An incentive to distribute

When first announced in late 2024, the News Bargaining Incentive was intended to incentivise deals between digital platforms and news organisations, rather than raise revenue from digital platforms. But in practice there are scenarios where some funds will be raised. Now, in parallel with the Treasury consultation on the new legislation, the Communications Minister is consulting on how funds raised through the Incentive will be distributed to benefit Australian media.

In the consultation paper it released last month, the government proposes that this distribution will happen through a formula-based ‘Statutory Payment Scheme’, with eligible news organisations entitled to a share of the fund annually, based on the number of journalists they employ. The consultation paper suggests the policy reflects the role of journalism in a healthy democracy, connecting communities and social cohesion, and supports ‘continued investment in public interest journalism, diversity of media voices, and quality journalism’. It says the proposed distribution formula gives ‘certainty, transparency and proportionate funding’.

The revenue raised - and therefore the amount of the fund to be distributed - will vary, depending on how much of the Incentive is offset each year by ‘eligible expenditure’ under the legislation. In other words, if the platforms covered by the Incentive don't make sufficient deals with news media and have to pay all or part of the new 2.25% tax charge, that leftover money will be distributed under this new scheme. The intention is to distribute ‘as soon as practicable’ once the government collects the revenue. The consultation is currently seeking feedback on eligibility criteria, the payment allocation formula, additional support for certain journalists (with a focus on underrepresented media and audiences), payment conditions and administration.

While noting that these distributions are ‘fundamentally different’ from the types of commercial deals covered by the schemes, it proposes similar tests to those under the original News Media Bargaining Code, including: a $150,000 revenue threshold; a ‘core news content’ requirement; a professional standards test; an editorial independence test; a dominant purpose of serving Australian audiences; and ownership and control requirements. Eligibility of news organisations will be confirmed through a one-time registration, using the existing ACMA system under the NMBC, and payment allocation will be determined by information submitted by eligible news organisations each year. As Derek notes, some of these will perpetuate problems from the NMBC. For example, the revenue threshold shuts out smaller news businesses that are critical contributors to the above policy goals, both from making deals and from benefitting from revenue raised. Instead of being part of this new long term scheme, it leaves the smallest businesses only eligible to apply for short term NewsMAP funding programs, where they already compete against the bigger players.

To apply for the new fund, it’s proposed that eligible news organisations will have to show evidence of journalists employed and that their role involves primarily producing core news content. The paper asks for feedback on various elements, including on the definition of eligible journalists. It suggests the definition could extend to editorial roles such as videographers, graphic designers and others directly involved in producing core news content, but also canvasses how viable or appropriate it would be to include options for more administrative roles or other production costs.

The formula may include ‘weightings’ to ‘improve the equitability of support’. The government’s preferred approach is to give weighting to specified categories of journalists, such as those working in rural and regional areas and in news organisations ‘servicing or representing marginalised communities’ and ‘small business’ (under $10m), but is asking for feedback on the categories and weighting values. The government is looking to set conditions on payments to ‘safeguard the public interest’ and ‘increase the likelihood that support flows to public interest news’. This includes proposing a preferred approach where organisations maintain minimum numbers of journalists during the reporting period, as well as giving the scheme investigatory powers and imposing penalties for organisations found to have misrepresented eligibility or employment.

Finally, the paper addresses transparency provisions for the new fund, suggesting that it will report on payment recipients, funding amounts, aggregate industry figures/outcomes, penalties and parties excluded for non-compliance, temporarily or permanently. This is interesting as it contrasts with the relative lack of transparency of the News Media Bargaining Code and of any commercial deals done under the new Incentive scheme.

The CMT is currently preparing a detailed response to the consultation, which closes on 18 May 2026 in parallel with the legislation consultation.