Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (1999 Montreal Convention and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill amends a range of acts which are currently on our statute books. They are the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act 1963 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988. In amending each of these acts, the bill allows Australia to accede to the Montreal convention.

The Montreal convention is officially known as the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. It is so titled because of the fact that the convention was endorsed in the Canadian city of Montreal on 28 May 1999 by the member states of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Civil Aviation Organisation is a UN agency based in Montreal which codifies international aviation and air traffic regulations.

The Montreal convention supersedes the Warsaw convention of 1929, which, despite having had four subsequent amendments—in The Hague in 1955, the Guadalajara convention of 1961, the Guatemala City protocol of 1971 and the Montreal protocols of 1975—was nevertheless very much out of date. That was particularly the case in relation to air carrier liability where there were a number of aspects of the Warsaw convention which were completely out of date. For example, it used a currency which is no longer in existence known as the Poincare gold franc. There was no provision for indexation of liability caps when damages claims were made. So, for example, a number of those liability caps effectively date back to 1929 limits. For death or injury, the total amount of damages that could be provided was between A$16,000 and A$20,000. For a loss of luggage, the amount was between $30 or $40 per kilogram. Clearly these amounts are vastly out of date in 2008.

Despite having had wide adherence—there are 151 parties to the Warsaw convention—it was soon recognised that it was very much out of date and these caps were insufficient. Like other countries, Australia did find its way around the out-of-date nature of the Warsaw convention, and so, through the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, there were increases in the caps for liability and damages that could be paid in relation to Australian international carriers. That act provided that a cap of $500,000 could be paid in relation to death or injury, $1,600 could be paid in relation to registered baggage and $160 could be paid in relation to hand luggage. But, of course, these caps could not be applied to international or foreign carriers, and that is exactly what the Montreal convention would provide for and why it is important that we now accede to it.

The Montreal convention, as I stated, dates back to May 1999. In June 1999, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, the former member for Gwydir, announced a consultative process with a view to ratifying and having Australia accede to the Montreal convention, but from that point on very little happened in relation to the accession by Australia to this convention. In fact, it seems to have gone completely out into the backblocks, and the whole business of government appears to have stalled in relation to this important measure, which is ultimately about connecting Australia to the international aviation system. By November last year, at the time of the election, we had a new Minister for Transport and Regional Services—still the Leader of the National Party, still the Deputy Prime Minister, but this time the member for Lyne—who appeared to be spending more time out of Australia than in it. Still the Montreal convention had not been ratified, despite the fact that Japan, the United States, China and New Zealand had ratified the convention in 2003 and the United Kingdom and most European countries had ratified it in 2004. Indeed, as was the case at the election last year and as is the case as I stand here today, Australia is the only country outside the OECD that has not ratified the Montreal convention.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties supported Australia acceding to the convention in report No. 65, which was tabled in this parliament on 20 June 2005, so there has been plenty of notice about this convention. It has been completely clear that it needed to occur. It has been completely clear that the old system of international regulation, in the sense that we were adhering to it, was completely out of date. The remedy for this was presented by the international aviation community in May 1999, yet here we are nine years later and nothing has occurred. It begs the question: what were the Howard government doing over those last nine years that they could not put in place an important, but relatively simple, measure to connect Australia to the international aviation system? Perhaps we could speculate, given who the ministers for transport were, given what party they came from, that there may have been some distraction from the Regional Partnerships program, a program which seemed mainly aimed at providing for pork-barrelling in National Party seats. Maybe we can speculate that the reason that the National Party were not engaged in the important business of running this country was that they were more focused on the Regional Partnerships program. Perhaps we could say that, rather than focusing on connecting Australia to the international aviation system, the member for Gwydir focused on the Seawind fiasco. The Seawind fiasco was of course a flagrant attempt at pork-barrelling in Tweed Heads. Seawind was a company involved in seafood processing. It received $273,500 in grants after, according to the former member for Gwydir, a rigorous assessment process.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corio will return to the topic at hand.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is highly relevant. When you look at the package of materials in relation to this bill, the thing that immediately jumps out at you is that the Montreal convention was made in May 1999 and we are now sitting here in May 2008. The only conclusion we can reach is that the Howard government was asleep at the wheel or busy doing other things—for example, engaging in the Regional Partnerships program, focusing on the Seawind fiasco. It is important that that is borne out.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this clearly has nothing to do with the legislation in front of us.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has been a wide-ranging debate from all sides. I call the member for Corio.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a sense I welcome the point of order, because this has everything to do with it. This is why you were not actually engaged in the business of running the country, which is what this bill is absolutely about. As I said, the Seawind seafood processing company received more than a quarter of a million dollars of government money after what the former member for Gwydir said was a rigorous assessment process. But when the current member for Richmond, the Minister for Ageing, visited the Seawind factory she discovered that the company expected employees to share workboots and to work with unsuitable, old and rusty filleting knives. I know that the minister is still getting over the experience of meeting with the Seawind trainees, who shortly afterwards experienced the company going bust—just five months after the commencement of that government-subsidised position. That appears to be what the former member for Gwydir was doing when he should have been involved in connecting our country to the international aviation system.

But what about the member for Lyne, who took over the portfolio of Transport and Regional Development and the position of Deputy Prime Minister and who was, of course, also the Leader of the National Party? Why wasn’t he busy connecting Australia to a modern international aviation system? Was he in fact more concerned with the Regional Partnerships program itself and concerned with—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate may be wide-ranging, but I do not think it can be this wide-ranging.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corio will return to the legislation at hand.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interesting thing here is that the two ministers of the Howard government who were responsible for this portfolio were both leaders of the National Party and both up to their necks in the Regional Partnerships program when in fact they should have been running this country and connecting us to a modern aviation system. Instead, the member for Lyne was out there bitterly attacking the Auditor-General for raising, quite legitimately, concerns that he had about the Regional Partnerships program. We know those comments very well, as they were reported in the Australian on 17 May last year. It said—

Howard government ministers approved—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Auditor-General’s report into the Regional Partnerships program has nothing whatsoever to do with the Montreal convention. No matter how wide-ranging the debate is, it cannot possibly stretch that far.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corio will return to the legislation at hand. I will, however, point out that most members have spoken about the length of time. I think the Leader of the Nationals mentioned it in his speech. I ask the member for Corio to return to the legislation.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I appreciate the objection raised by the current Leader of the Nationals, who no doubt is pretty sensitive about what the former leaders of the National Party were doing. As the Deputy Speaker has said, the current Leader of the National Party was busily trying to explain why there was a delay. It is a fair question: why was there a delay? Unfortunately, the explanation was not good enough, so I am trying to provide the explanation here by looking at what the former leaders of the National Party were doing, what the former ministers for transport were doing. They were more focused on the Regional Partnerships program and more focused on attacking the Auditor-General, who was raising real problems with the Regional Partnerships program, saying that the ministers had overridden departmental recommendations against approving certain projects, mostly those in coalition electorates—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The speaker is clearly not obeying your direction to go back to the legislation. He has done this several times today, and it is about time he did.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Barker for his point of order. As I said before, other people have referred to the time it has taken to introduce this convention. I ask the member for Corio to return to the legislation at hand.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is absolutely clear is the sensitivity of the National Party on their inability to actually participate in the running of the country over the last 11 years—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m not a member of the National Party.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Leader of the National Party, who is present here now—and in particular their failure to put in place a very simple measure to connect this country to the international aviation system, a measure which lay on the table with no action at all for eight years under the Howard government while the leaders of the National Party, the ministers for transport, were busily going off on the Regional Partnerships program.

The Rudd government is going to be very different in the way in which it is going to run this country. It is going to be getting on with the unfinished business, of which there is an awful lot after 11 years of the Howard government. This is a perfect example of it. This is a very important bill. It is an example of how the Rudd government is not interested in governing through electoral cycles but is actually interested in governing for Australia’s long-term future and doing the things which need to be done.

This bill is also very important for my electorate of Corio, which has within it the airport at Avalon. Currently Avalon is a domestic airport that is used by Jetstar for low-cost flights. Flights go from Avalon to Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth. It has been undergoing significant expansion over the last decade. This year in the order of 1.4 million passengers are expected to land at Avalon. I have raised this in the context of this debate because a number of us, and Avalon itself, are very hopeful that it may at some point in the future be able to expand its activities internationally so that it would become an international airport. Of course, in that sense this bill will then become very relevant to people who travel to and leave from Avalon.

Right now more than 1,000 people are employed in the various businesses and works that go on at Avalon Airport, but it really can expand much more beyond that. Avalon represents the best prospect that our region has of significant job growth over the coming years. For Avalon to go international would be a real catalyst, a breakthrough, if you like. The future is very exciting for Avalon. The possibility of it one day becoming an international airport is something that all public policymakers in this country need to keep at the forefront.

This bill makes amendments to allow, as I said, for the accession of this country to the Montreal convention. It affects the three acts which I have previously referred to. The new Montreal convention is a holistic approach to passenger requirements. It includes a complete framework for liability for air carriers in relation to loss or damage to cargo and baggage, in relation to damage caused by a delay in the scheduled arrival of a passenger, baggage or freight, and in relation to injury or death of passengers. It also allows for cases in relation to damage to be heard in Australia rather than having to prosecute or pursue those cases in foreign courts. Significantly, it also updates the records management—and this is particularly important for freight management—by allowing the use of electronic records and, in that way, overcoming the cumbersome paper-based waybill system which is currently in use.

The bill goes a long way towards modernising language within our own laws in relation to the definition of ‘family member’ to include stepsiblings and foster children, for example. It updates the currency which was in the Warsaw convention, which, as I stated earlier, is no longer in use anywhere else, and defines a currency in terms of the special drawing rights, which represents a basket of modern currencies. It puts in place a two-tier system of liability whereby applicants can claim up to 100,000 special drawing rights, which is roughly the equivalent of A$170,000, on a no-fault basis. Where there are damages which exceed that amount, they can be pursued unless the air carrier ‘proves that the damage was not caused by the negligence or wrongful act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents’. The bill does not affect any domestic carriage arrangements. They remain governed by the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act, which I described earlier.

This bill is long overdue in being put in place in this country. The assent by Australia to the Montreal convention is long overdue. In a way, it is a very simple piece of legislation and it is a very simple thing to do. It is an obvious piece of unfinished business and an obvious thing for a government to do to connect this country to the modern aviation system. The fact that it stood on our books for eight years while the Howard government did absolutely nothing stands as a legacy of the extent to which the Howard government was asleep at the wheel and the extent to which the National Party in particular, and former Nationals leaders and former ministers for transport who were Nationals leaders, were completely distracted by electoral politics, by the Regional Partnerships program and by a range of other matters. They did not do the simplest thing around to connect this country to a modern aviation system. It stands as a condemnation of all of them for what they have done over the last eight years.

The Rudd government is a very different government. It is getting on with the unfinished business that is in place after 11 long years of the Howard government. It is going to fix up the problems—simple problems, in a sense—which have been in place over that period. It is a demonstration that we are going through all the statutes at the moment and working out where the Howard government did absolutely nothing, leaving holes all over the place as they were asleep at the wheel. We will fix up those problems and make a commitment to governing this country not for the next three years of an electoral cycle but for the long-term future.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. It is long overdue and will bring Australia’s arrangements for air carrier liability into the 21st century by ratifying the Montreal convention. I acknowledge and appreciate that there is bipartisan support for this legislation.

The Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (1999 Montreal Convention and Other Measures) Bill 2008 will modernise Australia’s arrangements for air carrier liability. The convention will increase the compensation available to passengers who are injured on international flights. The liability arrangements applying to baggage or cargo that is lost, damaged or delayed will also be updated. The bill will expand the list of family members who are able to enforce liability in the event of a passenger’s death. The Montreal convention will help business by creating efficiencies in the paperwork associated with the transportation of passengers and cargo. The bill is also the result of bipartisan support and of many years of hard work by those members opposite, especially former Minister Truss and former Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.