News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026, News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026, Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026
Mr FRENCH (Moore) (20:01): We were talking about some of the largest technology businesses operating in Australia. When these bills were introduced, the proposed charge was 2.5 per cent of relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. The government is now moving an amendment to modestly increase that rate to 2.75 per cent.
The change reflects how the digital advertising and news markets have developed since the original benchmark was set, but the important point is this: the government does not want platforms to pay the charge. We would prefer them to do deals with Australian news businesses. The charge is the incentive; the commercial agreement is the objective.
Increasing the rate slightly strengthens that incentive. Commercial agreements under this framework are expected to deliver around $225 million to $275 million each year to Australian journalism. That means stronger newsrooms, better local reporting and greater investment in public interest journalism.
It means communities continuing to have people whose job it is to find out what is actually going on. That can occasionally be inconvenient for politicians, but inconvenience is not a defect in journalism. Sometimes it is the product working exactly as advertised.
The legislation is deliberately designed to make commercial agreements more attractive than simply paying the charge. Eligible expenditure with Australian news businesses generally receives a 150 per cent uplift when calculating a platform's offset. For deals with small and medium news businesses, that increases to 200 per cent.
In simple terms, spend a dollar supporting an eligible smaller Australian publisher and, for the purposes of the offset, it counts as $2. That also recognises that a small Australian publisher negotiating with some of the world's largest technology companies does not walk into the room holding all the cards. The framework also encourages diversity.
A platform cannot simply do one enormous deal with one major media organisation and consider its responsibility finished. To qualify for the offset, there must be eligible expenditure across at least eight separate Australian news business corporate groups, with limits on how much of the offset can come from a single group. The objective is not simply to transfer money between a small number of very large corporations.
Australians benefit from major publishers, smaller and regional outlets, and new or specialist news organisations. If platforms make those commercial agreements—good—that is the preferred outcome. But if a platform chooses to pay the news bargaining incentive instead, that money goes back to Australian journalism through the News Journalism Payments scheme.
Payments will be linked largely to an organisation's editorial capacity. In plain English, we look at the people actually producing journalism. That includes journalists and photojournalists, editors and producers and other eligible workers directly involved in producing core news content.
Freelancers can also be recognised. There is an additional 20 per cent weighting for journalists employed by small and medium news organisations, those working in regional and remote Australia and those working for organisations serving diverse communities. That reflects the reality of producing journalism outside the biggest metropolitan newsrooms.
A local planning decision may never make the national news and a council decision may never lead the six o'clock bulletin, but, if you live in that community, those decisions can have a direct impact on your life. National journalism tells Australians what is happening across the country; local journalism tells people what is happening around the corner. The scheme also provides dedicated support for smaller publishers.
Five per cent of revenue raised through the News Bargaining Incentive will fund grants focused on small publishers and startups. Another five per cent will support the Australian Associated Press. The AAP's newswire supports hundreds of publishers around the country, including hundreds in regional Australia, giving smaller organisations access to reporting they could never reproduce on their own.
There are also safeguards. Recipients must maintain the editorial capacity on which their payments were calculated and comply with reporting and record-keeping requirements. Funding can be recovered where those obligations are not met.
This is a scheme designed to sustain genuine Australian journalism jobs, and, importantly, eligibility is based on defined criteria. It is not based on whether a minister enjoyed yesterday's editorial. Government can support the conditions in which independent journalism survives.
Government should never decide what independent journalists write. I would be extremely uncomfortable with any system where support depended on favourable reporting. Quite apart from the democratic problem, it would create a terrifying prospect of politicians lining up to argue that a newspaper column had failed to show sufficient appreciation.
No journalist deserves that. The government has consulted extensively in developing this legislation, and that has included digital platforms, news businesses, industry representatives and international stakeholders, including the United States government. There was public consultation during 2025 and consultation on exposure draft legislation in 2026, and 56 submissions were received on the News Journalism Payment Scheme in May this year.
The legislation changed as a result. That does not mean everyone agrees with it. In broad terms, news organisations support the package, while major digital platforms and some United States stakeholders remain opposed.
I acknowledge that some of the world's largest technology companies remain unhappy with the proposal. I am yet to encounter a large corporation that regards a new financial obligation as an exciting policy breakthrough. Their concerns should be heard, but this parliament still has a responsibility to make laws in Australia's interests, and the legislation gives platforms a clear alternative: they can acquit their liability at a substantially lower cost by entering into commercial agreements with Australian news businesses.
That is the point. The government's preference is commercial investment, not government revenue. We want publishers and platforms sitting down, negotiating agreements and supporting Australian journalists, getting on with it without government having to stand in the middle holding the money.
Frankly, fewer situations involving politicians standing between journalists and their money is probably healthy for everyone involved. Politicians will continue to disagree with journalists. Journalists will continue to disagree with politicians.
There will continue to be stories that we think are unfair, questions we think are irritating and headlines we would have written differently. That is normal. Some tension between politicians and journalists is probably a sign that both sides are doing their jobs.
A politician should not judge the value of journalism by whether today's paper says something nice about them. The real test is whether Australians have independent people who can ask questions, investigate claims and report what they find. We cannot pretend that the advertising market of 20 or 30 years ago is coming back, we cannot ignore the market power now held by global digital platforms and we should not accept a future where the only journalism that survives is journalism capable of generating enough clicks to satisfy an algorithm.
There is still a place for local reporting, investigative journalism and careful editing. And, yes, there is still a place for the political journalists waiting outside this chamber, hoping one of us will accidentally say something interesting. We need them.
We will occasionally complain about them. They will occasionally complain about us. And that arrangement has served Australian democracy reasonably well.
These bills recognise that the digital economy has changed who captures the advertising revenue that once helped pay for journalism. They create a practical mechanism to encourage some of that value to flow back into Australian news. The amendment strengthens that mechanism.
A 2.75 per cent charge provides a stronger incentive for commercial agreements, expected to deliver between $225 million and $275 million each year to Australian journalism. If platforms instead choose to pay the charge, that revenue will be returned to the Australian news sector. Either way, the objective is the same: more sustainable newsrooms, stronger local reporting and greater media diversity.
That is good journalism. It is good for our communities. Even on those mornings when some of us might prefer not to admit it, it is good for democracy.
I commend the bills to the House.