Mr NEVILLE (11:07 AM) —You could say that this piece of legislation, the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 , is to the so-called millennium bug what a certain brand of surface fly-spray is to Louie the Fly. What I am saying is, and perhaps it may be a little flippant, that we have to start laying the technological surface spray now so that we eliminate the insects before the year 2000 arrives.

I applaud the minister for his proactive and highly pragmatic approach to the Y2K problem. This legislation has the ability to liberate Australian companies to divulge information about their state of readiness and to seek or to offer help to customers and business partners. It removes the fear of litigation which has been hanging over the millennium bug preparations. Sadly, we have become a very litigious society. Because we are that way, caution is paramount. This legislation not only improves Australia's ability to combat the millennium bug but also encourages businesses to be good Samaritans and, in turn, the flow-on effect will reward their customers and business partners.

To some extent this legislation mirrors the American legislation from which the `good Samaritan' concept emerged. It is timely because time itself is rapidly running out for Australian companies to ensure that their businesses are safe from the bug. I was quite astonished at how close we were to D-Day when after some research I discovered that the year 2000 problem encompasses the processing of date data including 9 September 1999, 31 December 1999, 1 January 2000 and 29 February 2000, a leap year.

As honourable members know, and as my colleague the member for Bonython, Mr Martyn Evans, alluded to, the Y2K problem refers to the fact that the date function of some computers or chip based systems recognises only the final two digits of the year. For example, it recognises 98 instead of 1998. This could lead to systems beginning to fail because they do not recognise the 00 in the year 2000. The problem is not confined to computers. It could affect any chip based devices, such as VCRs, microwaves, traffic lights and communications systems. As the member for Bonython quite rightly said, `When you start to get into medical technology, the problems pale into insignificance.' You cannot monitor your own heartbeat. If you have some medical implant in your body and it malfunctions or cannot be read properly, then it could be a life risking event.

I live in a partial rural electorate. I have very big small crop, sugar and grazing enterprises in that electorate. We—the previous government and ourselves since we have been in government—have encouraged farmers in our various packages to modernise their electronic facilities. Computers and computerised systems are an integral part of the modern family farm. This extends from the farm accountancy system to essential data retrieval. Some of it is self-generated—for example, genetic information regarding breeding herds and the like. It also extends to online information services, such as the weather, the stock exchange and market reports.

It can extend to export contracts and windows of opportunity. This is quite relevant in the small crop industry, in particular, because their windows of opportunity are quite finite and they must capture those opportunities when they arise. You cannot be in a situation where you cannot retrieve information on contacts and markets and so on because the computer crashed early in the year 2000 in the middle of the distribution of your summer crop. I recognise that and I hope that the fruit and vegetable, sugar and grazing industries will cooperate with the government in these matters. As I said before, in extreme cases the bug can have safety implications both for personal health and, as we have also heard, for essential safety equipment, involving aircraft vehicles and the like.

In the current circumstance, statements made in good faith for the purpose of sharing information about the year 2000 compliance may later be the basis of a cause for action under statute or common law. Industry appears to be managing the risk of liability simply by refraining from issuing public statements. That is most unhealthy. This bill provides limited liability protection for voluntary year 2000 disclosure statements made between the day after royal assent and 30 June 2001.

As we have said, many companies have been understandably hesitant to disclose the state of their Y2K readiness, or to seek or offer help for fear that their statements could lead to legal action. This is hardly the sort of environment that leads to good Samaritan acts. Instead, it fosters a paranoia of litigation.

The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 should help ease these fears by offering legal protection for certain Y2K statements. The bill forms part of a coordinated response by the coalition to the problem. As I said earlier, it ought to be applauded. This strategy includes tax deductibility for remedial software announced in last year's back in the black budget; a national awareness campaign for business; assistance to ensure that Commonwealth agencies are Y2K compliant; and measures to assist our regional neighbours to tackle the issue. By making it easier for companies to provide information about their readiness, this bill should significantly boost efforts to check supply chains and should, therefore, help larger companies such as telecommunications providers operate and assist their downstream business customers.

The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999 will do the following things. It will protect a person making a Y2K disclosure statement from civil liability arising from making the statement—for example, negligent misstatement, defamation or liability under the trade practices or fair trading legislation—subject, of course, to certain exemptions. It will provide that Y2K disclosure statements will not be admissible against a person who made them. For example, the statement will not be able to be used in evidence of the failure of Y2K goods and services. It will provide that the exchange of Y2K information will not give rise to liability under section 45 of the Trade Practices Act which prohibits certain anticompetitive contracts, arrangements and understandings. As I said earlier, it will offer this protection from the enactment of the legislation until 30 June 2001.

To gain protection, the statement must be clearly identified, it must be in writing, it must relate solely to Y2K processing issues and it must identify the person authorising the statement. Protection will also be offered to republished statements.

But I think this is important: the legislation will not provide protection if the statement is known by the maker to be materially false or misleading, to be made recklessly, to be made in connection with the formation of a contract or to be made in fulfilment of an obligation under a contract at law. It will not provide protection if it is made for the purpose of inducing customers to acquire goods or if it relates to restricting injunction or applications for relief. It will also not provide protection if it relates to civil actions undertaken by regulatory bodies such as the ACCC or to civil actions based solely on the infringement of intellectual property. In other words, there is not going to be much room for the shonks in this operation.

The bill will not impose direct costs on business or impose administrative burdens on the Commonwealth. While decisions to share year 2000 information may involve some costs to organisations, the strictly voluntary nature of any disclosure provides the ability to control costs. Businesses are likely to make year 2000 disclosure statements where it is in their commercial interest or convenience to do so; for example, you can go back to the downstreaming of the acquisition of parts by a telecommunications company. It might apply equally, say, in the automotive trade, where you have a multitude of parts required at short notice, or perhaps in a JIT arrangement for the production of particular telecommunications or automotive products.

Any increase in the level of Australia's year 2000 remedial efforts could have a positive effect on the Australian economy. A recent survey by the Bureau of Statistics of 8,000 businesses indicated a high level of awareness. Ninety-two per cent were aware of the year 2000 problem; however—and this is quite a disturbing feature—the proportion of businesses intending to undertake year 2000 remedial work was much more variable. It ranged from a 45 per cent commitment in Tasmania to a 68 per cent commitment in the Australian Capital Territory. I am not aware of the average, but across the spectrum I suppose that is only about half.

In addition, almost one-fifth of businesses intending to undertake work have yet to start investigations into the likely impact. If you take that September date I mentioned before, we are only seven months from the start of the D-day operation, and when you look at the scarcity at times of skilled computer people, especially in provincial communities—we do have highly skilled people in those provincial communities; it is not the quality of their work but the quantum—we do not always have the people when we want them.

Recently, I queried a business as to why it had located in a coastal, provincial city in my electorate, as distinct from a small timber town where it was extracting its product. The reason was not that it was more convenient to be closer to the product—namely, timber—but that they had to be close to skilled, computer personnel who could service their equipment. It just was not feasible to have those computer technicians having to travel 110 kilometres every time something broke down. The availability of skilled computer technicians and engineers in provincial cities is a key area, and they are going to be under even greater pressure over the next seven to 10 months.

Only 20 per cent of the businesses we were talking about before have sought some form of assurance from suppliers, service providers or customers about their state of year 2000 readiness. Again, it is disturbing to think that people who have to buy parts—I can think of a number of firms in my electorate in both agricultural machinery and other forms of manufacturing—could find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the situation that they may well have corrected their own millennium bug difficulties but find that their key suppliers have not done so. A lot of firms in provincial areas today work on the just-in-time principle, and this uncertainty could either put their businesses at risk or force them into a situation where they are carrying more inventory than is really necessary. Even fewer than the 20 per cent—that is, 13 per cent—have contingency plans if disruptions occur in the year 2000 problem. It is quite frightening, too, to think that only one business in eight has a contingency plan in place.

Because of the limited time available, we must act to accelerate the rate of year 2000 remedial progress by Australian organisations, first, to fulfil their duty of care and, then, to help not just their own businesses or regional economies but the whole nation to operate seamlessly into the year 2000.