Australia redesigns its approach to platform payments for news
Australia has released draft legislation that would force major technology platforms to either pay for journalism through commercial agreements or face a levy on their local revenue. The proposal, called the News Bargaining Incentive, targets Meta, Google and TikTok and is designed to close a loophole that weakened the country’s earlier effort to make platforms compensate news publishers.
Under the draft plan, the three platforms would face a 2.25% levy on Australian revenue unless they enter into qualifying deals with local media companies. The effective rate could fall to 1.5% if enough agreements are reached, with the government saying that structure could return between A$200 million and A$250 million to Australian journalism. The basic idea is to make funding news the cheaper option, rather than letting platforms avoid payment by removing news content altogether.
The measure matters because it marks a second-generation attempt at one of the world’s most closely watched digital media policies. Australia was an early mover when it introduced the News Media Bargaining Code, which took effect in 2021. That framework tried to require platforms to negotiate with publishers, but it still left room for companies to sidestep the regime. Meta ultimately removed news from its platforms in Australia in 2024, a move that the report says contributed to job cuts across local newsrooms.
Why the new bill is different
The government’s new approach changes the incentive structure. Instead of tying the obligation only to carrying news links or snippets, the levy would apply whether or not a platform continues to distribute news. That is the central policy shift. In practical terms, a company would no longer be able to escape the financial pressure simply by cutting news from its service in Australia.
Communications Minister Anika Wells framed the issue around how audiences now reach information. She said people are increasingly getting news directly from Facebook, TikTok and Google. That argument underpins the government’s case that platforms benefit from the circulation and discovery of journalism even if the economics of the underlying reporting continue to deteriorate.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s statement, as described in the source text, placed journalists at the center of the proposal, arguing that they play a vital role in keeping communities informed. The levy therefore serves two purposes at once: it is both an economic instrument and a media policy tool aimed at sustaining public-interest reporting.
A broader target list, but AI stays outside the measure
One notable change is TikTok’s inclusion. That expands the scope beyond the earlier Code, reflecting how news distribution has shifted from search and traditional social feeds toward short-form video and recommendation-driven platforms. Even if TikTok is not historically associated with the same link-sharing model as Google or Facebook, policymakers appear to view it as part of the same attention economy that now intermediates public information.
At the same time, the draft legislation explicitly excludes AI services. Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino said AI is being considered through other policy channels, including copyright work led by the attorney-general. That carveout is significant. It suggests the government sees generative AI and news compensation as related but distinct problems, even as publishers globally raise concerns about scraping, summarization and model training.
In policy terms, that separation may be temporary. Governments are still trying to decide whether AI systems should be treated like search engines, social platforms, entirely new categories, or some mix of all three. Australia’s immediate choice is to move ahead on the platform-news issue first rather than wait for a full AI framework.
What this means for platforms and publishers
For publishers, the draft bill offers the possibility of more stable revenue negotiations and a stronger fallback if talks stall. The more deals that get signed, the lower the effective tax burden on the platforms, which gives both sides a reason to bargain. For platforms, the proposal creates a predictable but politically charged compliance decision: pay the levy, sign agreements, or attempt to challenge the policy.
The structure also reflects an important lesson from the first round of regulation. If lawmakers want to preserve journalism funding, the policy has to account for the real strategic options available to technology companies. Australia’s new bill is less about forcing a particular product choice and more about ensuring that a financial obligation remains in place even if platform behavior changes.
That is why the draft legislation will be watched well beyond Australia. Countries that have tried to rebalance bargaining power between publishers and digital intermediaries have often struggled with enforcement, product retaliation or narrow scope. Australia is now testing a harder-edged model in which the state effectively puts a price on avoiding news deals.
The larger significance
The proposal arrives at a time when media business models remain under pressure and governments are increasingly willing to intervene in digital markets for public-interest reasons. Rather than presenting platform payment as a voluntary partnership, the Albanese government is treating it as an obligation linked to the broader ecosystem that helps large internet services monetize attention.
Whether the bill survives in its current form, and how aggressively companies negotiate under it, will determine its practical impact. But the direction is already clear. Australia is no longer relying on the hope that platforms will keep news available and bargain in good faith. It is building a system meant to extract value for journalism either way.
This article is based on reporting by TechCrunch. Read the original article.
Originally published on techcrunch.com
