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

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (11:10): I rise to speak against the News Media Bargaining Charge Bill and the consequential amendments. This is not the first time. We've been here before.

In 2021, the news media bargaining code promised to rebalance the relationship between platforms and publishers and that it would sustain journalism across the country. What actually happened? The money went to the three or four biggest incumbents already dominating the market.

The political establishment in this building loves the mainstream media. Whether you're from the left or you're from the right, there's a news outlet for you. What they hate are the independent platforms and podcasters because they owe nothing to no-one, as they say.

This should tell everyone in this building what they need to know about this bill. This is just a subsidy dressed up as a bargaining mechanism. There's no requirement for a single dollar to be pushed back towards public interest journalism.

There's no transparency mechanism. There's no public interest test on spending. As I said, the money flows to the big incumbents not the struggling local small outfits.

Smaller publishers receive fragments. Some receive nothing at all. There's no requirement that the money goes towards actual journalism.

In fact, the inclination is that it just tips into general revenue where it could go for shareholder returns or executive largesse. This also assumes that the legacy media is inherently more valuable than it demonstrably is. It's absolutely laughable to suggest that the legacy media retains some sort of unique, irreplaceable democratic value that justifies government intervention on its behalf.

It's just comical to suggest that. The assumption that the legacy media provides a superior democratic value is therefore highly contestable, and the internet and the digitisation of the market have diversified the public debate, breaking the monopoly on the debate which was previously held by the old world media, leading to the emergence of new dedicated influencers and podcasters.

This bill is really nothing more than a legislative attempt to put that monopoly back together. Government should be encouraging innovation and ensuring that digital markets remain competitive based on merit rather than engineered bailouts. It rewards decline rather than adaptation.

The scheme was triggered specifically because platforms concluded news content wasn't commercially worth carrying. There's no opt out for hosting less news, because the levy applies whether the news appears on the platform or not. This is nothing more than insulating an industry from a market signal that it should have responded to.

This is protecting incumbent power not journalism, and the policy fits a pattern of government tendency to protect existing power structures. It's a rhetorical nod to reform while structurally protecting incumbent power, framed as being tough on big tech, who's actually preserving the incumbents's position. I won't be supporting these bills.

I ask that other colleagues also look past the rhetoric and ask the question that matters, which is who's actually getting the money and why are we protecting an industry that is demonstrably withering on the vine.