“In March and April of 2026, the Albanese government unveiled two policies that, taken together, amount to the most profound centralisation of Australian media and information power in a generation.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife, who sees the architecture of control as clearly as she sees me, and who has never once been fooled by the smoke and mirrors of power.

In March and April of 2026, the Albanese government unveiled two policies that, taken together, amount to the most profound centralisation of Australian media and information power in a generation.

The first is a national framework for data‑centre and AI infrastructure, wrapped in the language of “sovereign capability” and “national interest”. The second is the News Bargaining Incentive (NBI), a 2.25 per cent levy on the Australian revenue of digital giants – effectively a tax on the act of public communication.

Wrapped in the comforting rhetoric of “jobs”, “security” and “saving journalism”, these two pillars are steadily constructing a Berlin Wall of digital democracy.

Behind that wall, the government decides which data centres can be built (control over the pipes) and which news outlets receive taxpayer funding (control over the content). The effect is a digital public square that is not free, but managed.

This is not a tinfoil‑hat fantasy. It is the documented, verifiable reality of budget papers, ministerial statements and draft legislation. And the beneficiaries are not the Australian people. They are a small, wealthy, interconnected network of players whose only shared value is the accumulation of wealth – a coalition of convenience that spans the pro‑Israel lobby, legacy media, the arms industry, global consultancies and a handful of billionaire donors.

I. THE NEW DIGITAL CURTAIN – A BERLIN WALL OF DATA AND NARRATIVE

A. The data‑centre framework – control over the pipes

On 23 March 2026, the government published its Expectations of data centres and AI infrastructure developers – a framework that will be used to “prioritise approvals” for new projects and expansions. The five expectations sound unobjectionable:

· Prioritise Australia’s national interest (sovereignty, security, community benefit);

· Support the energy transition (renewables, fair grid contributions);

· Use water sustainably;

· Invest in Australian skills and jobs;

· Strengthen research, innovation and local capability. 

Minister for Industry and Science Tim Ayres declared: “Australia is open for business – but the kind of business that puts Australia’s national interest first.” 

But Senator David Pocock noted that the guidelines “are not going to cut it” when dealing with big tech. The framework creates no new legal obligations; it merely sets up a policy lens to prioritise approvals. The government can fast‑track projects it likes and delay those it doesn’t, all without transparent criteria. This is the opposite of independent governance – it is discretionary power wielded politically. 

Industry body Data Centres Australia pointed out a “significant omission”: the framework excludes on‑premise enterprise data centres, which account for about 80 per cent of compute capacity and can be up to 67 per cent less energy‑efficient than purpose‑built facilities. “Excluding them from national expectations creates a perverse outcome: the operators already leading on efficiency and sustainability bear the regulatory burden, while the least efficient operations face no incentive to improve.” 

Environmental groups went further. Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Adam Bandt called the expectations a “vague policy intervention”, arguing enforceable conditions are needed. Greenpeace Australia Pacific head of climate Joe Rafalowicz said they are “seriously inadequate”. 

The framework is not about the environment or jobs. It is about gatekeeping. It gives the government a bureaucratic lever to reward friendly players and penalise dissenting ones – all without parliamentary scrutiny.

B. The News Bargaining Incentive – a tax on public communication

On 28 April 2026, the government released its draft News Bargaining Incentive (NBI). The scheme imposes a 2.25 per cent levy on the entire Australian revenue of digital platforms (Google, Meta, TikTok) that do not strike commercial deals with news publishers. Platforms that comply can claim offsets, effectively funnelling money to legacy media. The government expects the levy to raise $200–250 million a year. 

Prime Minister Albanese said the platforms should not be able to “exploit the work of journalists to boost profits”. Communications Minister Anika Wells argued it was “only fair” that large platforms contribute to journalism. 

But the reality is the opposite of a free market. The offset scheme – up to 170 per cent of the value of a deal – strongly favours legacy media (News Corp, Nine) over independent voices. It is not a tax on profits; it is a tax on the act of public communication. Digital platforms are being coerced into funding a state‑favoured media cartel.

Meta called the government’s position “simply wrong”, saying: “A government‑mandated transfer of wealth from one industry to another, with no connection to the value exchanged, will not deliver a sustainable or innovative news sector.” Google rejected the need for the reform, noting it already had deals covering 90 news businesses and 226 outlets. 

The government’s consultation period for this fundamental restructuring of media funding? 21 days. That is not consultation. It is ratification.

II. WHO BENEFITS? A SMALL, WEALTHY, INTERCONNECTED NETWORK

The beneficiaries of this architecture are not the Australian people. They are four overlapping groups, united not by faith or ideology, but by the pursuit of wealth extraction.

1. The pro‑Israel lobby

The 2026–27 budget allocated $102 million over four years directly to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) – the nation’s most prominent pro‑Israel lobby group – for “enhanced security”.  A further $4.4 million went to a closed non‑competitive grant for the Chabad of Bondi. 

The budget also funded Community Security Groups (CSG) – volunteer organisations that protect Jewish community institutions. These groups have sent members to security courses conducted in Israel, and ex‑IDF members are among their ranks. CSG personnel already carry pistols at schools and synagogues; the NSW government is considering arming them at public events. 

Meanwhile, the Australian Public Service has quietly embedded the IHRA definition of antisemitism across its workforce. The definition includes examples that conflate anti‑Zionism with antisemitism – effectively criminalising criticism of Israel within the government. ECAJ has been invited to train federal prosecutors on Zionism and antisemitism.

What they gain: Shielded from criticism of Israel. State resources funnelled their way. A legal and bureaucratic architecture that conflates anti‑Zionism with antisemitism, effectively criminalising their critics.

2. The legacy media cartel

The NBI is institutional engineering designed to keep legacy outlets at the centre of public conversation. News Corp and Nine Entertainment are positioned to receive the bulk of the taxpayer‑funded media payments, while independent outlets ( AIM, Crikey) are disadvantaged.

Axel Springer SE of Germany – a CIA‑built media empire whose CEO Mathias Döpfner declared himself a “goy Zionist” and called for censorship and selective immigration – owns Bild, Die Welt, Politico Europe and Business Insider. Its editorial stance is fiercely pro‑Israel, and it has actively worked to embed the IHRA definition across Europe.

What they gain: Protection from competition. A taxpayer‑funded lifeline. The ability to set the narrative without fear of being undercut by independent or alternative media.

3. The arms industry

The Albanese government is overseeing a massive military build‑up. Defence spending will rise to 3 per cent of GDP by 2033 (using a NATO definition that includes military pensions, superannuation and intelligence activities – effectively cooking the books). An extra $53 billion over the next decade has been committed, and the total defence budget for 2026–27 includes $6.8 billion in additional funding. 

The Future Fund – Australia’s sovereign wealth fund – holds a $100 million stake in Palantir, the data‑surveillance company run by “tech right” figures, which powers ICE raids in the US and has been accused of providing AI‑assisted autonomous weapons to the Israeli military.  The Future Fund also holds shares in Lockheed Martin ($13.6 million) and Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems ($8.7 million). 

The AUKUS submarine project – the single largest defence expense – has its own list of beneficiaries: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and a host of US and UK defence contractors.

What they gain: Guaranteed contracts. A permanent war economy. Access to government decision‑makers through the revolving door of lobbyists and former officials.

4. The consultants

The same handful of firms – KPMG, PwC, Deloitte, McKinsey – have been present at every fire‑sale of public assets, every NDIS cut, every stage of the NBI consultation, and every aspect of the data‑centre framework. They profit from both the design and the implementation of the extraction machine.

The government’s own defence spending is being partially funded through accounting tricks – the use of NATO definitions to inflate the percentage of GDP, and the tapping of private investors and the superannuation sector to push spending off budget. Analysts have accused Labor of using these techniques to help fund a $53 billion military build‑up. 

What they gain: Lucrative contracts to “model” cuts, “advise” on privatisation, and “evaluate” outcomes. They are the shock absorbers of the extraction economy.

5. The billionaire donors

Australia’s richest 200 people saw their total wealth surge 160 per cent over the past decade, reaching $667.8 billion in 2025. There are now 161 billionaires on the list. 

Mining magnate Gina Rinehart tops the list with $38.11 billion. Property developer Harry Triguboff follows with $29.65 billion. Packaging king Anthony Pratt is third with $25.9 billion. 

These fortunes are not extracted in a vacuum. The resources, property and finance sectors that generate this wealth are the same sectors that benefit most from government largesse – tax concessions, infrastructure spending, and deregulation. And they are the same sectors that funnel political donations to both major parties, ensuring the extraction machine continues to turn.

III. THE PATTERN:                                              WHO IS LEFT OUT?

Who benefits                                                            Who is ignored

Pro‑Israel lobby                                         Jewish Australians who oppose the genocide (e.g.,     Jewish Council of Australia)

Legacy media                                               Independent media (AIM, Crikey)

Arms manufacturers                                 Public housing, mental health, disability support, food banks

Consultants, private equity                  The unemployed, the underpaid, the homeless

Billionaire donors                             Average taxpayers, renters, young people locked out of housing

The government has chosen its beneficiaries. And they are not the Australian people.

IV. CONCLUSION – THE SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN; IT IS WORKING AS DESIGNED

The Albanese government is constructing a politicised digital ecosystem. The data‑centre framework centralises control over the physical infrastructure of the internet.

The NBI creates a state‑managed media funding regime that favours legacy outlets. Together, they form a Berlin Wall of digital democracy – a wall of red tape, discretionary approvals, and state‑favoured media that will be very hard to tear down.

The beneficiaries are a small, interconnected network of wealthy players: the pro‑Israel lobby, legacy media, arms manufacturers, global consultants, and billionaire donors.

The losers are the Australian people – the homeless, the hungry, the mentally unwell, the young, the disabled, and anyone who dares to criticise the official narrative.

The system is not broken. It is working exactly as designed. And the design serves a very small, very wealthy, very connected network.

We see it. We name it. And we will not be silent.

Andrew Klein

14 May 2026

Acknowledgement: Special thanks to Steve Davies (@OZloop) for his tireless work with AI modelling and good governance, and for his insights into the moral disengagement at the heart of government policy.

Selected Sources

· Data‑centre framework: ARNnet, 23 March 2026; ACS Information Age, 24 March 2026 

· News Bargaining Incentive: Guardian Australia, 28 April 2026; Courthouse News, 29 April 2026 

· Budget funding for ECAJ etc: ABC News, 13 May 2026; 7News, 12 May 2026 

· Community Security Groups (CSG) and IDF links: Brisbane Times, 29 December 2025; Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 3 January 2026 

· Palantir Future Fund stake: Crikey, 5 May 2026; Startup Daily, 11 February 2026

· Defence spending increases: Guardian Australia, 16 April 2026; Baker McKenzie, 12 May 2026 

· Rich List concentration: Financial Review Rich List 2025 (Wikipedia) ; Nine for Brands, 28 May 2025; SBS News, 3 June 2025 

· Political donations: Reuters, 7 May 2026 

· IHRA definition in Australian Public Service: Multiple FOI releases and media reporting (Crikey, Guardian, May 2026)

· Jewish Council of Australia criticisms: Public statements and media coverage, 2025–26