The joint select committee on social media and Australian society tabled their interim report on Monday, recommending that the government explore alternative revenue mechanisms to supplement the news media bargaining code, such as a digital platform levy.

The levy would operate like a tax on social media platforms, the proceeds being used to support public interest journalism, foster digital media literacy initiatives and sustain our media outlets. These ideas are being considered largely because Meta has refused to renegotiate the deals it entered into under the code three years ago, and because it has deprioritised news across its platforms.

A digital platform levy is an excellent idea. The code has brought over $250m in funding to the media industry at a time they sorely needed it and has affected legislation around the world. Most importantly, the code demonstrated that Australia can and should stand up to the tech companies and that we recognise a healthy media is essential for a functioning democracy. We are willing to defend it.

But the code was never intended to be the only support for public interest journalism: it is not a magic pill by itself. It should exist as part of a broad range of regulatory supports in an ever-changing media sphere, an ecosystem of supports.

The news media industry faces significant headwinds brought on by big tech: primarily advertising revenue is being vacuumed up by social media and that the audience is reluctant to pay for content they get for free elsewhere, which has been going on for years. We are also seeing an increase in AI that harvests and profits from our content and pollutes the public sphere with misinformation. We need to update our regulatory supports to accommodate this changing technology and we need to do this regularly.

It has been three years since the code was introduced in parliament, and it has enriched the media in that time. A treasury review in 2022 concluded that it had been a success and had brought over 30 commercial agreements to a cross section of the media that would not otherwise have been reached.

Research conducted by myself and my colleague Diana Bossio in 2023 also concluded that it had benefited the media industry financially – but that it cannot and should not operate in isolation from other supports for public interest journalism and that it has significant limitations at present. One of the limitations is that the code is operating as a threat rather than enforceable policy due to the absence of designation, which means it might lose efficacy over time if not revisited. There are also problems with the existing registration criteria for news outlets eligible to enter negotiation.

More measures are needed, using different areas of law, to support our media ecosystem and democracy. The code used competition law to achieve one primary goal: it addressed a market imbalance between the social media platforms and news organisations. A digital services levy could use the existing tax system to redistribute revenue from big tech to public interest journalism, which would supplement the work of the code. These two measures can and should be used in tandem and should not be seen as opposing forces.

Meta has made it very clear to Australians that they do not value Australian journalism, news and public interest media – nor do they value our ability to counter the mis- and disinformation that now flourishes on social media. It is up to us to build and maintain a healthy regulatory framework that supports public interest journalism and to revisit it when it needs to be updated or rebuilt. Instituting a digital services levy would be a useful addition to the arsenal.

• Belinda Barnet is senior lecturer in media and communications at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne