DANIEL MULINO, ASSISTANT TREASURER: Well, thank you very much for being here this morning. It's wonderful to be here this morning for the announcement of the next step in a really important reform.

We know that public interest journalism is critically important to the health of our democracy. We also know that the business model of the media is being undermined by the use of the output of journalists in a way where media is not being compensated for that use. And so the News Bargaining Incentive is a really important mechanism which will ensure that media is appropriately compensated.

It is designed so as to strongly encourage knowledge big technology companies to enter into commercial deals with media companies whereby they will pay appropriate compensation. If big tech companies decide not to enter into those commercial deals, then the incentive is structured such that they will pay even more. That is the incentive. But either way, media will receive much fairer compensation for the content that is produced by the journalists who make our public debates well informed and in the public interest.

We're announcing today that we are going to be progressing with the introduction of the bill for the NBI very early in the spring sittings, very imminently.

We're also announcing that we're making some changes to this design, small changes that will improve its ability to satisfy the public policy objectives that lie at the heart of the reform.

Firstly, we're going to change the charge base from the total revenue of the tech companies to the digital advertising revenue, and this is to ensure that the charge base relates to those parts of the tech companies that relate to the use of news. If we hadn’t changed that, it would have provided a strong disincentive for tech companies to broaden their overall footprint of activities in Australia.

But what we're also doing is changing the charge rate from to 2.25 to 2.5, and based upon the advice from Treasury and other agencies, that will leave the total amount of compensation through deals or the incentive the same, so the amount of revenue that will be going to the media to support journalists will be preserved as a result of these changes.

We will also be removing the exemption for professional networking sites, and this reflected the fact that these professional networking sites have changed since the News Media Bargaining Code was first introduced by the previous government. They're now operating at a different scale and they are also seeing a significant amount of news content shared, and so it was appropriate to bring them within the remit of this incentive.

And we're also going to increase the incentive from 170 per cent to 200 per cent for small media organisations, which is a very important way in which we're going to be encouraging more diversity in our media. So this is a really important reform which goes to the heart of ensuring that we have a healthy, vibrant and diverse independent media in Australia. It’s critical for our democracy.

The News Bargaining Incentive will ensure that journalism can continue to thrive, even as big technology companies continue to operate.

Thank you. I’ll hand over to the Minister for Communications.

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: Thank you, Daniel. Good morning, everyone. The media matters to all Australians. Journalism matters. It keeps our communities connected, and it keeps our communities informed.

It’s as important in the regions as it is here in our nation’s capital. The Albanese Government believes it is only fair that large digital platforms contribute to the hard work of journalists and journalism that enriches their feeds and drives their revenue.

Platforms should do deals directly with news organisations, and if they do not, they will pay. These laws will support a diverse media, and that benefits all Australians. That is why, following consultation, we have made changes to the distribution scheme to ensure that regional, diverse and smaller publishers will get their fair share from big tech as well.

In smaller markets, running a news organisation can be more difficult, so we’ve taken on publishers’ feedback in those markets and we’ve increased the distribution loading from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. We will also establish a grants program for small publishers and for start-ups that have revenue streams of less than $150,000.

The media landscape has changed dramatically since the days of reporters here at Old Parliament House, compared to the 24-hour news cycle that we all embrace today. But one thing remains the same, and that is good journalism safeguards our democracy. Journalists are the lifeblood of Australian news. We need more of them, not fewer.

These changes will mean more journalists, more news and more voices for all Australians.

Happy to take your questions.

JOURNALIST: What happens if platforms just decide to walk away, they say they’re not going to participate in the Australian market?

MULINO: So under the previous arrangements that we inherited under the News Media Bargaining Code, big tech platforms could walk away without many consequences. And so what we're seeing with the incentive is that if they decide to walk away, they will actually have to pay more.

And so the News Bargaining Incentive creates an obligation on big tech platforms based upon their digital advertising revenue, 2.5 per cent of that revenue.

They can reduce their burden under that mechanism by entering into commercial deals with the media. If they enter into fair commercial deals, they will pay less, and that's the whole underpinning of the design of this mechanism.

There will be an obligation on big tech platforms to make payments under the incentive, but if they enter into commercial agreements, they will end up paying less, and that’s the incentive.

JOURNALIST: Even if they don't necessarily sign on to these agreements and they do end up paying more, this sort of money is just a drop in the ocean for these sorts of tech companies there. Like, what else really is there to kind of get them over the line rather than them just walking away in the first place?

MULINO: Well, this is a material amount of money in the context of their Australian operations, but also a material amount of money when it comes to the operations of media in Australia. We estimate in rough terms that if they enter into reasonable, fair commercial dealings, that it should see benefit to the media in the order of $200 million to $250 million.

If they decide not to enter into those agreements and to acquit their obligations under the incentive, we're talking amounts ranging from roughly $350 million to $400 million per year, and that would increase over time as advertising revenue increases.

So these are material amounts of revenue that will significantly assist media organisations in Australia to employ more journalists and to underpin the variability of their business model.

JOURNALIST: Since you announced this new incentive, have you seen any agreements being signed by tech companies with media companies in Australia? Particularly Meta has said that this violates the Australian and US Free Trade Agreement. Have you had discussions with the Solicitor-General or with DFAT about whether this is actually in line with the wording in that free trade deal?

MULINO: So on the first question, what we've seen is that a number of tech companies have engaged with the consultation process, and we expect that once this legislation is passed that they will then- I expect a number of them will engage in discussions with the media.

So a number of them have been holding off until they see the final form of the legislation. I expect that once this legislation passes, we will see progress on that front.

When it comes to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, we’re confident that the arrangements that we’re putting forward in this legislation are appropriate and are consistent with all of our obligations.

JOURNALIST: Do you believe you’ve got the balance right here? There’s already been pushback this morning from some media executives – Michael Miller from News Corp saying the change guts the incentive for tech platforms to strike fair deals. Have you got the right balance?

MULINO: So I'd say two things in relation to those remarks. Firstly, as I outlined in my opening comments, the total amount of revenue that will be required to be provided to media organisations through fair commercial deals is the same under these arrangements as was under the previous arrangements.

So this retains that same amount of overall funding for the media. And the second thing is that the incentive remains very strongly entrenched in this mechanism that big tech platforms will pay substantially more if they don't enter into agreements, and that's what's different with what this government is putting into place than had been in place previously.

As I mentioned earlier, in the arrangements that we inherited there were few repercussions, if any, if big tech platforms walked away from news media organisations. Now, they will end up paying substantially more than if they enter into commercial agreements. There is a substantial financial incentive on big tech platforms to enter into agreements.

JOURNALIST: Are there any estimates from Treasury on how many journalism jobs this will save? And are you worried about AI taking journalist jobs into the future?

MULINO: I might hand over to the Minister of Communications on numbers of journalists, but I would just say on AI we have consciously separated this mechanism from AI because there is a separate process which is being undertaken there.

As the Prime Minister indicated a couple of weeks ago, the government is now undertaking a very comprehensive and coordinated approach to AI. That includes an approach to copyright that will ensure that creative producers in Australia right across the spectrum are going to be appropriately compensated. And so there's a process being led by the Attorney-General but which the Prime Minister is heavily involved in, and his department is heavily involved in, that we'll see progress on that front.

What we're looking at here is dealing with a situation where big tech platforms share news in its existing form and the fact that they should pay appropriate compensation for that. There's a separate process which is looking at the ways in which AI might manipulate or use the content of news to produce something new. And I'm confident that that process will see appropriate outcomes over time.

WELLS: On the question of number of journalists, one nuance to this policy area is that a lot of the data that is relevant is commercially in confidence. So, as ministers of the Crown, we do use Treasury modelling to make our decisions. But I'll say. as the as the Communications Minister, every single meeting I've had with the news executive has been first and foremost about not wanting to sack journalists, taking steps to preserve journalists, executives not wanting to sack their newsrooms despite these issues coming at us from the development of technology and how the news world is progressing.

So the reason that I took the decision that the distribution mechanism should first and foremost lift up, incentivise, preserving full-time equivalent journalists, is to address that. We don't want journalists sacked. Therefore having full-time equivalent journalists as the incentive for a distribution mechanism is to directly address that. And some of the things that we picked up in the provisions that we're announcing today go further in that space. So small publishers, start-ups, we want new journalists, we want innovators in this space. We want there to be an incentive for that to continue, not to diminish.

And also, just on the weighting for regional and rural journalism, we know that is so important. The lifeblood of a country town might be its paper, might be its local TV station. So just doing everything we can to preserve these things that Australians most value in our media, most value in our democracy, through the mechanism of needing to address and improve the news bargaining incentive.

JOURNALIST: Dr Mulino, just a question about the decision to alter the cost base from overall revenue to advertising revenue. I mean, big tech companies are frequently criticised for profit shifting, tax minimisation. How confident are you that you're going to be able to glean an accurate picture of tech firms’ advertising revenue in Australia?

MULINO: So, I think whether it was the previous cost base or this cost base, we were going to need to work very closely with Treasury and agencies such as the ATO to look into the books of the big tech companies. And now whether it was total revenue attributed to Australia or digital advertising revenue attributed to Australia, we were going to have to ensure that there wasn't manipulation of their revenue either to take some of it offshore or to shift it between different parts of the business. So that was always going to be a challenge.

I'm confident that working with our agencies, we're going to be able to appropriately and rigorously look at their books and figure out the appropriate cost base. But that was going to be an issue even under the old cost base.

JOURNALIST: The reference to professional networking services, is that LinkedIn?

MULINO: We expect that that would be the first professional networking organisation that would go over the threshold. It's not entirely clear at this point whether it will be over the $250 million digital advertising revenue, but at some point we would expect that it would go over if it hasn't already, but that is the largest one operating in Australia at the moment.

JOURNALIST: And just to follow up, in your statement in late 2024 you said that Google- or Alphabet - Meta and TikTok were the three companies you thought would be covered by this first, adding in the other companies that have now reached the threshold, where they would apply [indistinct] after those four?

MULINO: We’ll wait for the passage of the legislation and then for the thresholds to be applied to organisations through the regulatory agencies, but my expectation is that those would still be the organisations.

JOURNALIST: Can I ask you, Minister for Communications, about another matter? On the ongoing Gina Rinehart ABC segment issue. She’s launched legal action against the broadcaster over the segment. The comedian, the content creator, has apologised. I'm sure you know that. Should the ABC apologise and take it down?

WELLS: Thanks Trudy. News24 asked me a number of questions about this last week in a press conference, and my view has not changed since that press conference.

JOURNALIST: Should they apologise given the creators apologised?

WELLS: Like I said at the time, I think it’s a good and righteous thing that the ABC has referred it to the Ombudsman. As the Minister for Communications, I take the editorial independence of the ABC very seriously, and I respect their process. So, it is now with the Ombudsman. I think that is a good thing.

JOURNALIST: Have they given you any timeline of when that can be finalised?

WELLS: No, they haven’t, and I wouldn’t expect them to.

JOURNALIST: Minister, are you comfortable that Luke Gosling continues to serve as the special envoy? Are you confident in the Prime Minister's decision? What message does this send to victims of assault?

WELLS: It's now before a legal process and it would be inappropriate to make a comment.

JOURNALIST: Minister, on gambling reform. One area that both the Coalition and the Greens have flagged, they’d like to see tougher regulations on inducements. Do you see any scope in moving potentially to strengthen regulation on inducements in your legislation?

WELLS: Sarah Hanson-Young, who’s the shadow communications minister for the Greens has discussed that with me. I haven’t been approached by the Coalition on that matter in particular yet, perhaps that is coming, perhaps you know more than me in that space. But I will say on inducements, BetStop is the National Self-Exclusion Register. This is something that has been launched by the Albanese Government.

We have done an entire statutory review into BetStop to see how we can strengthen it, how we can improve it, how it's going now that it’s spent a bit of time in the field. We know that 65,000 people who suffer from gambling harm have registered with BetStop, and 38 per cent have opted for a permanent lifetime ban.

So I guess what I would say is we are acting in the space, and not only are we acting in the space, we've already had a statutory review into how we can do better and we are acting on those recommendations. And I would say to people who are either suffering from gambling harm or who have been advocating in the space of inducements, to assist the cause by making sure that people who might benefit from BetStop are aware of BetStop, and can use the benefits of BetStop, because it is a really useful, perhaps the most useful, based on a statutory review, thing that we as a government can do.

JOURNALIST: Are you open to taking further action on inducements? Is that something that you're leaving the door open to?

WELLS: If you are someone who is suffering from gambling harm, and you do not wish to receive a text message of inducement, which is the piece of feedback we receive consistently from gambling advocates about something they want to stop, you can opt out forever using BetStop today. So I would encourage those people to examine that- and the statutory review, that we tabled in the Parliament, and see how that's working and how we can improve it, and look at the recommendations that we've adopted and we'll continue to work on.

I guess my answer to you, Jack, is that we are endeavouring to deliver the recommendations we've adopted out of the self-exclusion statutory review that we’ve already undertaken.

JOURNALIST: Luke Bateman, he’s appearing before the inquiry today. What would be your message to people like him who would have experienced gambling harm that feel that these laws don’t go far enough?

WELLS: Yeah, I was listening to Luke on AM this morning. Obviously, you know, we wish to do everything we can for people who are suffering from gambling harm. That is why as the Communications and Sports Minister, I have worked really hard since becoming the Communications Minister to get a response to the You Win Some, You Lose More report, both announced and tabled in the parliament, and now we're trying to progress it through the legislative process as quickly as possible.

And like I've said before, I would like this delivered from 1 January 2027. People have made very clear to me that they feel they’ve waited long enough. And whilst we need to go through this inquiry process, and that is part of democracy, we hear consistently and you'll probably hear from some of them later today, from people who do not wish to see any further progress in this space, that every time we re-examine it, they have more reason to ask for a delay. I don't want a delay. I want this in place 1 January. I want people to be able to opt out from 1 January.

Thank you.