Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and related bills. At the outset, let me be clear. The coalition supports stronger protections for airline passengers. Australians deserve reliable air services, fair treatment when things go wrong and confidence that the aviation system is working in their interests.

The reality is that the performance of Australia's domestic aviation sector has deteriorated significantly post COVID. Too many Australians have experienced flight delays, cancellations, poor communication and difficulties obtaining remedies when airlines fail to deliver the service that has been purchased. We find just today that budget carrier Jetstar is blaming rising government taxes and charges and less-than-expected demand for the axing of two trans-Tasman services from late October. Sunshine Coast to Auckland and Cairns to Christchurch will go on hold indefinitely in the very latest route cuts by the low-fares airline. This is a concern, as are some of the other things I'm about to outline.

In 2025, one in four domestic flights were either delayed or cancelled. In Labor's first term, more than 50,000 domestic flights were cancelled and more than 427,000 flights were delayed, according to the government's own data provided monthly by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. Australians have witnessed a step change for the worse in airline performance and reliability compared to what was happening pre-pandemic. Millions of Australian families and small businesses have been inconvenienced and left out of pocket. Whether it's for a family holiday, a business meeting, a medical appointment, a wedding or a funeral, Australians expect airlines to deliver the service they have paid for.

This is not to mention the concerns raised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about companies selling tickets for ghost flights and cancelling flight credits. And, at a time when Australians were hit with higher airfares, Qantas turned political actor, funding corporate promotion for the government's divisive Voice referendum campaign.

Australians have every right to be frustrated. Australians deserve better. That is why the coalition has argued stronger passenger protections are required. Last parliament, Senators Bridget McKenzie and Dean Smith introduced the private senators' Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill. That proposal would have provided direct compensation to passengers when airlines fail to meet their obligations through lengthy delays, cancellations or lost baggage. Unlike Labor's proposal, a genuine compensation scheme creates a real incentive for airlines to improve performance. If an airline fails to deliver the service that a consumer has paid for, for the reason that is within the control of the airline, there should be consequences. Where travellers have incurred real additional costs for delayed cancelled flights, that should be recognised. Labor has chosen a different path—we could say a different flight!

This bill creates a new authority, two new statutory ombudsman schemes, a new levy and additional layers of bureaucracy. It creates a complaints framework rather than a genuine passenger-rights framework. The government argues this legislation will improve consumer outcomes, yet many of the protections contemplated under the proposed Aviation Consumer Charter are already provided by major airlines today, including rebooking accommodation, meal vouchers and refunds in certain circumstances. The coalition notes the proposed charter has not been presented to this chamber for determination by the House.

The question remains: how will this framework materially improve airline performance and at what costs to the industry and ultimately to Australian travellers? That question was repeatedly raised during the Senate inquiry. Indeed, many stakeholders who initially described the legislation as 'better than nothing' ultimately concluded that the bill should not proceed without significant amendment. Major airlines, regional airlines, airports, industry bodies, consumer groups and regional stakeholders all identified substantial deficiencies in the framework.

One example of why stronger consumer protections are needed can be seen in the current controversy surrounding Virgin Australia's COVID travel credits. On 30 June, 2026, Australians stand to lose access to up to $93 million in unused COVID-era Virgin Australia travel credits. Those funds belong to consumers. They do not belong on an airline balance sheet. Australians should be able to access those credits when they choose to travel or alternatively receive a refund. Yet this legislation will do nothing to protect consumers' Virgin flight credits, one real consumer issue currently facing Australians. This legislation does not guarantee that, in the future, consumers will be offered refunds for cancelled or significantly delayed flights.

This legislation fails to properly recognise the challenges faced by regional aviation. For many Australians living outside our major cities, aviation is not a luxury; it is an essential service. Regional aviation provides access to health care, education, employment, tourism, business opportunities and family connections. Regional airlines are already facing significant financial challenges. They are dealing with increasing airport charges. They are dealing with rising fuel costs. They are dealing with maintenance challenges and difficulties obtaining aircraft parts. More recently, they've been dealing with significant increases in fuel costs resulting from instability in the Middle East and the crisis in Iran.

Many regional airlines operate on very thin margins—you could almost say they operate on the vapour of avgas—yet this legislation risks imposing additional compliance obligations and unknown additional costs on small regional aviation operators to solve a problem largely created by the major airline duopoly of Qantas and Virgin Australia. The coalition remains concerned that regional airlines and regional airports may ultimately bear a crippling cost for failures that are not of their making. The government has said that regional airports with fewer than one million passengers per year should be exempt from the framework. However, they have not put this in the bills before the parliament. The government proposes to leave this to the discretion of the minister.

All airlines and airports should meet minimum requirements of consumer protection. However, the coalition agrees that small and regional airports should be exempt from the cost of the government's proposed scheme and the exemption for small and regional airports should be included in the primary legislation. Regional airlines operating smaller aircraft on essential regional routes should also be protected from unnecessary regulatory burden and cost. The coalition will propose amendments in this regard in the other chamber.

A significant flaw in the legislation is the failure to include Airservices Australia within the framework where failures of the regulator to resource and deliver its air traffic control functions result in delays or the cancellations of flights. If accountability is the objective, accountability should follow operational responsibility. Airservices Australia plays a significant role in the operation of the aviation network. Early this week, Sydney airport experienced delays and cancellations linked to staffing issues within Airservices Australia. Shortages of air traffic controllers contributed to flight disruptions affecting passengers across the broader aviation network. Airlines were forced to cancel services and rebook passengers because of these issues outside their control.

Australians understand if acts of God, severe weather events, cause delays to flights. Australians get that. They know that airlines cannot control the weather. Australians value the safety of our regulations which ensure flights only occur when it is safe to do so. However, the consumer sitting in an airport terminal does not distinguish between a delay caused by an airline and a delay caused by a failure to staff the air traffic control tower. They do not. They simply know that they paid for a service that they did not receive. Yet, under Labor's framework, airlines will be subject to obligations under the scheme while Airservices Australia remains exempt. The exclusion of Airservices Australia creates an obvious gap in the framework and a double standard in consumer protection.

The coalition also has concerns about the proposed aircraft noise ombudsperson arrangements. This bill proposes bringing the aircraft noise ombudsperson into the transport department itself. That raises legitimate questions about independence. The representations we have received suggests the government's proposal lacks the confidence of the affected public. There are broader stakeholder concerns with the development of the legislation itself, including the lack of an exposure draft or opportunity to properly scrutinise many of the scheme's operational details before the legislation was introduced. Parliament should understand the full costs, obligations and consequences of legislation before it is asked to approve it.

The coalition strongly supports the objective of improving consumer protections for travellers. However, in our view, this legislation falls far short of community expectations. It creates new bureaucracies but fails to address many of the concerns passengers have had. It does not provide direct compensation. It leaves too much to regulations. It imposes unquantified costs on regional aviation, and it does not ensure consumers retain access to their own money through unused flight credits. The coalition will propose amendments in the Senate to protect regional aviation, enhance consumer protection, strengthen accountability and deliver fairer outcomes for Australian travellers.

I now move the second reading amendment in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) in the Government's first term, one in three domestic flights was cancelled or delayed, with 50,000 cancellations and 427,000 delays according to official data;

(b) major airlines' performance and reliability has worsened post-COVID, inconveniencing millions of families;

(c) two regional airlines have collapsed under the Government, yet the bill risks further costs on remaining regional airlines for problems not of their making;

(d) the bill provides no support for families who are about to lose up to $93 million worth of unused COVID-era flight credits held by Virgin Australia; and

(e) excluding Airservices Australia creates a gap in consumer protections for travellers affected by air traffic control failures; and

(2) calls on the Government to develop and implement an aviation consumer protection framework that:

(a) does not penalise regional airports and airlines for failures of the major airline duopoly;

(b) provides timely refunds and compensation for cancellations, significant delays or lost or damaged baggage within the control of airlines, airports or Airservices Australia; and

(c) protects COVID-era flight credits for future use or refund".

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

Yes. I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

( Quorum formed )

Sarah Witty (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026. Aviation matters in Australia in a way that is different to many other countries. We are a large island nation with vast distances between our cities, our regions and the rest of the world. For many Australians, flying is not a luxury. It is how people get to work, stay connected with family, get home for study, travel for medical care, attend funerals and reach holidays they have saved for, month after month.

In a city like Melbourne, we know how deeply air travel connects to daily life. We are a city of students, migrants, workers, families, artists, businesses and visitors. People fly in to study, attend major events, see families, build a future or simply come home. A delayed flight can mean missing a connection, a shift, a medical appointment, a funeral or the first day of a long-planned holiday. Poor information turns stress into confusion. Poor complaints handling sends people running in circles. That is the heart of this bill. It is about what happens when things go wrong. It is about whether passengers are treated fairly, whether rights are clear, whether standards are real and whether accountability actually exists.

The current system has not been good enough. For too long, airline passengers have had to rely on voluntary industry arrangements and airlines escalating complaints themselves. In practice, the same industry that caused the problem has controlled too much of the pathway for fixing it. That is not a strong consumer protection system, it is not a clear pathway for passengers and it is not good enough for Australians, who pay good money for a service and deserve to know what they can expect in return. The aviation white paper released by the Albanese Labor government made this clear. It found that the industry-led Airline Customer Advocate had not delivered an effective complaints resolution service and that government needed to establish a stronger and more effective body.

The Albanese government is delivering the most significant reform to aviation consumer protection this country has seen. This bill establishes a new aviation consumer protection framework. It creates an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson, paves the way for an aviation consumer protection charter, establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to enforce that charter and supports the continued work of an aircraft noise ombudsperson.

On that, I have seen firsthand that good advocacy leads to good legislation, like this bill. The East Melbourne Group, a suburb association within my electorate, has raised with me the real impact of aircraft noise on local residents. They have spoken about what it means for people living under flight paths—hearing the noise in their homes, in their streets and in the quiet parts of daily life. That kind of local advocacy matters. This bill is about supporting people. It is not about punishing airlines or pretending aviation is simple. Weather events happen, global crises happen and technical issues happen. Many workers across aviation do difficult jobs to keep people moving safely. This bill recognises that reality, but it also says something simple: complexity cannot be an excuse for confusion. When a flight is delayed, cancelled or disrupted, people deserve clear information. They deserve fair treatment. They deserve to know what support they can access. And when a company does the wrong thing, people deserve a pathway that does not exhaust them before the complaint is even heard.

The case for reform is strong. Research from the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government found that more than half of the flying public experienced a flight disruption in a 12-month period. Only around a third were satisfied with how that disruption was handled. This is a problem. Even more concerning is the fact that 82 per cent said they did not receive any support when they experienced a disruption and 81 per cent said they were not informed of their rights. This is not just an inconvenience; it is a system leaving people in the dark. And when people tried to complain, their experience was not much better. Only 39 per cent of people who made a complaint were satisfied with the outcome. Only 17 per cent were satisfied with the complaint process overall.

People can accept that travel is sometimes disrupted. What is harder to accept is silence, being bounced from one channel to another or being told to check an app when what you need is a person, an answer and a fair resolution. This is where the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson matters. The ombudsperson will provide a fair, accessible and independent external dispute resolution service for complaints about airlines and airports. If a consumer believes an airline or an airport has acted inconsistently with the charter and they are not satisfied with how their complaint has been handled, they will be able to seek help from the ombudsperson. The ombudsperson will be able to investigate, compel information, recommend actions, help resolve disputes and make determinations requiring an airline or airport operator to resolve a complaint in a particular way.

This bill also creates the framework for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. The charter will set out minimum standards that aviation consumers can expect from airlines and airports. It will cover obligations when flights are disrupted, delayed or cancelled. It will also deal with booking information, assistance, communication and consumer complaint handling. At the moment, too many passengers do not know what they are entitled to when a flight is cancelled—whether that be a refund, a credit, a hotel room, transport, meals or better information. It says the system should not depend on who knows the rules, who has the time to fight or who can afford to wait. It says there should be a minimum standard for everyone.

The government has also been clear about refunds and support. When flights are cancelled for reasons within an airline's control, passengers should be able to get their money back in the form they paid, unless they choose a travel credit. A travel credit might suit some people, but it should not be forced on people when what they need is the money returned. Where a cancelled flight causes additional cost, the proposed scheme seeks to make sure airlines cover reasonable costs, such as meals, transport or overnight accommodation.

This bill is also important because aviation is not experienced equally by everyone. For people with disabilities, medical conditions or injuries, air travel can involve extra barriers, extra planning and extra risk. The government's research found that around one in four travellers identified as having a disability, medical condition or injury. Two in five did not know how to access the assistance service available to them. That should trouble all of us. Accessibility cannot be treated as an optional extra. People should not have to fight to be told what assistance exists. They should not be treated as an afterthought in a system that exists to move people safely. This bill helps shift responsibility back where it belongs. The charter will put the obligation on airlines and airports to treat customers, including those with accessibility needs, in a fair and reasonable way when delays inevitably occur. Fairness means more than a refund. It means dignity. It means information people can understand. It means assistance that is actually accessible. It means systems that see people as people, not booking numbers.

The bill also establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority inside the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. The authority will enforce the charter, investigate systematic issues, carry out enforcement activity and, where needed, pursue enforcement of ombudsperson's determinations through judicial processes. Transparency is essential to this reform. The bill will support the reporting and publication of reasons for flight delays, cancellations and disruptions. That will help consumers understand what happened and help the regulator and the ombudsperson determine whether a disruption was within or outside the control of the airline or airport.

Accountability depends on information. Consumers should not have to guess. The government understands that aviation industry is not one single thing. A major airline is not the same as a small regional airport. A large airline is not the same as a small operator. That is why the framework includes the ability for the minister to exempt regulatory entitlements in full or in part with regard to factors like the impact on consumers and the size, type and financial capacity of the entity. The government intends to exempt airports with fewer than one million passengers per year. That means the framework would apply to Australia's 14 largest airports and Western Sydney airport, capturing 93 per cent of passenger movements while recognising the role and limits of smaller airports, with strong standards for consumers, a practical approach for industry and care for regional, rural and remote communities where aviation can be a lifeline.

The government has also taken a sensible approach on costs and compensation. The priority is to lift the standards of passenger air travel in Australia. Financial compensation has been considered, but international experience shows costs can be passed onto consumers and do not always improve airline performance. That is why, consistent with the aviation white paper, airlines will not be required to provide automatic monetary compensation for cancellations, significant delays or disruptions. Instead, this framework focuses on clear rights, better supports, proper refunds, reasonable costs, stronger complaint handling and real accountability. The reforms do not stand alone. In its first term, the Albanese government released the Aviation white paper. It passed new laws to boost competition at Sydney Airport; it released the draft passenger charter of rights. It reinstated ACCC monitoring of airlines, which the Liberals and Nationals had planned to end. It is part of a broader plan to give passengers a better deal, strengthen competition and make airlines and airports more accountable while maintaining Australia's strong safety record.

Aviation should be safe, it should be competitive, it should be sustainable, and it should be fair. For Melbourne, this matters deeply. My electorate is full of people who fly on flights to stay connected with family across the country and around the world. We are home to international students, workers, families, small businesses and older Australians who need certainty when they travel. They deserve to know that, when they buy a ticket, they are not buying a fight. They deserve to know that, when something goes wrong, they will not be left alone at the gate refreshing an app and waiting for the answer that never comes. They deserve clear standards, they deserve fair remedies, and they deserve a voice that is independent of the company they are complaining about. That is what this bill delivers.

This bill is not pretending every flight will run on time. It is not pretending every disruption can be avoided, and it is not pretending aviation can be simplified by legislation alone, but it does something important. It puts consumers back at the centre, it says trust has to be earned, it says accountability cannot be voluntary, it says passengers deserve better than confusion, delay and silence. This is practical Labor reform. It takes a system that was too unclear, too weak and too frustrating, and starts to build something stronger in its place—a system where standards are clear, complaints are heard fairly, industry is accountable and people are treated with dignity when plans fall apart. That is the kind of reform Australia expects from this parliament, and it is the kind of reform the Albanese Labor government is delivering. I am proud to support this bill, I am proud to support stronger protections for Australian travellers, and I commend this bill to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the four aviation bills being discussed in this cognate debate, and I'll be offering some brief remarks. These bills create a new aviation consumer protection framework, delivering on commitments the government made in its 2024 aviation white paper. The main bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, will establish a framework, although implementation detail will sit in regulations and instruments to be made later. This will include a new aviation consumer protections charter, which will set out minimum standards that airlines and airports must meet for things like cancellations, delays, baggage, refunds, complaints handling, and assistance for passengers who have a disability.

A new regulator, the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, will enforce standards and take action against systemic or repeated failures, with civil penalties for serious breaches. These penalties could total several millions of dollars. A separate body, the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson, will run a dispute resolution scheme that passengers can use to resolve individual complaints, and every regulated airline and airport must join it. The initiatives included in the bills will be paid for by industry, not by taxpayers, through a levy on regulated entities set out in the levy bill and the collection bill.

I welcome stronger consumer protections in the aviation sector. They're overdue. They're sorely needed. However, I am concerned about a lack of detail on exactly how the proposed framework will operate. While exemptions for small council-owned airports are truly welcome, I'm concerned about whether this could have unintended, negative impacts for regional consumers. There's a reason regional Australians have a sceptical view. In regional Australia we're too often the last to receive and the first to lose. Not too long ago Qantas announced the discontinuation of its Albury-Melbourne route. This announcement came as a shock to the community and has real implications for medical specialists who travel to and from Albury-Wodonga to provide crucial healthcare services that are otherwise completely unavailable in our regional community.

I understand that profits may not be high for some regional routes, and the recent fuel crisis has undoubtedly had an impact. But when things are tough for airlines it's almost always the regional routes that are the first to be cancelled. This exacerbates the frustrations of regional people, including me—that we're treated differently to those in the cities. It's why I'm concerned that the aviation consumer protections framework, including the consumer protections charter, will include a carve out for regional airports and carriers. And while there are genuine reasons to treat our smaller council-owned airports differently to major international hubs, such as Tullamarine and Kingsford Smith, it's not clear whether regional aviation passengers will be left with a lower level of consumer protection just because they're using a smaller airport.

I'm also concerned that the bill proposes significant reforms to the aviation sector without a clear impact analysis. This is contrary to good lawmaking principles, and it makes it harder for parliamentarians such as myself or for the broader public to know what the new framework will mean for prices and, importantly, for availability of flights. I'm hopeful that the consumer protections charter will improve protection for consumers and make the big airlines accountable to their customers. Too often, they've taken us for a ride before we can even get off the ground, and that needs to change.

However, there are credible questions surrounding this bill and whether it will achieve its aim. I hope the government will work in good faith across the parliament to ensure that the benefits from these bills will flow to all consumers, including those flying in and out of regional airports. Thank you.

(Quorum formed)

Ash Ambihaipahar (Barton, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the other bills itemised. These bills together represent the most significant reform to aviation consumer rights here in this country in more than a decade. For too long, Australian travellers have felt powerless when flights are being delayed, cancelled or disrupted. For too long, people have been left stranded at airports, unable to get clear information, unable to access assistance and unable to resolve complaints in a fair and timely way. For too long, this system has effectively relied on airlines policing themselves. But Australians deserve better, and the Albanese Labor government is delivering a modern aviation system that puts passengers back in the centre of this conversation—a system that is fairer, a system that is much more transparent and a system that improves accountability across the aviation industry and, more importantly, a system that recognises that air travel is not a luxury for many Australians. It's an essential part of everyday life.

In my electorate of Barton, the issue matters deeply because Barton is located very close to Sydney airport, which is one of the busiest aviation hubs in this country, and many residents in Barton work directly in aviation, tourism, hospitality, freight, logistics and airport services. I've had the privilege to meet a number of those workers through doorknocking and meet wonderful United Workers Union members as well at Sydney airport. Many families travel regularly to visit their loved ones overseas, and my community is a proudly multicultural community. For many people in Barton, flying is not simply about the holidays, maintaining family ties, weddings, caring for ageing parents who might be living overseas, studying, working and conducting business. When flights are disrupted, it has a real emotional and financial consequence to the people in my community. Anyone who has travelled in recent years knows that frustration Australians have experienced—hours of sitting in the terminals, last-minute cancellations, confusing communication, travel credits instead of refunds, and passengers left to navigate really complicated systems with little clarity about their rights. These reforms recognise that consumers deserve certainty and dignity when things go wrong.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill establishes the legal foundations for a new consumer protection framework that will fundamentally improve the passenger experience here in Australia. At the core of these reforms is the creation of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. This charter will set out clear minimum standards that consumers can expect from airlines and airports. Importantly, it will clarify what obligations airlines have when flights are delayed, cancelled or disrupted. And, for the first time in Australia, there will be a nationally consistent framework outlining the minimum standards of treatment that passengers should receive, and that includes standards across communication, assistance, accessibility and support during disruptions.

This is major reform. It's one driven by evidence. The government's Preparing for take-off study revealed what many Australians already knew through lived experience. More than half of the flying public experienced a disruption within a 12-month period, around one-third were satisfied with how it was handled, 82 per cent of passengers said that they received no support during disruptions, 81 per cent said they were not informed of their rights, and about 17 per cent were satisfied with the complaints process overall. Those figures are quite staggering, and they demonstrate why these reforms are very necessary. Passengers should not need to become experts in aviation law simply to understand what support they're entitled to. Consumers deserve clarity and transparency. Consumers deserve accountability, and that is precisely what these reforms will deliver.

The legislation will establish the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, or the ACPA, and the role of ACPA will be to monitor compliance, enforce standards and ensure airlines and airports are meeting their obligations under this charter. This is critical because standards without enforcement are meaningless. The ACPA will provide proper oversight and ensure the framework has teeth. Importantly, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will continue its existing role in enforcing Australian consumer law and monitoring competition issues within the aviation sector. That means misleading conduct and anticompetitive behaviour will still be scrutinised by the ACCC, but this new framework recognises that aviation also requires a dedicated and specialised consumer protection regime and the aviation sector has unique operational challenges. It requires tailored oversight, and these reforms deliver exactly that.

Another major reform contained within this package is the establishment of the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson. This is an Australian-first independent external dispute resolution mechanism specifically designed for aviation complaints. For many travellers today, making a complaint feels like shouting into a void. People are bounced through departments, receive automatic responses or simply give up altogether, and I don't think that's good enough. The Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide passengers with an independent avenue to resolve disputes fairly and transparently and will help restore confidence in the complaints process and ensure consumers are very much heard. Importantly, it will sit outside government as an independent not-for-profit body, and that independence matters. Australians need confidence that complaints will be assessed fairly and objectively.

The bill package also establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, and this is particularly important for communities living near major flight paths and airports. Again, this is highly relevant to the communities in and around my electorate of Barton, because I'm also the Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum. I know many of my fellow parliamentarians in this chamber understand that this is an important issue regarding flight paths. Residents living near the Sydney Airport understand both the economic importance of aviation and the impact aircraft noise can have on their daily life. Communities deserve confidence that noise complaints are managed transparently and independently. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson will review how aircraft noise complaints are handled by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, and this reform strengthens trust and transparency and ensures communities are not simply ignored. It reinforces that government can support both aviation growth and community amenity at the same time.

These reforms also recognise that accessibility must be the centre of aviation consumer protection. The Preparing for take-off study found that passengers with disabilities, medical conditions or injuries consistently experience poorer outcomes when travelling. Around one in four travellers surveyed identified as having a disability, injury or medical condition. Alarmingly, two in five did not know how to access assistance services available to them. That is unacceptable in a modern aviation system. Every Australian deserves to travel with dignity, and these reforms will help ensure airlines and airports provide fair and reasonable treatment to passengers with accessibility challenges or needs. That matters enormously. Aviation should be able to connect people, not exclude them.

The government has been very clear from the outset that this framework will be designed in consultation with industry. There will be ongoing engagement with airlines and airports to ensure standards are operationally feasible and sustainable, and the framework strikes an appropriate balance. It lifts standards while recognising the realities of operating within a very complex aviation environment. Importantly, the legislation also provides flexibility for exemptions where appropriate. The aviation industry is not all the same. The small regional airport is very different from a major international gateway. That is why this government intends to exempt airports with fewer than one million passengers per year from the framework. This ensures smaller regional and council owned airports are not unfairly burdened. At the same time, the framework will still capture Australia's largest airports, including Sydney Airport and Western Sydney International Airport, covering approximately 93 per cent of passenger movements nationwide. This is a sensible and proportionate approach.

We also know that there has been discussion around financial compensation for delays and cancellations, and the government has carefully considered international models. What we have seen overseas is that mandatory compensation schemes can often result in an increase in ticket prices without necessarily improving airline performance. This government's focus is on practical support and better outcomes for passengers.

Under these reforms, the airlines will be expected to cover reasonable, consequential costs when disruptions occur. That may include accommodation, meals and transport where appropriate. Importantly, when flights are cancelled for reasons within the airline's control, consumers should receive refunds in the original form of payment, not be forced into an unwanted travel credit. That's commonsense reform; it puts the consumer first.

These reforms build on substantial work already undertaken by the Albanese Labor government in aviation. In our first term, we delivered the Aviation white paper, we passed legislation to boost competition at Sydney Airport, we reinstated ACCC's airline monitoring after the former government planned to discontinue it and we released the draft Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. This government understands that a healthy aviation sector requires both competition and accountability, because competition benefits consumers, transparency benefits consumers and strong protections benefit consumers.

These reforms are also particularly important in an increasingly uncertain global environment. Recent global conflicts and international instability have demonstrated how vulnerable aviation networks can be to disruption. Australians need confidence that, when disruptions occur, there are clear standards in place and proper consumer protections are available. This legislation provides that certainty. It modernises the framework, strengthens accountability and delivers long-overdue protections for passengers.

I also want to acknowledge the many workers across the aviation industry: pilots, cabin crew, ground staff, baggage handlers, airport workers, customer service teams, security staff and the thousands of people employed across Sydney Airport and related industries near my electorate. These reforms are about building a stronger and more trusted aviation system for absolutely everyone—a system where passengers know their rights, complaints are handled fairly, and accountability and transparency are very much embedded into the sector.

Australians understand that disruptions can and do happen; weather events happen, mechanical issues happen and global events happen. What people rightly expect is clear communication and fair treatment when things go wrong. That is not an unreasonable expectation, and that is exactly what this legislation seeks to deliver. At its core, this package is about restoring that trust—trust between consumers and the airlines, trust between communities and airports and trust that the government is willing to step in when self-regulation has failed to deliver adequate outcomes. For too long, consumers have carried that burden. This legislation shifts that balance back towards fairness. It says to Australians, 'You deserve transparency, you deserve assistance, you deserve accountability and you deserve to know your rights when you're flying.'

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've previously, in this House, referred to Qantas and Virgin as 'the mafia of the skies'. For far too long we have seen the airline industry fail to respect and protect the consumer rights of passengers. This legislative package, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill and its associated bills, does represent some progress. The establishment of an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson, an aviation consumer protection authority and the framework for a passenger rights charter are all steps in the right direction. But the legislation still falls short of the changes which have been recommended both by experts and the AEC. It falls well short of the protections that are delivered in comparable countries and the protections that Australian travellers deserve.

Let me begin with the facts. In 2025, Qantas recorded a domestic cancellation rate of 2.7 per cent, significantly above the long-term industry average of 2.2 per cent. QantasLink did worse: 3.6 per cent. On-time-arrival performance across the city fell below historical benchmarks, with fewer than 80 per cent of flights arriving on time in several of the months of 2025. In December 2024, only 73.7 per cent of flights arrived on time, well below the long-term average of 80.5 per cent. One in five flights are not arriving when they are scheduled to.

Despite some improvements since the chaos of the post-pandemic years, Australian passengers still have to contend with delays and cancellations that are among the highest in the developed world. There has been some recent improvement in those measures, but the numbers are still too high. Meanwhile, airfares remain elevated. The ACCC found that, despite capacity growth outpacing passenger demand for six consecutive months to January 2026, fares in December 2025 was still 4.3 per cent higher than December 2024.

The Qantas Group and Virgin Australia now service nearly 99 per cent of Australia's domestic passengers. In a duopoly, if you are unhappy with your service, you have limited options. We see the limitation of options in the recent actions of Virgin, where it put in place a situation where Australian consumers were about to lose $93 million in credits relating to COVID era cancellations. The fact is that if an airline cancels your flights, you may then lose your reason for taking that trip. The reasonable response to that would be for the airline to refund the money you have paid for that ticket. Instead, we have seen Virgin keep that $93 million for a number of years and now it's asking people to book flights before 30 June or they will lose those credits altogether.

Over recent years we have seen what the rest of the world does. In the European Union, regulation EU 261 provides passengers with fixed automatic compensation for significant delays and for cancellations. For flights under 1,500 kilometres, passengers receive 250 euros if they arrive more than three hours late. For longer flights, compensation rises to 400 euros or 600 euros, depending on the distance. This right applies unless the disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances outside the airline's control—genuine extraordinary circumstances, not a broad, industry drafted exemption. The EU scheme is so effective that the European Parliament is currently considering strengthening it, including maintaining the three-hour threshold and banning fees for check-in and for child seating. In Canada, passengers on large airlines receive between C$400, for delays of up to six hours, and C$1,000 for delays exceeding nine hours, with smaller carriers also carrying some liability.

But in Australia, under this bill, a passenger whose flight is cancelled or significantly delayed still has to lodge a complaint with the ombudsperson, has to wait for it to be assessed and has to hope for a favourable determination—a determination that is binding on the airline, but not on the passenger. There is no automatic compensation. There is not even a fixed entitlement. The government hasn't even bothered to include a draft charter of passenger rights in the legislation. What should be the centrepiece of a new framework for customer protection in the aviation industry has been delegated to regulation and to consultation, which has been ongoing for years but which is still not complete. As the Law Council of Australia has said, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, parliament can't assess the adequacy of protections because their substantive content is absent from the legislation. So we have been asked to pass a framework with no content.

Now, the government has argued that a European style compensation scheme would drive up airfares and damage a competitive aviation sector. That argument has been made by airlines in every single jurisdiction that has contemplated reform. But in every jurisdiction that has actually implemented reform, it turns out the airlines have survived. What the argument really reflects is the power of an industry that has benefited from inadequate regulation for decades. The ACCC, the government's own competition watchdog, has long called for stronger consumer protections for passengers in our commercial aviation industry. CHOICE has welcomed this legislation, but has explicitly noted that it falls short of EU 261. Even the government's own aviation white paper acknowledged that the scale of consumer dissatisfaction with the existing deeply inadequate state of affairs continues.

It's worth asking why successive Australian governments, both coalition and Labor, have consistently fallen short on this issue. To some extent at least, the answer might lie in the nature of the relationship between our major airlines and the politicians who should be regulating them. Qantas in particular has cultivated deep and deliberate influence in Canberra for many years. Joe Aston's book The Chairman's Lounge and the parliamentary debate that it prompted in 2024 documented in detail how that influence has operated—through Chairman's Lounge memberships extended to politicians across the spectrum, through upgrades, and through access and proximity that is not available to community organisations, to not-for-profit groups or to ordinary constituents, who might also appreciate the welcome attention of their representatives.

I'm not naive about this. I've experienced it myself. When I was first elected in 2022 I initially accepted Chairman's Lounge and Virgin's Beyond memberships. It seemed to come with the job, and let's face it, there are practical advantages to lounge access when you're constantly travelling between Melbourne and Canberra. But I relinquished that Chairman's Lounge membership in 2023 because I'd become concerned about the extent to which perks extended by the airlines to politicians could affect government decision-making. Airlines don't offer these things for no reason. Research in medicine has shown that even small gifts from pharmaceutical companies can influence doctors' prescribing patterns. The same dynamic applies here. When politicians are guests of the very industry they are meant to hold accountable, we can't be surprised if that accountability falls short.

On sitting days there are almost 2,000 lobbyists in this building, between 10 and 15 for ever member of the House and the Senate. Most are not on the Lobbyist Register, because the existing register is toothless. Ministers are still not required to publish their diaries. The airlines don't have to have a formal lobbying presence. They've already built the access that they need through other means. That's the context in which this bill has been developed, and it could help explain why a government that has expressed genuine concern for passengers has nonetheless declined to legislate the automatic compensation that those passengers need and deserve.

There are other significant gaps in this legislation. The bill excludes services that are not directly paid for by consumers, meaning that inter-airline connections and codeshare arrangements may fall outside its scope. It has limited coverage of third-party intermediaries, such as booking agents, and its broad exemption powers risk creating the same loopholes that have allowed airlines elsewhere to avoid accountability. During the COVID recovery period, complaints to the Airline Customer Advocate rose by 138 per cent, even as passenger numbers fell very sharply. Most of those were related to the refusal by Qantas and Jetstar to offer cash refunds. The Airline Customer Advocate resolved fewer than half of those complaints. That's what happens when a complaints mechanism is funded and controlled by the industry it is meant to police. We shouldn't replicate that model with a different letterhead.

I want to briefly acknowledge what the bill does achieve. An independent ombudsperson with binding determination is meaningfully better than an industry funded body. A new Aviation Consumer Protection Authority with enforcement capability is better than voluntary compliance. These are genuine improvements on the status quo.

The minister has claimed that this is the most significant aviation consumer protection reform ever introduced by an Australian government. That may be true, but it's a pretty low bar. For too many years—through the pandemic, through Qantas selling tickets on already-cancelled flights, through its illegal sacking of ground workers, through flight credits that passengers couldn't use—Australian consumers have long been left exposed by aviation consumer protection in this country. This bill is an inadequate remedy to a longstanding injustice.

Incremental improvement is not the standard we should be setting. This is our only opportunity to get this right, and the government is squibbing it. The standard we set should be a gold standard—the same protections available to passengers on the same routes operated by carriers flying in or out of the United Kingdom or the European Union. What the Australian passenger deserves is automatic, fixed compensation for significant delays and cancellations caused by factors within the airlines' control, a passenger rights charter with mandatory minimum content that is legislated not delegated, genuine coverage of charter operations and third-party intermediaries, and robust exemption criteria that cannot be gamed by carriers seeking to avoid their obligations.

Australians deserve to know what they're entitled to when things go wrong before they board a plane—or before they wait for hours in the airport—not after a complaint process that might take months and not subject to the discretion of an ombudsperson, whose caseload will quickly become unmanageable if this scheme does not change behaviour. They should know that now, automatically, as a right. That's what the rest of the world provides, and that's what this parliament should deliver.

With that, I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "notes that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(a) the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter has not been presented to Parliament, preventing members from assessing whether the protections it will deliver are adequate, despite consultations on the Charter occurring nine months ago;

(b) the bill creates no automatic entitlement to compensation for passengers affected by delays or cancellations within an airline's control, leaving Australia's consumer protections well below the standards available in the European Union and Canada; and

(c) the bill's broad exemption powers and exclusion of charter operations and third-party intermediaries risk leaving significant gaps in consumer protections; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) table a draft Charter with mandatory minimum content before the bill proceeds to a third reading; and

(b) amend the bill to provide for fixed, automatic compensation for controllable flight disruptions consistent with international best practice".

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong and reserve my right to speak.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Riverina moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kooyong has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'notes that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Riverina be agreed to.

Ali France (Dickson, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the related bills. Australia is a big country, and we are a long way from almost everywhere, including, very often, from each other. That makes aviation more than a convenience for Aussies. It is how we travel to see our family and friends. It is how those in regional and remote communities get to see specialists and specialist services in major town centres. It's how our businesses work across states. And it is how families separated by thousands of kilometres get to sit together around the same table at Christmas. We rely on flying, in a way that not many other countries do. So, when things go wrong—when a flight is cancelled, when a family is left stranded at a gate with kids in tow, when your luggage with a week's worth of clothes doesn't arrive—it matters.

For far too long the deal for travellers when things have gone wrong has not been good enough. That's why the Albanese Labor government is delivering the most significant reforms to Australia's aviation sector in over a decade. Until now, when a complaint could not be sorted out, a traveller has largely been left to resolve the issue themselves, relying on the airlines, and most of us are all too familiar with how this arrangement ends up playing out. When your flight is delayed or cancelled or your travel is disrupted, you're often left with no choice but to wear it. Too many people have been left frustrated, out of pocket and with nowhere independent to turn for a resolution.

Recently we saw exactly how badly this can go. The conflict in the Middle East has caused major disruptions to flights and to fuel and real uncertainty for Australian travellers. We've seen passengers unsure of what to do next and unsure of what they are even entitled to do when a flight is cancelled. Our airlines have done a great deal of difficult work to get Aussies home safely during that conflict, and that work is appreciated. But this moment has outlined something important: Australians who rely on aviation deserve clear protections and a clear understanding of their rights, especially when the unexpected happens. That is what this bill delivers. It is the most significant reform to aviation consumer protection this country has seen, and it flows directly from our aviation white paper—our plan to protect passengers while keeping our aviation sector competitive and while keeping our proud safety record intact.

Let me set out what these bills actually do. First, they establish the new Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson, an independent body that will work with travellers, airlines and airports to resolve complaints. If an airline or an airport has not done the right thing and a traveller is not satisfied with how their complaint has been handled, they will have somewhere genuinely independent to go. The ombudsperson will be able to investigate, to compel information and to determine how a complaint should be resolved. Most importantly, it will be free for the consumer to use to pursue a remedy to their complaint.

Second, the bills establish an aviation consumer protections charter. The charter will set out minimum standards that travellers can expect from airlines and airports—standards for what should happen with bookings, with check in and boarding, with baggage, with complaints handling and with the assistance people are owed when flights are disrupted, delayed or cancelled. For the first time, the expectations of airlines and what is owed to customers will be made plain and clear.

Third, the bills establish the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. The authority will be a dedicated regulator within the department to enforce the charter and to take on the systemic problems in the sector, not just one complaint at a time. Where the ombudsperson helps the individual traveller, the regulator looks at the bigger patterns to make sure the industry is held to account if necessary. This framework is about meaningful protection for passengers while keeping aviation competitive, affordable and sustainable, including the regional routes that so many of our regional and remote communities depend on—in particular, my state of Queensland. There is a balance, and these bills achieve that balance.

On top of that, these bills also make changes to deal with aircraft noise, an issue that matters enormously to the people I represent in Dickson. For at least five years, I have heard from people living in my community of Dickson about the impact of aircraft noise on the Samford Valley and how changes in flight paths, increases in the number of flights and the difficulty in trying to give feedback to Airservices Australia have impacted on their quality of life. These bills establish an independent aircraft noise ombudsperson to address the impact of aircraft noise on people on the ground. The aircraft noise ombudsperson will conduct investigative reviews into how Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence handle aircraft noise complaints, the community consultation processes regarding changes affecting aircraft noise and how aircraft noise information is presented and distributed. The aircraft noise ombudsperson will be independent of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence, consistent with the commitment made in the aviation white paper. The ombudsperson will have the capacity to publish independent reports and make recommendations to the government for policy or regulatory change.

Our aviation consumer protection bills are not just about passengers. We're also looking out for the people who live under the flight paths, who live with the daily noise and impact of every aircraft passing overhead. The new runway at Brisbane Airport opened in 2020 with little community consultation, particularly when it came to aircraft noise. Since the new runway has arrived, I've met with Samford Valley residents regularly on this issue. Samford Valley sits like a natural amphitheatre. Its geography means that sound is projected. For the families there, aircraft noise is not a passing annoyance. It's impacted on their quality of life, disrupted sleep and meant pollution and constant noise. I want to recognise the residents across my electorate who have advocated on this issue tirelessly for years, to make use of our airspace fairer for the people most affected by the noise. We take your concerns seriously, and these changes finally mean your complaints and concerns will be heard by a new independent ombudsman.

I am proud that our government has already taken real steps to look out for consumers and residents impacted by flight paths. Changes implemented by Airservices Australia include limiting the ability of some aircraft to take off before 6 am, boosting the number of flights that are required to take off and land over water during the night and early mornings on the weekends, reinstating the previous flight path used for overwater departures so that aircraft take off—

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.