Australia is pushing ahead with plans to impose a new tax on global tech giants, compelling them to fund domestic journalism. The federal government’s initiative targets large social media and search platforms generating more than AUD 250 million a year in Australian revenue, including Meta, Google and Microsoft. The goal is to ensure a fairer revenue split with news organisations and strengthen democracy by supporting public interest journalism.
According to a Treasury discussion paper reported by the Brisbane Times, the government intends to calculate the charge as a share of each company’s local income. Meta, which earned an estimated AUD 5 billion in Australia in 2022, could face a penalty of around AUD 112.5 million unless it reaches commercial agreements with news publishers. Every dollar invested in media partnerships would reduce the levy by AUD 1.50, making direct payments to news outlets a financially preferable option.
The scheme revives and expands the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code, which required companies such as Meta and Google to negotiate deals or face regulatory sanctions. Meta’s decision earlier this year not to renew its agreements with Australian publishers has already had a sharp impact, contributing to hundreds of job losses and revenue declines across the news sector. Critics argue the government has moved too slowly, allowing damage to accumulate while tech companies withdrew support.
Meta has been vocal in its opposition, insisting that most users do not visit its platforms for news and warning that the levy risks undermining existing commercial partnerships. In 2024 it removed news features from Facebook in Australia, as well as in France, Germany and the UK, sparking criticism from governments and media groups. The company’s regional policy chief told a parliamentary inquiry it was “considering all options”, including blocking news content altogether to avoid new licensing costs.
The government has said it wants the new model to spread funding more equitably across the sector, including independent, regional and community publishers. Officials are exploring a “digital platform levy” as part of the framework, with final details due before the scheme’s introduction on 1 January 2025.
The move places Australia once again at the forefront of efforts to force digital platforms to contribute financially to journalism, an approach now being studiedother markets. Whether the levy succeeds will depend on how the tech giants respond and whether it can genuinely bolster local newsrooms rather than entrench the biggest players.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding Australia’s plans to impose a new tax on major tech companies like Meta and Microsoft to support Australian journalism. Similar initiatives have been reported in the past, such as the News Media Bargaining Code introduced in 2021. However, the current proposal introduces new elements, including penalties for non-compliance and a focus on companies with over AUD 250 million in annual Australian revenue. The earliest known publication date of substantially similar content is December 12, 2024. ([abc.net.au](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-12/government-forces-facebook-google-to-pay-for-australian-news/104717608?utm_source=openai)) The narrative appears to be original, with no evidence of recycled content. The inclusion of updated data and specific figures suggests a high level of freshness. However, the presence of earlier versions with different figures or quotes indicates potential discrepancies. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([abc.net.au](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-25/tech-tax-to-replace-news-media-bargaining-code-meta-social-media/104510956?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from government officials and Meta’s regional policy director. A search for the earliest known usage of these quotes reveals that they have been used in earlier material, indicating potential reuse. The wording of the quotes varies slightly in different sources, suggesting some paraphrasing. No online matches were found for other quotes, raising the score but flagging them as potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Brisbane Times, a reputable Australian news outlet. However, the presence of similar content in other reputable sources, such as ABC News, indicates that the information is not exclusive to this outlet. The involvement of government officials and Meta’s regional policy director adds credibility, but the lack of direct quotes from these individuals in the narrative raises some concerns.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with recent developments in Australian media policy. The government’s proposal to impose a tax on tech companies to support journalism has been reported by multiple reputable sources. The narrative lacks specific factual anchors, such as names, institutions, and dates, which reduces the score and flags it as potentially synthetic. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic, and the structure is focused on the main claim without excessive or off-topic detail.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent developments regarding Australia’s plans to impose a new tax on major tech companies to support Australian journalism. While the information is plausible and aligns with recent reports, the presence of similar content in other reputable sources and the lack of direct quotes from key individuals raise some concerns about the originality and exclusivity of the content. The lack of specific factual anchors and the potential reuse of quotes further reduce the confidence in the narrative’s authenticity.
