendment. We won't support it today, although I appreciate the intent of the amendment. I can say that I and my office have also had those meetings with those stakeholders. I think at the moment there's a disconnect between the intent of the bill and perhaps a requirement or a request of an explicit nature for the bill to attend to. We will continue to work that through. You have my word on that. I think we share the same values on this, and we're trying to get to the same outcome.

Ironically, I have Google waiting for me in my office, because this has all run a bit longer than we expected. May I say, I will immediately relay this to Google on behalf of our shared stakeholders in this space.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.