The Senate Standing Committee for Communications is currently reviewing [pdf] the Communications Legislation Amendment 2007. Microsoft had an interesting submission.

Inman Grant was Microsoft's representative at the committee hearing. She said:

Our interest in the content services bill and the current bill is to ensure that we can continue to provide our content services to consumers on a global basis on substantially the same terms and that Australia's approach harmonises with that of other jurisdictions.

This is nothing really new, it is in the self-interest of companies with global interests to avoid having to follow disparative regulations that can potentially add burden and overhead. However an earlier sentence by Grant included:

Given Australia's role as a policy bellwether in the region - particularly in the internet safety space - we believe that the precedential impact for future laws and regulations developed in the Asia-Pacific is very important and tied to the outcomes of the development of this bill.

Which exposes the lobbying strategy of companies with global interests. We have seen this with the DMCA in the United States. As the biggest economy and most politically influential country on the planet, lobbying the US for legislation can indirectly lead to law 'harmonisation' in other markets.

An aspect of US Free Trade deals has been the inclusion of intellectual property laws including DMCA like provisions. In fact, any nation that is willing to give in on agricultural quotas and harmonise with US property laws has pretty much got an FTA.

Grant's statement to the committee suggests that this strategy of lobbying influential legal systems to become 'bellwethers' for convention has indirect benefits. It should be noted that Microsoft wasn't originally included in the consultation, but I have no doubt Ninemsn was.

I don't consider it conspiratorial, however nation-states that aren't global or regional 'bellwethers' might want to bear the process in mind when making decisions.