Ms KERNOT (11:12 AM) —Labor has no difficulty in supporting the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 because, as Minister Vaile said in his second reading speech, it establishes the availability of compensation as promptly and comprehensively as is practicable for members of the non-flying public who might be unfortunate enough to be the victims of an air accident. This bill encompasses personal injury as well as property damage. It rectifies current compensation outcomes which vary according to whether a strict liability regime or the common law applies, whether the aircraft is engaged in domestic or international operations and whether the aircraft's country of registration is a signatory to the 1952 Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface.

These issues are eliminated and a more timely uniform national regime is established. This means that strict and unlimited liability is established. This then applies to all foreign owned aircraft operating over Australian territory, all Australian aircraft operating international flights, all domestic interstate carriers and all private owner-operators operating to, from and within territories.

Further difficulties seem to have been addressed in this bill. The burden of proof had been imposed on injured third parties on the ground, but now the plaintiff has no need to establish liability in the first instance before seeking compensation. Neither is the burden of proof imposed upon injured third parties to prove intention or negligence by the operator. It also obviates the demand under common law which governs flying within the territories, Queensland and South Australia that members of the public who suffer damage by aircraft have to prove negligence before compensation can be considered.

It is important to note though that the bill is limited to damage caused during the period of flight and to impact with an aircraft, part of an aircraft or anything which drops or falls from an aircraft. This means that issues which the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958 did not address are now covered—and that is the purpose of reviewing legislation, to make sure that it keeps up with the public's and the particular industry sector's needs.

The bill does not extend to damage caused by noise. That is important to note too because there are a lot of Australian residents for whom noise associated with aircraft landing at and taking off from airports is still an important issue. But this bill does not cover that. Neither does it extend to damage caused by vibrations or wake vortices. This bill also does not extend to damage caused during ground operations such as taxiing or towing; these are still covered by common law. Serious incidents such as overshooting the runway—an interesting example of an air accident involving, from what I can gather, that in part occurred in the United States today—or veering off a taxiway at speed causing damage, as well as crash landings, are also included in the bill's provisions.

Labor agrees that this bill will allow for the introduction of an improved regime for third parties on the ground compensation that falls within Commonwealth jurisdiction. It will provide the basis for a desire to unify national compensation arrangements. Also, it will end the now outdated practice of linking liability limits to the gold conversion mechanisms under the treaty of Rome—and lots of stories abound about the current value of gold and the bottom end of the limit that that has imposed, which has been grossly inadequate.

Including strict and unlimited liability to all aircraft consistently across Australia will be a good outcome from the point of view of social justice—a point which Minister Vaile made and with which Labor heartily concurs. I also note that, in the minister's second reading speech, he cited statistics of houses damaged and members of the non-flying public killed as a result of recent air accidents. I could not help but remark upon one example which promoted lively discussion of this bill's application in our caucus committee this week. This was the alleged case of a cow falling or having been pushed from an aircraft in Indonesia; the cow fell on unsuspecting Indonesian fishermen below.

Under our bill, this would be dealt with at section 10C. This section applies if a person or property on, in or under land or water suffers personal injury, loss of life, material loss, damage or destruction caused by an impact with a person, animal or thing that dropped or fell from an aircraft in flight. I think an investigation into why that cow was pushed might prove very interesting indeed. Nevertheless, these things do happen, and here is a piece of legislation which deals with such likelihoods.

To sum up our position, we support the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999. As well as the reasons noted, there are no additional costs anticipated, despite the fact that the bill applies to aircraft possessed by or controlled by the Commonwealth, other than Defence Force aircraft. After I finish, the member for Swan intends to give a more personal perspective of how he would like to see the bill more broadly applied and how it relates to his electorate of Swan.