Senator STOTT DESPOJA (1:19 PM) —I am speaking on behalf of the Australia Democrats and committing our support for this bill. As the previous speaker in this debate outlined, the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill is intended to provide a system of voluntary disclosure in exchange for information about year 2000 problems, remediation effects and compliance.

This bill provides for limited liability for certain statements made between royal assent and 30 June 2001. The bill provides significant limitations on liability for statements made detailing the risks and compliance history of organisations. The rights of parties receiving year 2000 statements and the rights of third parties referred to in those statements are limited, except where statements are made fraudulently and recklessly.

The Democrats support strongly an open and fair approach to the resolution of the year 2000 issues. We will be supporting this bill and the various amendments being moved today. But we make it very clear that we reserve the right, as does any one in this chamber, to make any further amendments that are required or any amendments that are appropriate if, at a later stage, we find the government's processes or this particular regime wanting.

It is widely acknowledged that the year 2000 or millennium bug is one of the most significant challenges yet to face the information technology industry. The origins and the history of the bug provide a fascinating parallel to the information technology industry itself. Although many have blamed the cost, the limited capacity and the lack of availability of memory storage devices, it is more likely that this is just one of the many short cuts which programmers have taken over the years. Sadly, this short cut was entrenched in a number of different ways and with little foresight as to the consequences.

We should be aware that one of the impediments to addressing the millennium bug has been the opaque nature of so many of the technologies which play a role in our lives. Significant developments are occurring in technology and in technology culture as a result of the recent dramatic spread of computer networking and the convergence among media communications and computing. The movement known as Open Source Software has become a major force in computer development. It promises a level of cooperation and peer review, which is likely to have a dramatic impact on business culture in the long term.

This may be the appropriate time to suggest that we rethink the role of ethics and professional responsibility. For the last 50 years technology has raced ahead of our society's understanding of the consequences. Many of us are focused on the consequences of the year 2000 right now, but it is probably worth a reminder that the issues exposed by the millennium bug are also part of a broader range of problems created by the elevation of business and technology interests over those of consumers and of society generally.

I am aware of at least three other significant dates and a number of triggers that could occur in other parts of the economy. The dates are 9 September 1999—it would be my birthday!—29 February 2000 and another `end of time' for many existing business computer systems around the year 2038. So there are at least three significant or `end of time' dates that may affect society.

Recently there has been concern that the passing of the 10,000 mark on the Dow Jones industrial average might cause a US stock market meltdown, with systems failing to move from four- to five-digit numbers. We are still waiting for the US stock market to hit that magic level. These and other dates and thresholds point to an ongoing concern that we should all have with the extent to which we oversee, understand and control the technology in our lives.

The problems relating to the millennium bug should not simply be seen as a single issue that needs to be cleanly and swiftly disposed of—while of course it must be—but also be an incentive to think about and discuss the ongoing role of government in regulating technology. This legislation is an important attempt to urgently encourage a spirit of cooperation and openness regarding the risks and preparations for the new millennium. We are all still quite uncertain as to the actual impact of the arrival of the year 2000. The range of systems, in both the computer and organisational sense, which may be vulnerable is wide. But we are still distressingly uninformed about the complex relationship between different systems and the real effects of failure of individual components.

We certainly have many reasons to be cautious about the possible impact and that is why contingency plans and information are so important. There are risks that have been suggested in a number of areas ranging from health care to aircraft safety. On that note, I point out the encouraging words from the minister. I do not know if other members of the chamber are aware of this, but the information technology minister, Mr Alston, is so confident that the millennium bug will be zapped—this is according to AAP on 9 February—by the end of this year that he plans to take Prime Minister John Howard on a New Year's Eve plane trip. He is apparently going to be spending New Year's Eve in a cockpit of an aircraft. I am glad that the minister is so confident. It has actually been suggested in some countries that confidence in the resolution of safety issues should be demonstrated through such displays as airline executives and, of course, government officials taking flights that cross the threshold. Each to their own!

We should be proud of the way in the which the Australian community has responded to many of the challenges and uncertainties of the year 2000 but we should not become complacent. On the other hand we should not, at the other extreme, use simplistic scare tactics to bring about action. We should all take the opportunities provided by this particular bill to further prepare.

I do note with concern, on behalf of the Democrats, the government's lack of openness in the past about preparedness and the process of resolution. It seems that the threat of amendments requiring an obligation on the government to disclose has been instrumental, so that threat seems to be one reason that the government has responded, and has resulted in what I believe is a more open attitude from the government on this issue. We continue to call on the government to be fair, open and accountable on this issue, especially in the way that it communicates with the Australian population about the impact of this issue and about preparations. I do not believe that has been the case so far, certainly not satisfactorily. The general `your government knows best, so don't worry' approach is not an appropriate way to address the legitimate concerns of our community.

There is no doubt that preparedness and contingency planning in Australia are proceeding well, but we must maintain our leading role in the international community and also play a part in world preparations. The Democrats, while currently supporting the framework before us and the framework of disclosure generally, still have some concerns in relation to the weakening of the Trade Practices Act, for example, and its particular protections. We believe that always sets a dangerous precedent, and we will be vigilant about the use and abuse of the disclosure rules contained in this bill. As I have mentioned, we reserve the right to amend this bill in the future if any abuse should be detected.

This bill is a good faith, good Samaritan offering to the Australian community, and any abuse of its provisions cannot be tolerated. The bill does provide an important defence in the case where parties feel they have been defamed through the making of a year 2000 statement that is the truth. We are all aware that the truth is fragile; the truth defence is provided in an atmosphere of trust to the Australian community.

In relation to the proposed amendments, we are mindful of the somewhat secretive nature of the government's year 2000 preparations. We are pleased that the government has added the commitments contained within these amendments. That is a good sign. We would also like to see extensive use of the provisions of this bill by government, departments and agencies, even where that has not been compelled. A system of voluntary disclosure could undoubtedly benefit from a strong lead from all government departments and agencies.

As I have indicated, this bill is a timely reminder of the concerns we should all have with the failure of successive governments to tackle the difficult ethical questions arising from advances in technology. Internationally, we have often been in a leading position, but we must ensure that moves towards deregulation and self-regulation in critical areas of technology do not undo that success. Too often we are informed that regulation of or even public discussion about some of the matters relating to advances in technology is not appropriate. This, understandably, is part of the ongoing questioning of the role of government at a time when it seems to many that innovation is occurring faster than we can understand or appropriately regulate.

In a number of other areas, our ability to regulate is being limited by lack of discussion. Among these I include the regulation of encryption technologies and a range of other areas, like privacy. We must be continually vigilant where business interests, technology, community interests and human rights collide. I look forward to the ongoing debate on these matters and look forward also to a satisfactory outcome.