Firstly on the point of sharing user data:
My reading of the draft bill matches the ACCC’s statements: it’s not saying the platform has to share any more user data than they already do, just that the platform must provide documentation of what they are collecting, and how the registered news business corporation can access any parts of that that they do make available to them. Not that they must expose more.
In Google’s original open letter, the “Your Search data may be at risk” section matches your interpretation here, and it seems to me to be factually inaccurate; I believe the ACCC’s rebuttal is correct.
That’s the main factual point in Google’s letter and in ACCC’s response.
———
But then to the rest of the letter and response, which are much more about feelings and potential consequences.
The whole purpose of the legislation is to improve alleged bargaining inequality, because the platforms have lots of information they’re not telling the news corporations. It’s not an end in itself, but is the means to further negotiations and potentially legislation.
Other than the aforecited section, Google’s letter is saying “this proposed legislation threatens us”. An uncharitable view of this would be that they depend on their position of power, and if the inequality is balanced then their business model will come under direct attack—not by this legislation, but by what follows after it.
ACCC is saying “you have implied that this proposed legislation will harm you, but it doesn’t directly do so”.
Both sides are speaking very carefully and precisely, Google saying that things are threatened and at risk, and ACCC refuting the things that Google implied (again apart from the one point that Google did actually say which ACCC claims to be factually inaccurate).
———
I believe my judgement and remarks in this comment to be impartial. Moreover I am not rooting for either party over the other.