Australia presents the bill for news to big tech

Strike deals with news publishers, or pay a levy. Canberra is done with evasive social and search platforms.

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 17:53, 30 April 2026

To be fair to the Australians, they did try playing nice. Previously, in an effort to force the biggest platform players to redirect some of their vast revenues towards those who produce vital news content, regulators there passed the News Media Bargaining Code into law. This required platform owners such as Meta and Google to pay Australian news publishers for any of their content made available or linked in posts on their properties.

In retaliation, Meta pulled all Australian news from its platforms, a tactic it had already employed in Canada and similar to what Google has done by blocking Google News in Spain. They really don't like upstart countries who make laws do they? Meta also walked away from any existing content deals it had.

From the current Australian government's point of view, this Code has been ineffective, largely by assuming good will where none exists and without a practicable enforcement mechanism, and so a much more prescriptive legal framework is required.

Enter the News Bargaining Incentive, announced this week by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Incentive is the operative word here, as the proposed new legislation would see Google, Meta and TikTok having a default 2.25% levy placed on revenues earned in Australia, with that money "distributed back to the news media sector" according to the government.

Here comes the incentive part. In order to reduce the levy, the platform owners can enter into content deals with Australian publishers, and in return they would receive relief on the levy, of up to 170% for deals with small- to medium-sized news operations, and 150% for larger outfits. 

Tech giants with revenue exceeding Aus$250m "attributable to" Australia are the targeted group - around $170m US, or £130m. Notably Microsoft and Apple are outside the scope of the Code, as they use their own internal teams of journalists. (As an aside, can't someone put LinkedIn on trial for something?).

"People are increasingly getting their news directly from Facebook, from TikTok, and from Google," according to Australian communications minister, Anika Wells. "And we believe it’s only fair that large digital platforms contribute to the hard work of journalism that enriches their feeds and that drives their revenue."

So, in effect, we have a different approach, that being the big players have to contribute to the welfare of Australian democracy by default, with a powerful financial incentive to actually strike deals with news providers.

I'm minded of last week's column in which we discussed the ideas of Francesco Marconi concerning the "great repricing" of information. Marconi laid out his thoughts on what he termed "public good" content, which would include news meant to inform a given population, and concluded that there was no realistic way to fund it commercially and that another solution was required. 

Is this such a solution?

I'm not sure. The first thought that comes to mind is "who is in charge of revenue redistribution if no deals are struck?"

The Australian government says it will not keep any of the money collected, and the proposals will require it to transfer it to news providers. I foresee challenges in measuring who did what, and a major test of the neutrality of such a system will be if outlets fiercely opposed to the government are treated fairly. 

By government, I mean any a government of any political stripe: democracy requires the counter-force of opposition to be serviced properly, and that would mean giving money to people ministers don't necessarily like.

The reaction from the Big Tech tent has so predictable that at this point I feel the parties are talking past each other. The juggernauts of Meta and Google are so used to getting their own way, they practically generate their own gravity.

"While we are currently reviewing the draft legislation, we have been clear: we reject the need for this tax," a spokesperson told The Guardian. 

"It ignores the fact that Google already has commercial agreements with the news industry, misunderstands how the ad market changed and mandates payments from some companies while arbitrarily excluding platforms like Microsoft, Snapchat and OpenAI - despite the major shift in how people consume news."

"News organisations voluntarily post content on our platforms because they receive value from doing so," said Meta. 

Muddy those waters and continue to collect the cash, basically.

There's a wider consideration here about the changing perception of the large social and search companies. Previously their technical momentum allowed them to smash through existing media norms, and in many cases, create new and interesting ones. 

However, that momentum is decreasing. They are currently all-in on AI, yet, at the base consumer level, a certain weariness and wariness has set in. Their "we're moving forward and don't mind the breakages" schtick is getting somewhat thin. It could be that the Australians are timing their sovereign intervention well, particularly as the global political waters are feeling somewhat choppy at the moment. 

Consultation about the discussion paper is open until 18 May. The Australian government plans to introduce the new laws to parliament by June. Countless other national bodies - and lobbyists - will be watching with keen eyes.