Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. This bill has been technically described as a mandatory code with mandatory requirements with which the registered Australian news business corporations and designated digital platform corporations must comply, including provision of information and non-differentiation, and may bargain about the amount to be paid for making available certain news content on designated platform services—quite the bureaucratic speak. In essence, the mischief it is seeking to address is the imbalance of market power, as identified by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, between traditional journalism and the distribution through platforms such as Google and Facebook.

In essence, this bill represents a market intervention. I know Senator McKim in his contribution had much to say about Liberals worshipping profit and nothing else, but anyone with a glance through the history of the Liberal Party would realise that we hesitate before market intervention. We do not resile from it, but we make sure that the circumstances are right for intervention so that there are not unintended consequences. In this case, the tipping point has been reached, and we have seen that with the behaviours of Facebook, which have been well articulated in this chamber by many speakers. As I said, the purpose of the code is to address the bargaining power imbalance, identified by the ACCC, between digital platforms and news media businesses. The aim of the government through this legislation is to support a diverse and sustainable Australian news media, which must be able to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

The code creates a framework for commercial arrangements, and that is why I described it as a 'market intervention', but, in my view, it is a measured response, and also with a caveat of a one-year review. Unlike the previous speaker, Senator Canavan, I draw comfort from the fact that this will be reviewed and it will be an ongoing legislative reform process as we grapple with the implications of big tech and how it influences our lives and the marketplace.

The government has based this legislation on accepting the ACCC's conclusion—that there is a need to reform to better protect consumers, improve transparency, recognise power imbalances and ensure that substantial market power is not used to lessen competition. I'm reminded of the words of Clive James, who said, 'The last stage of fitting the product to the market is fitting the market to the product,' which seems to have been a mantra of those founding these large tech giants. I would say to honourable senators that we've been here before; this is not a new situation we face. There have been developments with monopolistic power in the US and even before that.

I would like to thank the Economics Legislation Committee for its work. I found its report enlightening and good reading for the preparation of this speech. I may have an opportunity to enlighten you more later on this afternoon if you pay attention, honourable senators! My wisdom needs to come out in the one go, not necessarily one minute to the axe ahead of question time. I did draw comfort from the public utterances of the minister in relation to this bill and also the fact that this bill hasn't come, as the saying goes, out of the head of Zeus. This morning in our party room we agreed on further amendments, which will be considered in the committee stage.