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/ When people complain about hurdles for foreign companies in China, their information tends to be either outdated (e.g. joint venture requirements) or the same hurdles apply to Chinese companies (e.g. need to censor your website if you have one).
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?
The draft of the bill is here 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_... 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-...
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/ continues to be operated by Google. (Of course they only redirect to 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.)
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/ 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).