Mr WILKIE (11:38 AM) —Broadly speaking, I support the thrust of the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 . I do this for a number of reasons. Firstly, there needs to be a single set of principles that guide compensation in this country. Secondly, a clear message needs to be sent to the community from government about air safety. Also, where we have the potential for aircraft accidents, little or no thought has been given to the possible impact on innocent victims who are the third party to any accident. I will use this speech as an opportunity to highlight some potential problems in the industry that might be developing due to certain facets of aviation policy under this government which impact on air safety.

Whilst supporting this bill, I believe that, unfortunately, it does not go far enough in addressing damage by aircraft. Consideration should have been given to other forms of damage. In my electorate of Swan, for example, many complaints are received in my electorate office about the effects of unburnt or improperly burnt aircraft fuel on the areas immediately surrounding the airport. For example, people ring and say that the clothes on their line have been soiled from fuel or unburnt fuel coming from aircraft. There has been paint damage reported on vehicles when they have been parked underneath the flight path over a long period of time. There has been a strong smell of fumes from unburnt aviation fuel, and there is a belief amongst many that this has caused increased problems such as asthma, et cetera, in those areas. Therefore I believe that some consideration needs to be given to examining whether residual aircraft fuel has a damaging effect on the residents in the area. I further believe that the issue of the environmental and other impacts of fuel being dumped as circumstance demands should also be considered.

Obviously the legislation affects four main groups: the aviation industry both domestically and internally, the public and owners of aircraft. I understand that there has been extensive dialogue with the airline industry. The minister has also indicated in his recent speech that the proposal has strong support from these groups.

Accidents involving aircraft can obviously be horrific. These accidents may unfortunately also involve those on the ground and may cause injury, death and damage not only to passengers but also to members of the public on the ground. My research into instances that had the potential to injure or damage property in Western Australia alone reveals four such events in the last five years, and some of those have been touched on. These range from kit bags falling from the sky over the southern suburbs and parts of a light aircraft falling onto Perth's outer rural districts. Fortunately, no injuries have occurred to date. Of course, worse incidents have been recorded in other states and internationally. Well-known incidents have occurred in Australia. Some residential dwellings were extensively damaged and a resident injured. In another, five members of the public were killed. There are also numerous overseas examples of aircraft hitting high density areas, resulting in a large loss of life. This is particularly relevant when you consider that many of our airports are located in built-up areas with flight paths over highly populated suburbs.

The outcome for the community with the passage of this bill is improved compensation arrangements for third parties on the ground where fatal injury, non-fatal injury or damage from aircraft that come within Commonwealth jurisdiction occurs. It is important to note that, once the bill is enacted, all aircraft will be subject to unlimited liability for any injury or damage caused to members of the public not involved in the flight during an air accident. Qantas and Ansett, who will be most affected by the new arrangements, have advised that they agree with the national introduction of strict and unlimited liability. According to aviation insurance sources and the two major domestic airlines, the impact on business, including small business, will be minimal or nil. Aviation insurance sources advise that the great majority of owner operators, commercial or private, already carry adequate insurance to cover their third party on-ground liabilities.

Historic arrangements form the basis of the obligations in this country due to Australia's compliance with the Rome Convention—that is, the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface 1952. This convention was developed with the intention of achieving international harmony in compensation arrangements for damage caused by international aircraft to parties on the ground. In this country, the convention was given force of law in Australia by the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958. I note with some alarm that the convention has failed to achieve its objective of international uniformity, because only 38 countries are party to it. This has been compounded because only seven signatory countries have been licensed to operate in Australian territory at any one time.

Most alarmingly, I note that countries that are not parties to the convention and that fly to this nation include the United States, Japan, China and major countries in South-East Asia, such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. In Europe, this includes the United Kingdom. I imagine that these nations would form the basis for most of the airline industry. I am also led to believe that Australia is not the first nation to look at altering its legislative arrangements. Canada did so in 1976, citing similar problems with the convention.

Obviously some action needed to be taken to redress these shortcomings in the compensation system by overcoming these deficiencies in access to compensation and its levels. To do this, the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958. To effectively align the liability system in the Australian states, the Damage by Aircraft Bill provides a system that makes all aircraft operators in those states and territories subject to stringent and unlimited liability for third party on-the-ground damage. It will also be noted that the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 is planned to provide members of the public with damages that are without delay and as broad as is practicable. The bill is also positive in another sense, in that the uniformity will embrace areas not covered under the current arrangements.

To my surprise, on investigating the matter, I found that, in the territories and some states, there are no provisions covering air operators' third party liabilities and compensation. It would be correct therefore to say that those injured are left to seek redress under common law arrangements. The parameters of damage under common law must initially prove negligence in the courts prior to any amounts of compensation being considered. Thus, they are subject to detailing a burden of proof on the airline. It is also my understanding that this can differ across the nation. This lack of national uniformity in what are meant to be public protection measures is unsatisfactory from the point of view of social justice and inconsistent with the concept of a single national market for aviation services.

The quantum under the Rome Convention also needed to be addressed. The amount of compensation is the area of most concern. This differs according to whether the operator of the aircraft is engaged in domestic or international operations and, in the case of international aircraft, whether or not an aircraft's country of registration is a signatory to the Rome Convention. It was noticeable that the Rome Convention limits the amount payable. A Boeing 747, for example, has a liability limit of around $A36 million. It would be correct to say that if a large aircraft were to crash into an area such as the Perth CBD then this amount would be vastly inadequate.

This situation contrasts sharply with that applying to operators of aircraft registered in non-convention countries when they fly over Australian territory. While these operators are also subject to strict liability, there is no statutory limit to the compensation payable by them. Similarly, operators of Australian registered aircraft engaged in domestic operations in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania are subject to strict and unlimited liability legislation. In addition, as a consequence of Australia's adherence to the Rome Convention, damages received by victims of an accident caused by an Australian registered aircraft on an international flight—currently ones involving Qantas or Ansett—are likely to be substantially less than if an aircraft of a non-convention country, such as Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States, were involved. This variation in the levels of compensation creates unwarranted uncertainty for the plaintiff and can increase the costs on the judicial system and the plaintiff through the increased levels of litigation necessary to obtain better compensation.

Advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade supports changes in the legislative arrangements, and the Attorney-General's Department advises that this would not be contrary to Australia's international obligations. As this will require repealing the current legislation, which gives effect to the Rome Convention in Australia, Australia's participation in the convention will be formally renounced on a timing consistent with the new act coming into force.

It should be noted that there has been bipartisanship in supporting measures that reform aviation and consumer protection. An example would be the legislation which considerably improved the air passenger liability regime by making it mandatory for air carriers to carry non-voidable insurance of $500,000 per passenger to cover their liabilities to passengers. The contrast to this are the voluntary arrangements and undertakings by the airlines, which have significant drawbacks. Their insurers can easily review them on a case-by-case basis, especially when a large accident occurs.

The other legislative options, such as leaving the matter to common law, would require the majority of states to repeal legislation they have had in place since the 1950s. Common law remedies would also be a regressive step as far as an equitable public protection measure is concerned. They give no assurance of adequate compensation to the victim, who in any case has to prove negligence before any amount of compensation is considered. The cost to a plaintiff, if a private householder, can be prohibitive. For the great majority of the industry, the option taken is a minor adjustment to the existing legislative regime. It would not substantially alter the existing arrangements for domestic or international carriers or owner-operators of private aircraft in the majority of states.

The Department of Transport and Regional Services will continue to administer the legislation. For the non-flying public, there is the benefit of uniform access to ready and increased compensation from the courts. This is an optimum outcome from the point of view of social justice. For those coming under Commonwealth jurisdiction, there is an immediate benefit of increased levels of compensation. The option chosen is preferred as the simplest means of attaining a national uniform regime based on legislation with improved levels of compensation and ready access to them. The minor adjustment of the existing legislation which the bill represents is the most efficient and effective option, given the objectives.

As this bill covers aviation, I should like the Main Committee to note some concerns that members of the community and I have with regard to matters of air safety. It is particularly pertinent when discussing issues of air safety to re-examine other elements of this government's policy. I note that on a number of occasions members of this side of the Main Committee have endeavoured to raise the subject of privatisation of air services. Unfortunately, it seems that the government has tried to stymie these discussions. I hope that in the near future we will all be given the opportunity of openly entering into constructive dialogue with the government on this matter.

In a recent speech to the House about the vexing matter of aircraft noise in my electorate of Swan, I indicated that matters pertaining to air safety needed to be considered in relation to a guiding set of principles. I suggested that the following criteria needed to be considered: firstly, that the government has the ultimate responsibility of the proper care of the airport, its environs and the community; and, secondly, that the overall safety of the community be the prime consideration.

This means that appropriate guidelines for air safety must be in place and monitored. I trust, for example, that this set of arrangements will be in place and suitable for future options on the management and organisation of control towers. As we can appreciate, the amount of air traffic will not decrease. My concern, therefore, is that an agenda of hiving off air traffic control and emergency services could place the users of our airports in jeopardy. This would happen because the excellent record of air safety in the nation could, for a few dollars, be in peril due to staff reductions, lack of suitable equipment or a decline in training and standards in our facilities.

I conclude by saying that any legislation that enshrines a national set of rules to remove uncertainty and embrace fair compensation should be applauded. It is notable that the industry, including insurers, have expressed as positive any moves to remove the old treaty of Rome from applying to compensation in Australia. The treaty was fine in its day, but time moves on. We need an effective apparatus across this nation. That the states and territories have indicated their support for the legislation is also a notable virtue. I would also like to reinforce to members of this chamber that I will be pursuing further information as to whether the scope of this legislation should be extended to encompass other forms of damage such as unburnt fuel being emitted from aircraft and environmental damage caused by fuel dumping.

The public are notable winners in the new arrangement. Any recourse above the vagaries of common law should also be accorded support. I feel compelled to indicate to the minister one final point: if the government is concerned with air safety, then it should also reconsider its policy on other matters such as privatisation of air towers. It also should be very wary of any further moves down the deregulation path in an industry worth billions of dollars to our economy.