The government is not protecting journalism. It is protecting a cartel.

1. The Consultation – A Smoke‑and‑Mirrors Exercise

The Treasury consultation page sets a submission deadline of 18 May 2026. That is precisely 21 days from the announcement. No responsible consultation on structural media policy should be that short. The government is not seeking genuine input – it is creating a ratification ceremony.

“You must submit your response on this website.” – No alternative channels. No genuine engagement. Just a digital form that enforces the government’s timeframe.

The upload limit concretely restricts what can be said. Complex submissions (such as Steve’s) will be truncated or rejected. The government does not want a debate. It wants a rubber stamp.

2. What the Government is Not Saying

The legislation is called the News Bargaining Incentive (NBI) – a rebranded version of the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code.

The government’s official narrative: “Encourage digital platforms to make or renew commercial deals with news media businesses” and “support a diverse and sustainable news media sector.”

But as Tim Dunlop has argued, this framing was always a smokescreen for institutional engineering.

“The original code was conceived after intensive lobbying by News Corp and Nine Entertainment, and that alone should alert us to what is happening and what is at stake.”

“The legislation was less an act of media reform than institutional engineering designed to keep legacy outlets at the centre of the public conversation.”

“The underlying logic of the [NBI] is the same.”

The Australia Institute – a respected progressive think‑tank – has voiced a similar warning:

“When Australia’s original News Media Bargaining Code passed in 2021, it was presented as a small country standing up to Big Tech to save quality journalism. But the code was never that, it was all smoke and mirrors.”

The government is not protecting journalism. It is protecting a cartel.

3. The Structural Logic – A Levy on Public Communication

The NBI imposes a 2.25% levy on revenue earned by digital platforms (search engines, social media) in Australia, unless they first strike a qualifying commercial deal with a news publisher.

This is not a tax on profits – it is a tax on revenue. Platforms will pass it on to advertisers, who will pass it on to you. The cost of public communication will rise.

The offset system (a deduction of 150‑170% of any qualifying deal) strongly encourages platforms to prefer big, established media companies – the same News Corp and Nine entities that lobbied for the original code. Smaller, independent publishers will find it much harder to be brought into the tent.

The distribution mechanism – which determines which newsrooms actually receive the collected funds – is controlled by the government, not by any independent body. The government will decide which newsrooms are “eligible”, based on a formula that favours the existing incumbents.

This is not a free market. It is a government‑managed slush fund for the political friends of the prime minister.

4. The Submission Barriers – Designed to Silence Opposition

Steve tried to submit a substantive paper and found that:

· Upload size is limited. Long, detailed submissions are effectively forbidden.

· Time is limited. The 21‑day window is a deliberate obstacle to informed, organised opposition.

· Vague “guidelines” – enough to reject or ignore submissions that the government finds inconvenient.

This is not a technical glitch. It is access control. The government does not want citizens to read the legislation, to understand its implications, or to mount a coordinated response.

Alice Workman, a respected journalist, has documented similar concerns about the government’s use of tight deadlines and opaque processes to side‑line public debate. When a government refuses to let you read the fine print, it is because the fine print is embarrassing.

5. The Bottom Line – This is a Power Grab

The NBI will not save journalism. It will:

· Entrench the dominance of legacy media (News Corp, Nine, Seven, Ten).

· Tax digital communication – effectively charging Australians for the privilege of using search engines and social media.

· Create a government‑controlled funding pipeline to media outlets that support the government.

· Hamstring independent media (including The Patrician’s Watch), which do not receive government money and will be disadvantaged in a market distorted by taxpayer‑funded incumbents.

This is not about “saving democracy”. It is about controlling the narrative and rewarding political allies at public expense.

6. What Can Be Done

The deadline is 18 May. That is laughably short. But we can still make a short, sharp submission:

· Keep it brief – the system will not accept a long document anyway.

· Focus on one or two core objections (e.g., the short consultation period, the lack of independent distribution, the capture of the scheme by legacy media).

· Submit anyway, even if the form is broken. A public record of attempted submissions is itself a form of testimony.

· Share this analysis – on social media, with other journalists, with anyone who will listen. The only power the government has here is the power of obscurity.

7. The Hypocrisy of the “Regional Broadcasting” Claim

The government has also announced measures to “help local media and journalism” in regional Australia. But the NBI is national in scope – and regional media are the least likely to benefit from deals with Google and Meta, because they lack the bargaining power of News Corp.

The government is not helping regional journalism. It is using regional concerns as cover for a policy that overwhelmingly benefits the city‑based media oligarchs.

8. Conclusion – A Government Afraid of Its Own Citizens

The Albanese government does not trust Australians to engage with complex policy. Its consultation is a performance. Its legislation is a power grab. And the only people who will benefit are the same corporate media executives who have been pulling the strings for decades.

This is not a clash of civilisations. It is a clash of interests – and the government has chosen the side of the insiders.