James O’Loghlin:
But let’s begin with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. He’s launched the government’s long‑awaited proposal to make tech giants may for Australian journalism, hoping it will encourage tech platforms to do deals with news outlets. Here’s the Prime Minister.
[Excerpt]
Anthony Albanese:
That is an exposure draft which will encourage deal‑making between the platforms and news organisations. It will envisage some 2.25 per cent of Australian revenue being paid. That can be offset through deals by 150 per cent for deals done with traditional media and 170 per cent through deals done through smaller media organisations.
[End excerpt]
O’Loghlin:
That is Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on the mechanics of the government’s News Bargaining Incentive scheme. The Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino has been working on the plan and joins me.
Hello, and thank you for your time.
Daaniel Mulino:
Thanks very much for having me on, James.
O’Loghlin:
So, can you just go, I guess, back a step from where the Prime Minister was to the kind of need for this scheme in your view and the motivations you think it will create?
Mulino:
Yeah, thanks for that. And, look, I think it is important to take a step back. Look, we know that journalists are so important in telling Australian stories, in informing us about what’s going on in Australia and the broader world. And, of course, public interest journalism, independent high‑quality public interest journalism is so important for democracy.
What we know is that media organisations are having to deal increasingly with digital platforms that have incredible market power and that this is putting at risk the financial model of traditional media and really putting at risk their capacity to employ journalists.
And so, the previous government brought in the News Media Bargaining Code, and that worked for a while, but some of the digital platforms stepped away from that by saying, ‘We’re not going to put news on our platform.’ And what we are saying is that it’s appropriate to put in place an incentive to ensure that digital platforms enter into reasonable commercial agreements with the media to ensure that they get fair compensation for the content they produce.
O’Loghlin:
And so, can you give us an example of where a media organisation – perhaps not the ABC because we’re not a commercial organisation – but the Sydney Morning Herald writes a story, where might they think without this scheme they’re doing it tough and that Google, Meta and TikTok should pay a bit more?
Mulino:
Well, by the way, the ABC would be included in this and has been engaged in the process and come out and publicly supported it and was involved in deals under the previous arrangement. But, yeah, to use the Sydney Morning Herald as an example, so on one of the major digital platforms, you know, whether it be Meta or Google or TikTok, it might be that a story is shared, the content of a story is shared between users or put up on a post. And so, that would be a situation where somebody is less inclined to go on to the media site itself.
And so, we’ve seen over recent years that the revenue from advertising shifting from traditional media across to digital platforms in a very, very significant way. And some of that is attributable to the digital platforms benefitting from the content.
O’Loghlin:
And so, a levy on Google, Meta and TikTok is 2 and a quarter per cent. How did you work out that number, and where will the money go?
Mulino:
So, the goal of this scheme is for the government not to have any payments made to it. The goal is that we see digital platforms enter into commercial agreements with media, and of roughly the same quantum that they had entered into when the News Media Bargaining Code was originally designed and implemented.
So, the 2.25 per cent of Australian-generated revenue was established on the basis that with the incentive in place, that you offset any commercial agreements at the rate of 150 per cent, and that’s the incentive. So, if you fully acquit your obligations, you would then enter into commercial agreements equivalent to 1.5 per cent of your Australian-generated revenue as a digital platform. Our estimate is that that would roughly equal the amount of commercial deals that were entered into under the original News Media Bargaining Code.
O’Loghlin:
I’m talking to the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino, about the government’s new news levy on some of the tech giants aimed at motivating them to strike their own agreements with media organisations. So, am I right that at the moment it includes Google, Meta and TikTok. Why those 3; why not others?
Mulino:
So, really the public policy motivation here was to look at organisations where there was market power. And so, we’ve included a two‑fold test. One is that there must be at least $250 million of Australian-generated revenue, but also that when it comes to a social media platform at least 5 million users and a search engine at least 10 million users. So, if over time other platforms go over those thresholds then they would be included, but those thresholds are really designed to include organisations which have market power and which media basically has to engage with.
O’Loghlin:
A spokesperson from Meta surprisingly hasn’t said, ‘Great idea. We’ll get cracking on the negotiations,’ but has said a government-mandated transfer of wealth from one industry to another with no connection to the value exchange will not deliver a sustainable or innovative new sector. Your thoughts?
Mulino:
Look, I think what we’ve seen over recent years in Australia is that the media has come under incredible pressure because they’re fundamental revenue and business model has come under pressure. Look, we are definitely motivated by encouraging a media in Australia that is independent and that is in a position to employ an appropriate number of journalists. That is very much the public policy motivation.
O’Loghlin:
And Greg’s comment on the text – our text number, 0467 922 702 – ‘The deal is a tariff at best and coercion at worst.’ He does, however, put a question mark at the end, so it’s a question, not a statement.
Mulino:
Well, look, I’d say it’s an incentive. So, if the digital platforms enter into commercial agreements, fair commercial agreements, with news media – which is what had occurred under the original News Media Bargaining Code – then they’ll fully acquit their obligations. But we have gotten to the point where it is necessary to put this in legislation so as to ensure that media is in a position that it can perform the incredibly important function that it does for our society and for our democracy.
O’Loghlin:
The media levy did bring to mind perhaps another instance of big tech using content others have produced to help itself, i.e. AI and it being trained on, well, basically anything written by anyone that’s on the internet. Your thoughts on that and whether the government has any plans to go a little bit further in protecting content makers from content users.
Mulino:
Yes, so, we’re excluding AI from this particular mechanism. AI is being examined through other regulatory mechanisms in parallel. So, there’s a nuanced and complex discussion underway which is being led by the Attorney‑General in relation to copyright. And that will be the mechanism by which I think we deal with a lot of the issues through which AI gathers up information and analyses it. The feeling was that AI is a bit different to the way digital platforms share news media. One is sharing. I think the issue with. I think the issue with AI is more that it harvests information, as you allude to, and then will often create something new out of it. And so, I think having a different process in parallel is appropriate there.
O’Loghlin:
I know you said that was the Attorney‑General’s responsibility, not yours, but any idea when we might see some movement from government on that?
Mulino:
No, no, don’t have any kind of timelines on that, but I know that work actively underway on that and consultation and public policy analysis.
O’Loghlin:
So, look, I guess with the news levy, it’s at 2.25 per cent, you’re trying to create a financial incentive be for these big platforms – Meta, TikTok and Google – to do their own deals with media organisations. I guess it’s a bit of wait and see for you now to see what happens?
Mulino:
Yes, so, we have the exposure draft legislation out for consultation for 3 weeks. And we’ll, you know, see what comes back there. And then we understand that there’s – you know, and it’s important for us to take action soon on this. So, we’ll process the feedback as quickly as we can and then look forward to finalising that legislation for introduction.
O’Loghlin:
When do you think?
Mulino:
Well, look, it’s always difficult with parliament; it’s hard to pin down something as complicated as parliament with so many moving parts. But, look, I would hope that we could introduce it in the winter sittings, which would mean potentially by, you know, the end of June. But, look you know, that will depend on a few factors such as the number of comments and how complex they are. But that would certainly be the goal if possible. And, look, we’re working with other parties from right across the chamber, and we’re going to be very collaborative on this.
O’Loghlin:
And, Daniel Mulino, I wonder if you had a more, well – pardon using this word – meta thought on the fact that the world is changing faster than ever before. governments have always had to deal with new challenges, but it’s never been this quick. But the parliament still works, as you alluded to, in the same way. Is it getting more and more challenging to keep up and to keep introducing legislation that you think is important given these new challenges not just at all but in time and not, you know, have the process become too lengthy and cumbersome?
Mulino:
Look, I think you’re right. I think on some fronts I think the world is changing fast and faster than ever before. I mean, obviously parliamentary processes need to have appropriate checks and balances in them. We need to take great care when drafting legislation, and then when it gets to the parliament, you’ve got to have the appropriate debates. But I think on a range of fronts, you know, whether it be this or whether it be the social media age ban or a lot of the other things that are happening even in my own portfolio, such as work on scams, we’re a leading jurisdiction when it comes to trying to grapple with some of these areas of rapid innovation and change. So, I think Australia is doing well in dealing with a lot of that fast‑moving change.
O’Loghlin:
And just finally, a listener question: ‘Why can’t news publishers prevent platforms from accessing all their content?’ I know you’re not a news publisher, but you may have some thoughts on that.
Mulino:
Yeah, look, I think that gets to some of the practical difficulties where a lot of the sharing occurs in ways that may not be particularly clear. I think that the difficulty is that, you know, even where a platform says, ‘You know, we’re not going to have any news on’, a lot of news ends up being shared in a range of ways. So, I think that what we’re trying to achieve through this is to reflect the fact that, look, digital platforms have seen massive growth in their advertising revenue, and that reflects the fact that they’re doing very well to provide innovative services to people, but that we do need to make sure that there is a bit of balance here and that content creators and journalists in particular do need to see reasonable and reliable revenue streams. And that’s what this is aimed at.
O’Loghlin:
I’ve been talking to the Assistant Treasurer, Daniel Mulino. Thank you very much for your time.
Mulino:
Thanks very much.