4 ms·

I'm very curious how this law wouldn't violate various free trade deals Australia has struck. Surely a tax that explicitly names only foreign companies is the

I'm very curious how this law wouldn't violate various free trade deals Australia has struck. Surely a tax that explicitly names only foreign companies is the opposite of free trade? Sure, China has driven a truck through the whole concept of the WTO over decades and so I doubt anything will happen. Free trade deals are very much toothless, on the assumption that they are supposed to make sense on their own terms so enforcement is not required. But I can see the USA especially if Trump wins a second term deciding that Australia should be trade sanctioned for discrimination against US businesses. The White House won't want to see tech firms become piggybanks for failed industries and economies around the world.

loktarogar 6y ago
"Pay for what you use" isn't a tax. Also, AFAIK the government gets none of this money, but I might be wrong on that.
- vermilingua 6y ago
  The government gets this money back in a) “business lunches”, gifts, etc; b) guaranteed industry “jobs” when their political careers end, which is far in the future due to; c) endless re-elections, as the entire media in this country exists as a Liberal Party PR firm.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mcv 6y ago
  You're right, it's not a tax it's an involuntary contract. Google is required to get a license to link to these news sites, and isn't allowed not to link to them or abandon the whole concept of linking to Australian news sites. It violates every concept of free trade and free enterprise. I'm all for sensible regulation and taxing big corporations, but this doesn't sound like that.
yorwba 6y ago
The draft does not explicitly name foreign companies, it only refers to generic "digital platforms", so it's not a free trade issue. Free trade agreements tend to only be concerned with equal treatment, e.g. Most Favored Nation status. If, say, a country requires mining companies to implement certain minimum safety standards, that's totally acceptable from a free trade perspective if it applies to all companies, even if almost all mines are operated by international conglomerates. Such a law might make it more difficult for foreign companies to keep operating, but without providing an advantage for domestic companies who have to abide by the same regulations. I also disagree that China has driven a truck through the WTO, since it was China that had to agree to various concessions as part of WTO accession. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol27/iss2/6/ https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol27/iss2/6/ When people complain about hurdles for foreign companies in China, their information tends to be either outdated (e.g. joint venture requirements) or the same hurdles apply to Chinese companies (e.g. need to censor your website if you have one).
- thu2111 6y ago
  That's interesting. Other posters on this topic have asserted that the directive names Google and Facebook specifically, and nobody else. That's why I say it looks like a clear cut WTO sanctions case. The law would not apply even to Twitter at the moment, let alone Australian services. BTW are you saying joint venture requirements no longer exist in China? Can non Chinese citizens get IP addresses now?
  - yorwba 6y ago
    The draft of the bill is here https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill... Probably Google and Facebook (and maybe Twitter) were mentioned as a justification for introducing the bill in the first place, but they aren't mentioned explicitly in the text. Regarding joint venture requirements in China, a new law on foreign investment went into effect this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that supersedes the previous separate regulations for wholly foreign-owned enterprises, equity joint ventures and cooperative joint ventures with a unified framework for foreign investment. There're still some sectors where 50% or more of a company's shares need to be held by Chinese nationals, but those exceptions are on their way out. E.g. restrictions in the automotive sector will be fully lifted by 2022 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-ease-rules-on-foreign-auto-makers-1523963345 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-ease-rules-on-foreign-... If you want a Chinese IP address, you might have to file a bunch of paperwork, but it should've been possible for a long time. Otherwise I can't explain how https://www.google.cn/ https://www.google.cn/ continues to be operated by Google. (Of course they only redirect to https://www.google.com.hk/ https://www.google.com.hk/ because otherwise they'd lose that ICP license displayed in the footer and get their website shut down, but that's a different issue.)
softveda 6y ago
Ha, Of course govt. can regulate. Do you know in India e-commerce like Amazon is pure marketplace platform only. i.e. Amazon can't sell their own private label products on Amazon.in Also India govt. is also preparing regulations to ask for data. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/amazon-google-face-tough-rules-in-indias-ecommerce-draft/articleshow/76809396.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retai...

loktarogar 6y ago

"Pay for what you use" isn't a tax. Also, AFAIK the government gets none of this money, but I might be wrong on that.

vermilingua 6y ago
The government gets this money back in a) “business lunches”, gifts, etc; b) guaranteed industry “jobs” when their political careers end, which is far in the future due to; c) endless re-elections, as the entire media in this country exists as a Liberal Party PR firm.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mcv 6y ago
You're right, it's not a tax it's an involuntary contract. Google is required to get a license to link to these news sites, and isn't allowed not to link to them or abandon the whole concept of linking to Australian news sites. It violates every concept of free trade and free enterprise. I'm all for sensible regulation and taxing big corporations, but this doesn't sound like that.

yorwba 6y ago

The draft does not explicitly name foreign companies, it only refers to generic "digital platforms", so it's not a free trade issue. Free trade agreements tend to only be concerned with equal treatment, e.g. Most Favored Nation status. If, say, a country requires mining companies to implement certain minimum safety standards, that's totally acceptable from a free trade perspective if it applies to all companies, even if almost all mines are operated by international conglomerates. Such a law might make it more difficult for foreign companies to keep operating, but without providing an advantage for domestic companies who have to abide by the same regulations. I also disagree that China has driven a truck through the WTO, since it was China that had to agree to various concessions as part of WTO accession. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol27/iss2/6/ https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol27/iss2/6/ When people complain about hurdles for foreign companies in China, their information tends to be either outdated (e.g. joint venture requirements) or the same hurdles apply to Chinese companies (e.g. need to censor your website if you have one).

thu2111 6y ago
That's interesting. Other posters on this topic have asserted that the directive names Google and Facebook specifically, and nobody else. That's why I say it looks like a clear cut WTO sanctions case. The law would not apply even to Twitter at the moment, let alone Australian services. BTW are you saying joint venture requirements no longer exist in China? Can non Chinese citizens get IP addresses now?
- yorwba 6y ago
  The draft of the bill is here https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill... Probably Google and Facebook (and maybe Twitter) were mentioned as a justification for introducing the bill in the first place, but they aren't mentioned explicitly in the text. Regarding joint venture requirements in China, a new law on foreign investment went into effect this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that supersedes the previous separate regulations for wholly foreign-owned enterprises, equity joint ventures and cooperative joint ventures with a unified framework for foreign investment. There're still some sectors where 50% or more of a company's shares need to be held by Chinese nationals, but those exceptions are on their way out. E.g. restrictions in the automotive sector will be fully lifted by 2022 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-ease-rules-on-foreign-auto-makers-1523963345 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-ease-rules-on-foreign-... If you want a Chinese IP address, you might have to file a bunch of paperwork, but it should've been possible for a long time. Otherwise I can't explain how https://www.google.cn/ https://www.google.cn/ continues to be operated by Google. (Of course they only redirect to https://www.google.com.hk/ https://www.google.com.hk/ because otherwise they'd lose that ICP license displayed in the footer and get their website shut down, but that's a different issue.)

softveda 6y ago

Ha, Of course govt. can regulate. Do you know in India e-commerce like Amazon is pure marketplace platform only. i.e. Amazon can't sell their own private label products on Amazon.in Also India govt. is also preparing regulations to ask for data. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/amazon-google-face-tough-rules-in-indias-ecommerce-draft/articleshow/76809396.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retai...