Here’s the damage

The constitution might be the first obstacle. Do you see a way around it when the federal government lacks a housing power?

*does not want the tax liability to be paid

You've framed as 'they'll pay less to the media companies' which, sure if you want to frame it that way. But the govt's thinking went the other way around - make the tax 10% bigger to steer companies into making their own arrangements to dispel the liability.

Yes it is what you're talking about - sorry to go round in circles but that's exactly what I'm saying. The reason tax has been set at $11m is to encourage a deal of $10m. Govt does want the tax liability to be paid, so deliberately set the rates at a level that was not 1:1.

Yep the uplift is the bit I'm talking about (and is alluded to in the linked article) - it is a design feature because the govt's preference is that deals be struck directly with the media orgs rather than the govt having to collect revenue and dole it out

Not new - was front and centre of the briefing when the plan was first announced and it’s the whole point. The govt expects the tax to raise not a cent, because it’s to be set high enough that it’s cheaper to pay media orgs.
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12...

The plural is normans swan

Is this one those marginal seat Redbridge things? Or national

Not much but suspect neither would see much to gain from that? Bigger audiences where they are. Both have probably done the requisite qanda panel

I'd suggest a few influencer types with large followings. Hannah Ferguson, Konrad Benjamin, Jordan Shanks (each very different categories of left)