By Christine Giles
The millennium bug, or Y2K problem, is easy enough to define but much more difficult to quantify when predicting its potential economic and social impact.
While businesses around the world race against time and spend millions protecting computers and chip-based devices from date recognition failure, lawyers are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of a litigation boon.
But Monash law lecturer Ms Melissa de Zwart, who has advised the Victorian
government on legal aspects of the Y2K problem, says communication and cooperation
now is more sensible than jumping on the legal bandwagon later.
Ms de Zwart, an expert in computer and Internet-related law, was an adviser to the government's Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, which last year gauged Y2K readiness through responses and evidence from more than 240 public sector agencies.
While the commitee concluded that more needed to be done more quickly, latest OECD reports show that Australia is among the best prepared nations, along with Canada and the US.
"There's been a lot of hype and panic about Y2K being a field day for lawyers. But it's much better to be prepared than have to rely on suing someone after the event," Ms de Zwart said.
"If you have a supplier who causes your system to break down, you can sue them, but chances are that 100 others will be suing them at the same time for the same thing and they probably won't even be able to meet the costs of judgment.
"Given that it will realistically take about five years to get to court, the committee's report strongly emphasised why it's really important to be prepared now and not rely on your legal rights and remedies later, because they might not help you."
Ms de Zwart says the Federal Government's Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999, passed by the Senate in February, will promote more open exchange of information between businesses previously concerned about being sued if they admitted non-compliance with Y2K requirements.
The bill, also known as 'The Good Samaritan Legislation', is modelled on US law. It provides limited legal protection for firms that disclose their position and aims to encourage larger businesses to help smaller ones with Y2K preparedness. Under the legislation, a disclosure statement cannot be used as evidence if supplied goods or services fail.
To qualify for protection, the statement, and the person making it, must be clearly identified. It must be made in writing and relate solely to Y2K processing issues.
"If all businesses and government are interdependent - as they are - they need to talk to one another about their compliance issues. That's why the Y2K legislation is so important, because if people won't com-municate their experiences, others can't benefit," Ms de Zwart explained.
She said that because the Y2K problem was unprecedented and its effects simultaneous, no-one could accurately predict what lay ahead. Effects could be felt as early as 9 September this year - a key date for end of program codes.
When it comes to the Y2K issue, it's much better to be prepared than rely on suing someone after the event, according to Monash law lecturer Ms Melissa de Zwart.