Australia’s news bargaining incentive in focus during Malaysia visit

Australia is taking a harder financial approach to the relationship between digital platforms and news publishers, with a new legislative framework designed to encourage technology companies to pay for journalism used on their services.

The issue offers an important business dimension to the recent visit by Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) chair Nerida O'Loughlin to Malaysia, where she attended the 57th International Institute of Communications Annual Conference and the International Regulators Forum in Kuala Lumpur.

According to a social media post, issued by the Austalian High Commission in Malaysia, during the visit, O'Loughlin met the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to discuss the protection of critical digital infrastructure, including telecommunications networks and undersea cables, as well as the safety of social media users. She also met Majlis Media Malaysia to exchange views on media regulation and share lessons from Australia's News Media Bargaining Incentive.

For publishers, the Australian framework addresses a fundamental commercial problem: news organisations invest in journalists, reporting, editing and verification, while digital platforms can benefit from the resulting content through audience engagement, advertising and the wider value of keeping users on their services.

Australia's position is that the commercial relationship between platforms and publishers needs a framework that helps sustain journalism, rather than leaving negotiations entirely to companies with very different bargaining power.

The latest legislation builds on Australia's News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, introduced in 2021. That earlier framework was designed to encourage major platforms to negotiate commercial agreements with eligible news businesses. However, platforms could avoid its bargaining obligations by withdrawing news content from their services.

The News Bargaining Incentive (NBI) is designed to close that gap. Rather than relying solely on negotiations, it creates a financial incentive for major platforms to reach agreements with news publishers.

Under the framework passed by Australia's Parliament in August 2026, significant social media and search services can reduce their financial liability by making eligible commercial deals with news businesses. Platforms that choose not to enter qualifying agreements face a charge, with the proceeds intended to be returned to the news sector through a separate journalism payment scheme.

The legislation sets a charge rate of 2.5% against a defined base of relevant Australian digital advertising revenue. It applies to corporate groups exceeding the relevant annual Australian digital advertising revenue threshold of A$250 million (approximately US$165 million), subject to the law's detailed eligibility and liability rules.

The incentive is structured to favour commercial agreements rather than simply collecting money. Platforms can offset their liability through qualifying expenditure involving at least eight Australian news business corporate groups. The government has also provided for a distribution mechanism intended to channel funds collected through the scheme back to eligible news organisations.

This distinction matters. Australia is not imposing a universal fee on every social media post or requiring every platform to purchase every article. It is using a statutory financial mechanism to encourage major digital companies to negotiate with publishers, while establishing a charge for those that do not make qualifying deals.

The legislation also broadens the framework beyond the original focus on social media and search services, removing the exclusion of professional networking services. This could bring services such as LinkedIn within its scope where the statutory conditions are met.

The business implications extend beyond the immediate question of payments. For media companies, commercial agreements can create an additional revenue stream to support journalism at a time when publishers face pressure from declining traditional advertising, changing audience behaviour and competition for digital advertising revenue.

For technology platforms, the framework introduces a financial consideration into decisions about how news content is carried, distributed and monetised. It also changes the negotiating environment, encouraging platforms and publishers to consider commercial arrangements rather than relying on the platform's ability to remove news from its service.

The model remains subject to questions about implementation, eligibility, the distribution of funds and the practical effects on smaller publishers. Its long-term impact will depend on how the arrangements operate and whether the resulting payments contribute to sustainable journalism across Australia's diverse media market.

For Malaysia, the Australian experience provides a case study rather than a policy that can automatically be transferred. Malaysia has its own media market, regulatory framework and relationship between publishers, advertisers and digital platforms. Any comparable approach would require consideration of local competition conditions, the position of smaller media businesses, platform responses and the most effective way to distribute support.

Nevertheless, the commercial issue is relevant to publishers operating in Malaysia, where audiences increasingly discover and consume news through social media, search engines and other digital intermediaries. Publishers must invest in original reporting while competing for advertising and audience attention in an environment in which platforms influence how content is discovered and distributed.

A sustainable news sector also has wider economic significance. Journalism provides information used by businesses, investors and consumers to understand markets, assess risk and make decisions. Maintaining professional reporting capacity is therefore not simply a matter of supporting individual media companies; it is also part of the infrastructure of an informed economy.

O'Loughlin's meetings in Kuala Lumpur covered a broader regulatory agenda, including digital infrastructure security and the protection of social media users. Telecommunications networks and undersea cables are critical to the functioning of digital economies, while platform regulation increasingly involves questions of safety, accountability and the responsibilities of technology companies.

Taken together, these issues illustrate how communications regulation has become an economic policy concern. Governments are dealing not only with connectivity and consumer protection, but also with the commercial power of digital intermediaries and the sustainability of the information ecosystem on which businesses and communities depend.

The Australian model offers one approach to addressing that challenge. Whether other countries follow a similar path will depend on their own priorities and regulatory choices, but the underlying question is increasingly difficult for policymakers and media businesses to ignore: how should the economic value generated by digital distribution be shared with the organisations that produce original journalism?