Mr STEPHEN SMITH (8:30 PM) —The House has before it the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This bill was considered by the Senate earlier today under non-controversial legislation, which reflects the opposition's general support for the legislation proposed to be enacted by the government. That is not to say that we do not have some concerns which, in due course, I will place on the record. This bill provides safety net mechanisms for the management of electronic addressing through the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The government has stated that the safety net mechanisms are designed to be invoked in the event that attempts at self-regulation prove ineffective in managing electronic addressing.

The government's bill contains two schedules that implement those safety net mechanisms. The first schedule provides the circumstances in which the ACCC or the ACA can intervene in the management of electronic addressing. The second schedule establishes an alternative mechanism by which the ACA can be given responsibility for managing a specified type of electronic addressing if direct ACA management is the only viable alternative to management by a self-regulating body. The government supports industry self-regulation for the management of electronic addressing services, which includes domain name allocations. Consultative processes for the formulation of a self-regulatory regime are currently being undertaken by auDA—the dot au domain name administrator.

Regrettably, attempts at industry self-regulation have consistently failed over the past few years and there are genuine concerns that the current proposals for a new self-regulatory regime may not be successful. This matter was considered by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, which reflected a range of views, many of which expressed some concern with the approach. The detail of the differing views is discussed in the Labor senators' minority report on the bill. The view of the opposition is that, while the government's approach may not be sufficient to adequately respond to concerns of some within the industry about electronic addressing, and whilst the bill fails to respond to concerns on related issues, such as the need for protection against cybersquatting, the bill does provide a sufficient mechanism by which deficiencies in the government's processes can be addressed as required at a later date, either by the current government or by a new government. In particular, the bill provides a mechanism by which the ACA can intervene should the government's self-regulatory mechanism fail, and this would provide a platform for a future government to reregulate electronic addressing should that be determined to be appropriate.

Whilst the opposition does not oppose the bill, we do note some concerns which have been raised by the industry as to whether the government's favoured approach to industry self-regulation will resolve these problems. In particular, in the Labor senators' minority report to the bill, the issues raised before that committee and reflected upon in the Labor senators' minority report include the following: the bill does not address the issue of existing domain name registries being monopolies; the bill does nothing to ensure adequate competitive pricing; competitive pressures will adequately regulate domain name allocation naming policies and consequently it is argued by some in industry that there is no need for the regulation; the existence of the bill's safety net mechanisms might undermine the cooperative self-regulatory process; and, finally, the role of the ACA and the clarity of the circumstances for invoking the safety net mechanisms are not necessarily sufficiently defined.

Having said that, this matter was dealt with by the Senate in non-controversial legislation earlier this morning. The opposition is happy to not oppose this legislation. The history of this matter is that, in some respects, we are now grappling with the reverse of what has become known in corporate affairs legislation as `state based business names regulation'. So far as company business names are concerned, because of the history of the development of corporations, the regulation of business names has been determined by legislation through public authorities right from the outset. The history of the development of the Internet and Internet industries is that this has essentially been industry based and industry determined from the initiation and the development of the Internet industry. It may well be that, at some point in the cycle, we get to that point where the maturity of the industry is such that the determination of domain names registration becomes the effective modern-day equivalent of business names registration. The government's legislation provides that safety net mechanism and provides the opportunity for a future government to determine whether those circumstances have been arrived at.

If I had one general criticism of the government's legislation, it would be that this bill does not deal with the issue of cybersquatting. That is not necessarily fatal to the determination of this bill, but that is an issue that the government needs to grapple with much more adroitly than it has to date. Whilst placing those concerns on the public record, the opposition does not oppose this legislation. It will provide safety net mechanisms for the ACCC or the ACA to intervene, at the request of the government of the day, in the future should certain circumstances prevail. On that basis, having placed those caveats on the record, we have no objection to the legislation as presented to the House.