Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm talking about the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill. I will talk about the coalition's proud record of aviation during the pandemic and the way it acted honestly and decently during that terrible time, which is in absolute contradiction to what we just saw, which was an act of betrayal—trying to ram through bills that you hadn't taken to an election. The public will wake up to that, and you will feel the pain of that, I'm sure, at the ballot box because the tradition of parties taking legislation, saying what they're going to do if they're being elected when they're significant changes and then doing the exact opposite does not go down well with the Australian people.

Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

They lie!

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to aviation, the coalition has a very proud—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grey will withdraw that comment immediately before he leaves the chamber.

Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Under section 94(a), you are asked to leave the chamber.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to aviation, the coalition has a very proud record. When the pandemic happened, that industry was faced with its greatest crisis. Aircraft were grounded, passenger numbers collapsed almost overnight and the regional routes stood on the brink of disappearing. It was a coalition government that stepped in and kept Australia flying. The coalition government didn't treat aviation as just another business; it treated aviation as critical national infrastructure and acted to protect it. I'll come back to that record because it matters, and the records of what all parties do in this place matter and should be subject to the Australian people. Put your policies out there, say what you'll do and then follow through. This is relevant because it is the lens through which the coalition approaches everything in this portfolio.

We start with the traveller, we start with the regional community, and we start with one question: what policy will actually work? It would be good if more people developing policies in this place said, 'What policies will actually work?' We've all been there. Anyone who travels frequently will have a tale to tell: a flight cancelled an hour before boarding, a connection missed by 10 minutes and the bag that flew to one city while you flew to another. That happened to me and resulted in me having to present to a regional health conference in Perth looking very casual because I was in what I'd been wearing the day before. It turned out the great medical practitioners of Western Australia were equally casual, so it was okay.

The hours on hold, the holiday, the wedding, the funeral, the medical appointment you simply cannot get to—we've all faced it, and our constituents face it constantly. They are absolutely tired of it. So, when Australians hear the government has a bill about airline consumer protection, they want to know one thing: will it make it better? That's the test. In this test, we believe these bills fail. It should be about outcomes, not bureaucracy. Let me be clear on where the coalition stands. We support stronger consumer protections for airline passengers, we support accountability and we support fair treatment. We support a system that gives Australians confidence that, when they buy a ticket, they get the service they paid for.

But supporting stronger protections is not the same as supporting this piece of legislation, because these bills deliver more bureaucracy than accountability, more costs than compensation and more processes than outcomes. Australians do not want another complaints body to write to after their holiday is already ruined; they want fewer cancellations, fewer delays and better communication. In the instances where we can't get the airlines to perform better in relation to those things, they need real compensation when things go wrong. But instead Labor has delivered a framework built around complaints and paperwork after the damage is already done, and the damage has been considerable.

Over the past four years, Australians have watched airline performance go backwards while airfares climb. On the government's own figures, more than 50,000 domestic flights were cancelled during Labor's first term. More than 427,000 were delayed, and behind every one of those numbers is a person who missed a holiday, missed a family event, missed a business commitment, missed a medical appointment. Yet, extraordinarily, these bills provide no direct compensation for the lengthy delays, for cancellation, for lost or damaged baggage. The coalition has this belief—and you would think it would be a common belief: consumers should be at the centre of aviation policy, not an afterthought, not buried three layers deep in regulatory framework.

If accountability is what the government truly wants, then let it apply to everyone whose decisions affect passengers, not just the airlines. Airservices Australia sits outside this framework, yet its decisions can directly caused delays and cancellations. We have seen exactly that with recent staffing shortages. Australians do not care whether a delay is the fault of an airline, an airport or a government agency. They just want it fixed quickly and fairly, and this model does not deliver that.

Regional aviation is essential infrastructure in Australia. I want to raise an issue that deserves far more attention than it gets in this place, and that is the issue of regional aviation. For Australians in our capital cities, a plane is one option among many. You can drive. You can take the train. For regional Australians, aviation is essential infrastructure. It's how some people reach their specialist health care. It's how families stay connected. It's how businesses operate and how communities attract investment, tourism and skilled workers. Right across regional Australia, a flight is not a luxury. It's not only a way to get to your holiday. It's an absolute necessity. When a route is lost, a town does not simply lose a timetable; it loses a key connection. Every proposal that touches airlines and airports must be tested against one question: what does it mean for the bush?

Here the coalition has a serious concern. The legislation risks loading new costs onto smaller operators, operators already battling against rising fuel prices, climbing maintenance bills and chronic workforce shortages. At a time when regional routes are under pressure and communities are fighting to hold onto the services they still have, the last thing this parliament should do is to pile on more regulatory burden without showing a single corresponding benefit. The government says regional airlines handling fewer than one million passengers annually will be exempt from the scheme, yet that exemption does not appear in the legislation before the parliament. It should not be left to ministerial discretion to exempt regional airports. It should be in the primary legislation. All through question time and during the course of voting for these bills—and what's been going on in the Senate—we've been seeing legislation on the run. Rushed legislation that people don't understand and ministers can't explain is bad legislation.

This brings me back to the coalition's record in the pandemic—and it matters in this debate. When COVID-19 struck, aviation was one of the first industries hit and one of the hardest. Aircraft were grounded, passenger numbers collapsed overnight and airlines faced a crisis which was unprecedented. Regional carriers faced something worse: that was an existential crisis. Routes that were ordinarily viable became uneconomic in a matter of weeks, and whole communities faced losing their air links entirely. At that moment, the coalition understood something fundamental, and that is that regional aviation is simply not a commercial enterprise; it is critical national infrastructure. It connects Australians to health care, to education, to work, to family, to opportunity. So the coalition government acted and moved quickly to support the sector through one of the most difficult periods in our nation's history. We knew that, if regional aviation networks were allowed to collapse, the consequences for rural and regional Australia would be devastating. That support preserved aviation capability, protected jobs and kept critical routes alive that would have otherwise vanished. Those decisions really mattered because, once an airline collapses, the skilled workers leave and the routes disappear, rebuilding is neither quick nor easy. In some cases, it's impossible.

Our focus was on connectivity, on jobs, on competition and on making sure regional Australians would have flights to catch when the pandemic ended. And it paid off. Communities stayed connected, essential travel continued, supply chains kept moving and our regional airlines were given the chance to survive an extraordinary period of disruption.

That record stands in stark contrast with what we see today. Under Labor, two regional airlines have collapsed and the domestic market has grown more concentrated than ever; Qantas and Virgin now account for more than 98 per cent of it. Less competition means fewer choices. Fewer choices means higher prices, and higher prices hurt consumers—above all, the regional Australians who often have no alternative but to fly. Here is the truth that the government keeps missing: the best consumer protection is not another layer of bureaucracy; it is a competitive market. The market can work if you let it and if you don't put heaps of regulatory burden on it. It will lead to reliable services, strong regional connectivity and genuine accountability when things go wrong.

So we want to see reforms that passengers can actually see. That's why the coalition keeps advocating for practical solutions. Take, for example, the pay-on-delay legislation, brought forward in the last parliament by Senators Bridget McKenzie and Dean Smith. Unlike Labor's approach, it put direct compensation in the hands of passengers who copped lengthy delays, cancellations and baggage failures. That sort of thinking leads to real outcomes. It's something a passenger can actually see and benefit from.

Take as another example the COVID-era flight credits. Many Australians accepted credits during the pandemic because extraordinary circumstances left them with no real choice; there were no other flights. Now $93 million in Virgin Australia COVID credits are at risk of expiring. Australians should not have to fight to recover money they have already paid for services that were never delivered. A flight credit is consumers' money; it's not airline profit. Those are the issues that matter to people far more than the creation of another complaints desk.

The government says these bills are about consumer protection, but consumer protection is not measured by the number of regulators you create; it's measured by positive outcomes. So let's judge it by what positive outcomes would be in the aviation sector. Will flights run on time? Will the number of cancellations fall? Will passengers be compensated? Will regional routes stay viable? And will travellers pay less? Those are the questions Australians are asking, and the government has not shown how this framework answers a single one of them. We still do not know the full costs. Key details have been left to regulations that we have not seen, and the government has not even undertaken a regulatory impact assessment. I would have thought that was very straightforward.

In conclusion, Australians deserve an aviation system that works. They deserve reliable services. They deserve accountability. They deserve real compensation when airlines fail to meet their obligations. And regional Australians deserve certainty that the decisions made here in Canberra will not make it harder or more expensive to keep air services going in the communities that depend on them. The coalition's record speaks for itself. When aviation in this country faced its darkest hour—something that was unprecedented and couldn't have been foreseen—we acted to protect the networks that hold regional Australia together. We understand now, as we understood then, that aviation is essential infrastructure, not an optional extra.

We're here to back consumers and genuine consumer protections, and we're going to stand up for regional communities. We're going to fight for policies that actually improve things and improve the lives of passengers, not just an expanding bureaucracy, which seems to be the answer to everything: tax more, have more public servants and more bureaucracy, and that'll fix everything. Well, it doesn't fix everything, and I think with these tax changes we're about to see that some of this stuff makes the economy a whole lot worse. For those reasons, we remain deeply concerned that these bills fall well short of what Australian travellers and regional communities deserve.

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026 and the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill 2026, are quite personal to my community. Our connection with aviation is like very few others in this country. Essendon airport sits in the heart of my electorate. It's a vital hub of freight, emergency services, charter flights, regional connectivity and, of course, employment. Just across the boundary is one of the country's biggest airports and major employers, the Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine, so the importance of aviation to my community is undeniable. Thousands of my constituents wake up every morning and head to one of these airports for work. They're the baggage handlers, the check-in staff, the engineers on the tarmac at five in the morning and the retail workers keeping the terminal buzzing.

These are people who quite literally keep our community and our country moving every single day, and I am enormously proud to represent them in this place. Those same people are also passengers, and, like passengers right across the country, far too many of them have had the experience of a cancelled flight. They've been handed a travel voucher when what they should have received was a cash refund, and they've spent hours on hold with nothing to show for it. These are experiences we've all had, and they are simply not good enough.

Today that starts to change. The suite of legislation we are debating today came from listening. Our government's BETA preparing for take-off study is one of the most thorough pieces of passenger research ever conducted in this country. What it found was an aviation sector treating its consumers with contempt. More than half of all Australians who flew in the last 12 months experienced a flight disruption. Of those passengers, 82 per cent received no support at all—no accommodation, no alternative arrangements—with 81 per cent never even told what their rights were. Let's think about that for the moment. The majority of Australians who fly have had their travel disrupted, and the overwhelming majority of them were then left to figure it out entirely on their own.

It doesn't end there. Of those who tried to make a complaint, only 17 per cent—fewer than one in five—were satisfied with the process. A staggering 79 per cent of Australians say they know little or nothing about their rights as an air passenger. So, in one of the most regulated industries in the world, the people this industry depends on are almost entirely in the dark. I want to be clear that our government does not think every airline and every airport is deliberately setting out to do the wrong thing by their customers. Many of the people working in this industry genuinely care about the people they serve, but the system around them hasn't supported good outcomes, and that's not their fault. There's been no charter of rights, no independent umpire and no consistent minimum standard that passengers could rely on. They've been navigating an uneven playing field without even knowing the rules of the game. This legislation levels that playing field.

The four bills before the House work together to create something Australia has never had before, a comprehensive, enforceable consumer protection framework for aviation. At the heart of the package is the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, a document that will spell out in plain and accessible terms what every passenger can expect when they fly. We're moving on from the days of fine print and airlines interpreting their own obligations. Instead, there would be a clear, publicly accessible set of minimum standards backed by law that passengers can point to and say, 'That is what I'm owed.'

The charter will be brought to life by the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, which will monitor compliance across the sector and take enforcement action where those standards aren't being met. For the first time, there will be a body whose specific job is to hold this industry to account on behalf of the travelling public. For passengers with an individual dispute they can't resolve directly with an airline, the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide an independent, not-for-profit avenue for resolution, a genuine umpire with no vested interests. For my community specifically, there's one more part of this package I'm particularly pleased about, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson. My electorate has lived alongside aviation for generations. (Quorum formed) As I said, my electorate has lived alongside aviation for generations—two airports, the flight paths that come with them and a community that has built their lives around them. But, for some, aircraft noise can be disruptive. What those residents have asked for is simple. When they raise a genuine concern, they want to know that it's actually being heard.

For too long, that hasn't been the case. Residents have told me they have followed every process with Airservices Australia and attended every consultation only to be met with silence. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman changes that. Independent of both Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, it will hold complaints processes to account and make sure people's concerns are properly examined. People in my community just want to be heard. They just want to be treated fairly. I'm proud that this Labor government is delivering an independent body that will hear them out.

The Albanese Labor government remains focused on delivering cost-of-living relief. This is our No. 1 priority. Consumer protection is a cost-of-living issue. It belongs in the same conversation as the other measures this government is delivering. When I talk to people in my electorate about the cost of living, they talk about rent, mortgage, the cost of groceries and the cost of everyday living. Australian households are stretched right now, which is exactly why the last thing any Australian needs after saving for a well-earned holiday or rushing to book a last-minute flight interstate because a loved one is unwell is cancellation—a cancelled flight that somehow leaves them out of pocket because the airline won't cover the hotel or hand back their money. For families I meet every week, that's a genuine financial hit. Under this legislation, cancelled flights will result in cash refunds, not credits. If the cancellation costs you a hotel, meal or transport, the airline will now need to cover it. It's that simple.

I also want to speak directly to the people in my electorate who work in aviation because I've heard some of the conversations happening in the industry about what these reforms mean for them and their employers. This framework has been designed with careful attention to industry impacts. Costs will be kept as low as practicable, and small airports handling fewer than a million passengers a year, including most council owned facilities in regional and remote communities, are intended to be exempt. The framework applies to the 14 largest airports across the country, covering 93 per cent of all passenger movements. These are major, well-resourced commercial operations with the capacity to meet a sensible minimum standard of passenger treatment, and the airlines and airports are already doing right by their customers. The charter simply formalises what they're already doing. What this reform ultimately does is create the conditions for a sector that competes on quality and service, where treating passengers well isn't just right; it's expected. That's a better industry for everyone working in it.

I want to also reflect in my contribution to the debate in this House on a story about a woman in my electorate. Her name is Maria, and she is one of many. Maria flew interstate last year to be with her mum, who was unwell. Her return flight was cancelled, and the airline offered her a travel credit, but Maria didn't want a travel credit. She had no plans to fly again any time soon. She just needed the money. She spent hours on the phone and got nowhere. She contacted my office months later, still so frustrated not just at the airline but at the sense that there was simply nothing she could do. Under this legislation, Maria's story ends differently. She would have a right to a cash refund. She would have had an independent ombudsman to contact. She would have known from a clear and accessible charter exactly what she was entitled to. For Maria, and for hundreds of thousands of Australians just like her, that is a genuinely different experience of what it means to be a passenger in this country.

I look forward to going back to my community and telling them that the next time they travel after saving for that well-earned holiday or to care for a sick parent a disruption or a cancellation will mean compensation, not frustration. That's one less thing they'll need to worry about when weighing up their budget. This legislation will mean fewer Marias sitting at an airport gate frustrated, fewer families absorbing costs that should have been the airline's and fewer residents feeling like their concerns about aircraft noise have vanished into a bureaucratic void. It will mean Australia finally has an aviation consumer protection framework that reflects our modern, fair-minded country—one that stands with every passenger and brings real accountability to a crucial industry. I'm proud to be part of a government delivering it, because my community relies on the success of our aviation industry, and that industry relies on my community and on the many others who pass through it every day. I commend the bills to the House.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the related bills. At its heart, this package is about a simple standard. Australians who pay for air travel should be treated fairly, told clearly what is happening and given a proper pathway when things go wrong. That should not be controversial. In a country like Australia, aviation is not just another service; it is part of how our nation functions.

I represent Moore in Western Australia. We live on the other side of the continent from this parliament and Western Australians understand distance in a very practical way. When a flight is delayed or cancelled in Perth, the alternative is rarely simple. You cannot just jump in the car after work and be in Canberra, Sydney or Brisbane the next morning. I have family across the country, as many Australians do. Air travel is how families stay connected. It is how people get to weddings, funerals, medical appointments, work commitments and holidays saved for over many months I worked as an electrician, including as a FIFO electrician, and, for FIFO workers, flights are not an optional extra. They are how people get to site and how they get home. A delayed flight home after a long swing is not just a line on the departures board. It can mean missing dinner with kids, missing a school event or leaving a partner carrying the load for another night.

Air travel connects workers to jobs, families to each other, regions to services and Australia to the world. Australians are reasonable people. They know that aviation is complex. Weather changes, aircraft require maintenance, crews have safety requirements, and global events can disrupt fuel markets and flight paths. Most people do not expect perfection. What they do expect is honesty, clear information, practical assistance and a complaint process that works. Too often that has not been the experience.

Over recent years, Australians have dealt with cancelled flights, delays, missing baggage, damaged mobile aids, confusing travel credits, poor communication and a complaint system that leaves the passenger doing all the work. COVID-19 placed enormous strain on the aviation system. Families were separated, trips were cancelled, refunds were delayed, and many consumers were left unclear about their rights. The pandemic was extraordinary, but it exposed weaknesses that had been developing for some time. Since then, airline performance has improved in some areas, but the underlying problem has not disappeared. The current system has relied too heavily on the industry policing itself. That has not produced the standard Australians are entitled to expect.

The conflict in the Middle East has again reminded us global disruption can affect Australian travellers quickly. Flight routes can change, fuel supply chains can tighten, and international uncertainty can flow through domestic fares and services. Travellers should not be left at the gate trying to work out whether they are entitled to a refund, rebooking, accommodation, transport or basic information. People should not need to become amateur lawyers while standing in an airport queue. This bill package replaces uncertainty with clearer standards, weak complaint handling with independent dispute resolution and voluntary arrangements with proper oversight. It is the most significant aviation consumer protection reform ever introduced by an Australian government.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 establishes the legal foundation for a new aviation consumer protection framework. It enables the creation of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. That charter will set minimum standards for airline services, airport services and airport accessibility services. The detail of those standards will be developed through subordinate legislation following consultation. That is a sensible way to proceed. Aviation is operationally complex. The standards must protect consumers while still being practical for the sector to implement. The charter will deal with the minimum treatment consumers can expect from airlines and airports. That includes delays, cancellations, communication, complaint handling, booking information, baggage and accessibility. This is a necessary shift. Consumers should know what they are entitled to when a flight is disrupted. A right nobody understands is not much of a right at all.

The bill also establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority as a regulatory function within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. The authority will be responsible for systematic monitoring, compliance and enforcement. Individual complaints need to be resolved, but sector-wide patterns also need to be identified. If an airline repeatedly fails to communicate properly with passengers, that is not a series of random inconveniences. It is systematic failure. If accessibility services are repeatedly not delivered, that is not just poor customer service; it is a barrier to equal participation. The authority will be able to look across the sector, monitor compliance and take enforcement action where required.

The bill also enables the authorisation of an independent external dispute resolution scheme known as the Aviation Consumer Ombuds Scheme. At present, too many passengers must pursue complaints through pathways that are confusing, slow and seen by many consumers as too close to the industry itself, and that does not build confidence. The Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide an aviation-specific pathway for passengers whose complaints have not been resolved directly by the airline or airport. The ombudsperson will be able to assist through investigation, conciliation and determinations. Where a regulated entity has not acted fairly and reasonably, the ombudsperson will be able to require action. That gives consumers somewhere credible to go. It also gives industry a clearer process for resolving disputes.

The package also establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson as a function within the department, independent of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. Aircraft noise is a serious concern for affected communities. For people living under flight paths, aircraft noise can affect sleep, amenity and wellbeing. Communities need confidence that complaints are reviewed independently. The levy bills support the framework by allowing the imposition and collection of levies to recover the administrative costs associated with the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. It is appropriate that the cost of this framework be borne by the industry that has generated the need for regulation provided those costs are kept reasonable and proportionate.

Nobody should pretend aviation is an easy sector to regulate. Airlines operate in a difficult commercial environment. Airports vary widely in size, capacity and ownership. Regional aviation faces different pressures. Fuel prices, international conflict, weather, workforce shortages and infrastructure constraints all affect operations, and that is why the package includes flexibility. The minister will have powers to exempt individual entities or classes of entities from parts of the framework, including the charter, specified standards, levies or membership fees. The government has indicated that airports with fewer than one million passengers per year are intended to be exempt. That means the framework will apply to the largest airports while recognising the different position of smaller airports. Many smaller airports are council owned. They are critical community infrastructure. They often operate with limited resources and serve regional, rural and remote communities. It would make little sense to impose the same regulatory burden on a small regional airport as on a major capital city airport. Fairness cuts both ways. The objective is clear: protect consumers where the risk and volume justify regulation while avoiding unnecessary burdens on smaller operators that are that are essential to regional connectivity.

This package should also be seen within the broader context of competition and consumer protection in aviation. The Albanese Labor government released the Aviation white paper, passed new laws to improve competition at Sydney airport, released the draft passenger charter of rights and reinstated ACCC monitoring of airlines. ACCC scrutiny is important because aviation is a concentrated market. Where there are fewer competitors. Consumers have fewer alternatives when prices rise or service drops. That is especially important during periods of global instability. The conflict in the Middle East has already prompted discussion about fuel supply chains and disruption. Australians should not be exposed to unreasonable price increases or any competitive conduct hidden behind international uncertainty.

Airlines are entitled to recover legitimate costs. They are not entitled to use disruption as a general permission slip to treat passengers poorly. The ACCC will continue to deal with competition and Australian consumer law concerns, including misleading or deceptive conduct. The Aviation Consumer Protection Authority will focus on this aviation-specific framework. Those roles are complementary.

A large part of this reform is about setting expectations in advance. When a flight is cancelled, passengers should know whether they can get a refund or a rebooking. They should know whether they are entitled to meals, transport or accommodation, and they should know what information the airline must provide and when. Where a cancellation or significant delay is within the airline's control, consumers should not be pushed into accepting a travel credit when they are entitled to their money back, unless they prefer a credit. (Quorum formed)