Mr LINDSAY (10:00 AM) —The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 carries the support of all the states and territories and of all the main business groups that would be affected by its contents. There is only one group that has some problems supporting the bill—that is, the legal profession—and I just wonder why that might be. But by and large the community and, I understand, the opposition are with the government on this. There may be a possible further amendment in the Senate later tomorrow, but we will just have to wait and see how that takes its course.

This bill is also part of a suite of government measures that the government have introduced in a responsible way to make sure that the country is year 2000 compliant in an orderly and timely manner. We have already announced the deduction for year 2000 remediation software and related expenses. We have certainly put in a very big effort in making sure that Commonwealth agencies are year 2000 compliant, and we are in the middle of a very strong national awareness campaign to make sure that this particular problem is going to be dealt with satisfactorily.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know how you find it in your electorate, but certainly in mine there are still a significant number of small businesses, for example, that really have not paid attention to this problem. They seem to think that they will be okay.

The government will continue its very strong awareness campaign. The parliamentary secretary responsible, the Hon. Ian Campbell, certainly has some very big plans for this year, as I understand it, to proceed with the government's agenda to make sure that our country is year 2000 compliant. Other countries in the world have similar programs. Some are more advanced than we are, but I think Australia is doing well and the bill that we are debating this morning furthers that object.

Basically, the object of the bill is to protect bona fide year 2000 compliance statements against civil action. In doing that, the bill is pro business, because it increases the public availability of reliable information. It certainly allows businesses to understand their supply chains; it allows them to understand whether, when this particular time comes along, all the businesses they deal with will be reliable suppliers, that there will not be problems at that time; and, of course it allows larger businesses to share information and to help smaller businesses—and that is a point that I alluded to earlier in these comments. For all those reasons this bill is pro business and therefore pro the community and pro Australia.

What we are facing is, through nobody's fault, a problem for the whole of the economy. Right across the economy these sorts of problems can occur in lifts, in microwave ovens, in video recorders, in traffic lights and in communications—anything that is date sensitive and run by some kind of microprocessing arrangement.

Interestingly—and this has received a lot of publicity—it may have the potential to affect things like aircraft. I am aware of some commitments by honourable members to be in aircraft at the time this happens. A commitment was made by a person this morning to be in an aircraft at the time but they said that it would be on the ground when the changeover occurred. I think that most of the major industries are certainly very responsible in this regard. I do not think there is going to be any problem whatsoever.

To gain protection, the bill sets out some very specific information. The statement made in the public area must be clearly identified, it must be in writing, it must relate solely to year 2000 compliance processing issues and it must identify the authoriser. Protection is also given to statements that happen to be republished on the original statement. If action is taken against the maker of the statement, he or she must provide an explanatory statement outlining why the statement was bona fide and not reckless.

Protection is not provided for any statement that might be made if it is known by the maker to be false or misleading—and I think that is sensible—or if it has been made recklessly—and from time to time we see those sorts of things—in connection with the formation of a contract; in fulfilment of an obligation under a contract or law or for the purpose of inducing customers to acquire goods—an interesting one and, I think, a very good protection in this bill—and also if it relates to restraining injunctions or applications for declaratory relief, to civil actions being undertaken by regulatory bodies and to civil actions based solely on the infringement of intellectual property. Those are the exceptions to the bill which I think are sensible and which certainly should be there.

This bill will protect a person from civil liability arising out of the making of a statement and will have protections for defamation and so on. It provides that a year 2000 disclosure statement will not be admissible against the person who made it. I think that is going to encourage our businesses and our economy to be open, to be more accountable and to provide information to other users.

Finally, I would alert the Main Committee to the fact that there is a sunset clause in this bill in that protection will be available only until 30 June 2001. After that, the millennium will have well and truly passed and there will be no need for protection to continue. I think that is also a sensible inclusion in this bill. For those reasons, I support the bill today.