I rise to speak on the News Journalism Payments Bill 2026 and related bills. This package of bills introduces the news bargaining incentive, the NBI, to support the sustainability and diversity of the Australian news sector by reinforcing the news media bargaining code. The bill aims to incentivise commercial agreements between digital platforms and Australian news businesses. The NBI will impose a 2.5 per cent charge on the Australian digital advertising revenues earned by a digital platform from their significant search or social media services. Platforms can offset this liability through eligible expenditure on commercial agreements with news businesses at a rate of 150 per cent or 200 per cent for deals with smaller news businesses.

The News Journalism Payments Bill will distribute any revenue raised by the NBI to eligible news organisations based on the number of journalists they employ. This proposed NBI has the potential to provide much-needed support for the public interest journalism in Australia. It's necessary because the original news bargaining code was ultimately undermined by a fundamental loophole. Platforms could avoid their bargaining obligations simply by removing news from their services.

The aim of the legislation is to safeguard Australian journalism and the vital role it plays in our democracy. A healthy democracy depends on people having access to reliable, independent and diverse news sources, but the way we consume news has changed. The latest data shows that 73 per cent of Australians used an online platform to access news in 2025, compared with 54 per cent who accessed news via television. Print newspapers were used by just 15 per cent in 2022. Young Australians are even more digitally dependent. Among Australians aged 18 to 24, 48 per cent use TikTok for news and 60 per cent have never used newspapers ever for news.

The reality is that large social media companies have taken audience and advertising revenue from news media, and, unlike news media, they have not reinvested that revenue back into journalism. Advertising revenue that once paid for local journalists, photographers and editors has moved overwhelmingly online, and a significant share of that revenue now flows to foreign tech companies. The result is that Australian media now has reduced resources to cover federal, state and local politics in depth, depriving citizens of the ability to know exactly what is going on. The cuts and closures of local news outlets have led to fewer regional issues, stories and perspectives being reported and, worryingly, less accountability reporting at the local level.

The changing nature of news has seen local dailies cease weekday print editions and move primarily online. At a time of growing disinformation and the increasing dominance of big tech, it's more important than ever that our media serves the public interest and that we have media diversity. We must proactively help maintain our small independent publishers who have connections with local communities and report the local news. Local publications like the Tawny Frogmouth, Northern Beaches Advocate, Pittwater Online News, Manly Observer, Northern Beaches Living, Beaches COVERED and Pittwater Life are all in my electorate of Mackellar. That's why I support the principle behind these bills.

The government's NBI is an important step to ensure that the world's largest digital platforms contribute to the Australian news ecosystem from which they derive enormous value. The original News Media Bargaining Code was an important reform, but it contained a fundamental weakness—a digital platform could avoid the ultimate consequence of the code by simply removing news from its service. We saw exactly what that meant in 2021, when Facebook abruptly blocked news content in Australia. Manly Observer editor Kim Smee has spoken about this and the importance of social media for local journalism, particularly for delivering rapid information about major events such as floods, fires, police incidents and other emergencies. A potential news ban is not simply an inconvenience. It can affect community safety. 

The Manly Observer is an important reminder that this debate cannot be simply reduced to Google and Meta negotiating with the largest media companies. There are independent journalists and local publishers across Australia whose entire relationship with their audience can be affected by a decision made in a corporate office on the other side of the world. Our government must ensure this legislation does not leave independent publishers as collateral damage in a dispute between big tech and big media.

Rather than making the platforms obligation dependent on whether it carries news, the government is seeking to create a durable incentive for platforms to negotiate commercial agreements with Australian news publishers or otherwise pay a charge. This principle has support across a broad section of Australian media. The ABC, SBS, News Corp, Nine, Network 10, Southern Cross Media, Australian Community Media and Guardian Australia have described the legislation as a critical step towards securing the future of Australian news. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance also supports the objective of requiring digital platforms to contribute to Australian journalism, and there is evidence that Australians themselves understand the problem, with 64 per cent supporting the imposition of a tax on large social media companies to fund public interest journalism and support local media.

But if this legislation is going to succeed, we need to be clear about what we're trying to safeguard. Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the developed world. We cannot design a new funding mechanism that inadvertently makes the concentration worse. There is agreement among independent community, multicultural and regional media organisations who support the principle of NBI, but they warn us that design matters. The Local Independent News Association, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, Digital Publishers Alliance, Disability Media Australia, Independent Multicultural Media Australia, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council and the Public Interest Journalism Initiative have all raised concerns about the potential for the scheme to entrench existing media concentration. These organisations are asking parliament to make this legislation work. We've seen improvements in the legislation, but we need more safeguards. 

These coalition partners have proposed that at least 25 per cent of the deals should be with small and medium publishers. Without it, a platform can rationally choose to negotiate with the largest media. The result would be more money flowing to the organisations that already have the greatest market power and less money flowing to the publishers that need the most support. This will undermine our media diversity. The incentive must actually incentivise platforms to deal with smaller publishers. The coalition of independent media organisations has argued that the differential offset for small and medium publishers needs to be substantially greater. The Digital Publishers Alliance has specifically called for a minimum 200 per cent offset for all small and medium publishers.

The government has made welcome changes to the scheme, including increasing the loading for regional journalists, small and medium publishers and media serving underrepresented communities from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. This is a positive step, but parliament should continue to scrutinise whether that differential is actually large enough to change the commercial behaviour of platforms. A safeguard is only useful if it changes outcomes.

The government has proposed a grants program for small publishers and start-ups with revenue below $150,000. Again, this is welcome, but the organisations representing independent media have argued for a more substantial and structural funding stream. The Digital Publishers Alliance has proposed reserving 15 per cent of the MBI revenue for small and medium publishers.

The reality is that we have communities around Australia where there are no local newsrooms. When a local newsroom disappears, it's not simply a business closing. It means fewer journalists scrutinising local government, fewer reporters investigating planning decisions, hospital services, environmental issues and community safety and fewer people telling the stories of the community itself. It means a loss of information and a loss of local identity.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance estimates that more than 200 regional and community newspapers have ceased printing or closed over the past decade, with more than 20 closures in the last 18 months alone. That is a staggering loss of local accountability and local knowledge. We should not allow the NBI to become a mechanism that funds the larger publishers, while the news deserts continue to expand.

This legislation must also protect multicultural, disability, First Nations, community and other underrepresented voices. A healthy media ecosystem is not simply one with lots of mastheads; it's one with lots of voices. People need access to journalism that reflects their communities, their languages, their experiences and their concerns. The increase in the loading for media serving underrepresented communities is welcome, but we should measure the success of this legislation by whether those voices become stronger, not simply by how much money is paid out.

We must also ensure the legislation is futureproof. The way Australians consume information is changing rapidly. Today, Australians increasingly encounter information through artificial intelligence systems and other digital services. The Digital Publishers Alliance has warned that the legislation's definitions need to be capable of adapting to these changes, including the growing role of large language models and AI services.
This is vital. We should not pass legislation today that is already designed around yesterday's technology. If a new platform becomes sufficiently powerful to capture audiences, advertising revenue and the value of Australian journalism, the regulatory framework should be able to respond. We need a statutory review mechanism and a capacity to update the definitions as technology evolves.

Finally, we must have transparency. The public should be able to know whether this scheme is actually working. How many agreements are being made? Which types of publishers are receiving funding? How many journalists are being employed or retained? Are news deserts shrinking? These should not be unknowable questions. The government needs to report publicly and regularly on the outcomes of the MBI because if we are asking the Australian community to support a major intervention in the digital economy, Australians deserve to know whether it is delivering the public benefit promised.

The future of Australian journalism matters, because the future of Australian democracy depends on it. The measure of success cannot simply be how much money is raised. The measure of success must be whether that money produces more journalism, more journalists, more local reporting and more diverse voices. The government has made the important improvements to the legislation, but parliament must remain vigilant. We need safeguards to ensure that a meaningful share of commercial agreements goes to small and medium publishers; that the incentive for platforms to deal with those publishers is strong enough to overcome the imbalance in bargaining power; that a meaningful proportion of any levy revenue is directed towards independent, regional, multicultural and community journalism and the creation of new voices; that the scheme is transparent and independently evaluated; that the legislation is future proofed so that emerging technologies cannot simply exploit a new loophole; and that the government continues to monitor the impact of platform decisions on access to trusted news that Australians rely on. We should be ambitious about protecting the public interest by safeguarding Australian journalism and the vital role it plays in our democracy.

18 August 2026