Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026, News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Tuesday 18 August 2026

Continued from Thursday 13 August 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on replacing the previous News Media Bargaining Code with a new News Bargaining Incentive scheme to support Australian journalism. Government members argued the new framework better addresses market changes, supports regional and diverse media, and prevents platforms from avoiding obligations by removing content. Opposition members acknowledged the importance of supporting journalism but criticised the two-year delay in introducing the legislation and argued the charge rate was too low. An independent member supported the bill's principles but called for amendments to include AI companies and increase grants for small publishers. The coalition moved an amendment to express dissatisfaction with the new scheme compared to the previous code.

Outcome

The debate was interrupted before the amendment was put to the vote or the bill passed.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

McIntosh argued that the coalition had established the original successful bargaining code, which generated approximately $250 million annually through commercial agreements without government intermediation. McIntosh contended that the government dismantled a working framework and replaced it with a complex scheme after a two-year delay, resulting in similar financial outcomes but with greater government involvement. McIntosh raised concerns about the accuracy of revenue declarations by digital platforms and called for stronger Australian Taxation Office powers to verify data. McIntosh also questioned the transparency of government-administered grants, citing risks to media independence. McIntosh moved an amendment stating the House was unconvinced the new scheme would provide more support than the previous code.