Australia is preparing for another confrontation with the world’s largest technology platforms over who should pay for the journalism circulating through search engines and social media.

The federal government’s proposed News Bargaining Incentive would encourage Google, Meta and TikTok to make commercial deals with Australian news organisations. Platforms that do not reach sufficient agreements could face a charge of up to 2.25% of their Australian revenue.

Supporters say the model recognises that reliable reporting is expensive and that digital platforms benefit from an information ecosystem created by journalists. The technology companies argue the proposal misunderstands how audiences use their services and could distort both the advertising and media markets.

How the proposed incentive works

The draft model targets large digital services with substantial Australian revenue and user numbers. Companies that pay eligible publishers could receive offsets against the charge, creating a financial incentive to negotiate deals rather than pay the government.

Money collected through the levy would be directed toward Australian journalism. The plan follows the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code, which helped produce deals between platforms and publishers but depended heavily on whether the government formally “designated” a company.

The new model attempts to make the obligation harder to avoid. It also responds to Meta’s decision not to renew agreements reportedly worth about $70 million to Australian media organisations.

ABC 7.30 explains Australia’s plan to make large technology companies contribute to local journalism.

Why publishers support it

Advertising once paid for large reporting teams in metropolitan, regional and local newspapers. Much of that advertising has moved to digital platforms, while publishers continue to fund journalists, editors, photographers, legal checks and investigations.

Executives from major Australian publishers and the ABC have argued that journalism becomes unsustainable if platforms profit from news content without fair payment. They say strong public-interest reporting benefits the whole community, including people who never subscribe directly.

Regional journalism is especially vulnerable. When a local newsroom closes, council decisions, courts, planning disputes and community emergencies receive less scrutiny. A national funding mechanism could preserve reporting that is socially valuable but commercially difficult.

What Google and Meta say

Google says it already has commercial arrangements with more than 90 news businesses covering 226 Australian outlets. It argues that search directs valuable traffic to publishers and that the proposed scheme does not properly recognise existing investment.

Meta says news is a small part of the reason people use Facebook and Instagram. The company describes the proposal as a discriminatory tax and argues that publishers voluntarily share links because social platforms can send readers to their sites.

The companies also question why some digital and artificial-intelligence services may fall outside the initial design. Their criticism raises a genuine policy issue: a system focused on today’s biggest platforms must be able to adapt as people discover news through new products.

The case for making platforms contribute

The risks of a poorly designed scheme

Payments could favour the largest media groups while independent, community and digital-native publishers receive little. Eligibility rules must be transparent and should reward original reporting rather than volume, outrage or copied content.

There is also a risk that platforms reduce the visibility of news, as Facebook temporarily did in Australia during the 2021 dispute. Any model should consider how changes affect emergency information, small publishers and audiences who rely on social media for links.

Government must not use funding rules to influence editorial coverage. Decisions about eligibility and distribution should be independent, published and open to review. Public money should support journalism, not political loyalty.

What a fair model should include

A credible scheme would recognise existing commercial deals, include strong support for regional and independent outlets, publish the value of offsets and provide regular audits. It should distinguish original reporting from aggregation and require recipients to maintain editorial standards.

The model should also address emerging AI services that summarise or answer questions using reporting created by publishers. If the law applies only to older search and social products, the funding problem may simply move elsewhere.

The bigger question

Google, Meta and TikTok did not create every problem facing Australian media. Publishers made their own business decisions, audiences changed habits and trust in news has weakened. A platform levy will not automatically rebuild local reporting or persuade readers to pay for quality journalism.

But allowing journalism to decline carries a cost that the market does not always capture. Courts, councils, companies and governments operate with less scrutiny when reporters disappear.

Large technology platforms should contribute when their businesses benefit from professional news, but the money must be distributed transparently and without protecting inefficient companies from competition. The goal should be more original Australian journalism—not simply larger transfers to existing media owners.

Sources

Keep reading

Latest stories