Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, 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 moved as an amendment to the amendment that all words after 'notes that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Ryan has now moved a further amendment. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the other bills. I definitely want to start by saying that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has really done a quite a remarkable job over the last few years dealing with what is one of the biggest challenges in the Australian economy, which is our aviation industry. Of course, aviation sits well and truly as one of those essential services where we see a lot of the challenges exist, because they have been unintended consequences of what I like to talk about in this place every opportunity I get. Privatisation, economic rationalism and unfettered free trade have seen an essential service like our aviation industry really face challenges over and above what you would otherwise expect.

I think that at the heart of this there is actually an argument for long-term Labor governments, because Labor governments are the ones that are prepared to make the reforms. While it was the Hawke-Keating government that privatised Qantas, there was also an approach by Keating in 1995 where he talked about ameliorating some of the unintended consequences of that agenda. As part of preparation for today's speech, I was going through some things that Keating had said about it. When he was talking about it at the time, it was a policy called Working Nation, which was really about rebalancing the role of government at the centre of the economy. Keating said:

If I have learned one big thing in the past decade, it is that reform never stops you never entirely get out of the woods, there is always one thing more or two, or three or even four things. You never really get to the last chapter. You might sometimes imagine that you are approaching it and that when you get over the next hill you'll see the words, " The End", emblazoned in a clear blue sky. But it doesn't happen.

…   …   …

Sometimes it does boil down to simple endurance. The modern economic contest is a long distance race a very long distance race. It is like the modern marathon, it gets faster and faster. But unlike the marathon, it has no finish line.

…   …   …

I wish I could say all the reform was over and that we don't need to change any more. But we do. We need the culture of " continuous initiative" …

He went on to say in reference to the economic policies of the Hawke and Keating governments:

As Australian policy had been right through the eighties, Working Nation was different to the orthodox model of economic liberalisation the model adopted in a number of other countries and by our opponents. It took the view that we could be competitive and still look after those on the margins. We could compete with the best in the region and the world, and yet maintain our egalitarian values and preserve our social cohesion.

Unfortunately, one year after giving that speech, the Keating government was defeated at the 1996 election and we weren't given the opportunity as the Labor Party to continue our great project of reform. But reform, in a way, always keeps at the heart of it—that we are about lifting the living standards of working-class Australians. And so it is with aviation policy that measures in here continue that work.

I will say a couple of other things in terms of what the Albanese government has done with aviation policy and how we tackle this idea of privatisation and economic rationalism, because I think the example of Rex stands in stark contrast to coalition governments just throwing their hands up in the air and saying that it's all too hard. The measures that the Albanese government not only took but also signalled that they were prepared to take, including state acquisition of Rex, have stabilised that company now so that it is able to continue to play a role in the economic development of our regions as well as in the social development of our regions as it continues to keep people and business connected by maintaining that regional airline. It took an interventionist policy from the Albanese Labor government, in the great Labor tradition of reform continuing to improve, continuing to change, continuing to bring about real change. The airline industry is another example of how the Albanese government has implemented that real and substantial change.

I will talk specifically about one of the measures in this bill, the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson. I'd like to talk about what it means when you have an industry that is able to get away with unfettered regulation. Part of my way of working in the electorate is I text people in a particular area saying that I'm going to be doorknocking on a certain day, and if anybody would like me to come round, to make an appointment. One day I got an answer from Bruce Docker in Shailer Park, who asked me to come around and meet him at his place, and I did. Bruce and his family are quintessential, salt-of-the-Earth Australians when you meet them—a delightful family who invited me into their home. Bruce had had a problem with Virgin. I'll read out a little bit from the letter that I wrote to Virgin on his behalf. Bruce was going to Sydney to attend to a family event. He missed the flight owing to a gate change and was subsequently required to pay about $1,000 for a replacement ticket. He was seeking a refund of that charge and a review of Virgin's notification procedures. Mr Docker told me that he'd got to the airport early for his afternoon flight owing to concerns about traffic on the M1, which is good forward planning. He was worried that he was going to miss his flight, worried about the unpredictability of travel times along the M1. He got to the gate as it was originally displayed some hours before the flight was due to leave. However, there was a gate change that wasn't brought to his attention, and he told me that he didn't receive a text message, and he missed the flight as a result. When he approached Virgin to get assistance on that day, he was told that the only option available to him was to buy a new ticket at a replacement cost of about $1,000. He said that he really felt pressured in that exchange. It was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and he was worried that he wasn't going to be able to get to the family event, and so Mr Docker, who really couldn't afford that $1,000, found it, paid it and was shocked that it was going to cost that much. He made the booking, paid for the ticket and rang up his daughter, who told him that she went online and he could get the same ticket for between $200 and $300. He was really shocked to see the disparity between what Virgin had told him at the counter and what his daughter could get online just minutes later. But even though he is really careful with his money and it was a hit to him, he paid it, and Virgin at the time decided not to give him that refund. He said that he'd been waiting at the gate. Virgin had gone to the trouble of taking his checked baggage off the flight but couldn't go to the trouble of either sending him a text or announcing his name over the PA to say that he was required to board. So they went to all the trouble of taking the checked baggage off the flight but couldn't alert him otherwise. They just put up a brick wall and were not prepared to refund the $1,000.

Now, there are so many things there which should concern us all. But from a process point of view, one of the most concerning things is that he basically had to wait for a federal MP to say that they were going to be in the area, to make an appointment, to go through his story, for the federal MP to make that representation to Virgin, to even get heard. After a couple of months of back and forth and us pushing, Virgin finally agreed to at least refund $150, which was the original ticket from Brisbane to Sydney. Virgin unfortunately upheld its decision to not refund the $1,000, but it took all of that effort to even get that $150 out of Virgin. Finally Virgin did some of the some of the right thing, even if they didn't do all of the right thing.

The establishment of the aviation consumer ombudsperson should hopefully deal with that sort of thing. Nobody should go to all that trouble to get $150 refund. Nobody should have to try and navigate the political system in order to be able to uphold their consumer rights. It is central to this legislation. One of the reasons why this legislation should be supported is so that Mr Docker and people like Mr Docker don't have to go through a convoluted process to uphold their rights. Again, this is really quite concerning behaviour from Virgin. Hopefully, the charter will deal with some of these things as well. But, of course, with all policies, nothing is set and forget, and we'll see where we go from here.

Ultimately, this essentially sits within the government's cost-of-living strategy—consumer rights—and that's why, some 52 years or so from when the Whitlam government introduced the Fair Trading Act, this government is continuing that Labor tradition of actually fixing the system to protect consumers, which will not only end up meaning cheaper prices for consumers but also confidence for businesses. In many ways we need legislation like this to protect businesses from themselves.

Another arm of our approach to consumer protection includes increasing funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than $30 million, outlawing unfair contract terms, strengthening unit pricing codes, making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, outlawing non-compete clauses in workplace contracts and, as of Wednesday, prohibiting price gouging at supermarkets.

This really sits, I think, in the part of the Labor project that provides cost-of-living relief to consumers and provides confidence in businesses as well. This legislation is measured and achievable, and it is not going to some of the extremes that people would like to see. This is about making sure that our aviation industry operates well in quite a difficult market, in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and associated bills, a package designed to address well-documented failures in how airline passengers are treated and protected and to ensure complaints from communities impacted by aircraft noise, such as Bradfield, are properly managed.

For too long, Australia's aviation market has had weak, fragmented and poorly enforced consumer protections, leaving passengers with unclear rights, limited resources and inconsistent service quality. These bills set out to change that through the establishment of an aviation consumer protection framework that seeks to bring together existing passenger rights—currently sitting across various individual airline terms and conditions, general consumer law and voluntary industry standards—into statutory, enforceable obligations. Importantly, the bill establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority, which will monitor industry behaviour, investigate systemic issues, enforce obligations and hold airlines and airports accountable.

At the outset, I should say that moving towards increased consumer protection is welcome. It's a good thing. The 2024 national Aviation white paper highlighted the need for stronger consumer protections and strict oversight alongside clearer expectations of industry. These bills make a positive start. Service quality and accountability in the aviation sector have been declining, with falling on-time performance and increasing passenger dissatisfaction. Within the context of a highly concentrated and structurally uncompetitive market, it's right for the government to step in and ensure that consumers are protected. Let's face it; many of us have been on the wrong end of a cancelled flight and been left with that sinking feeling that we may not even get to our destination that day. Knowing that there is clear recourse, including access to a new independent aviation consumer ombudsperson, will be a comfort for many.

But I also note that there are many reservations about these bills—about the lack of detail in the legislation itself, about the complexity of the framework, about the potential for duplication of and inconsistency with other regulations and, ultimately, about whether it will deliver meaningful redress for consumers. Important questions remain regarding how these initiatives are to be funded and the ability of airlines and airports to simply pass the cost of compliance on to consumers. I'm not convinced that the changes to aircraft noise management, under the new framework, strike at the core of this important issue, which affects parts of my community of Bradfield.

The history of aircraft noise management in Sydney is long and complex, and, in my short time as a representative on the Sydney Airport Community Forum, I've learnt that the long-term operating plan that dictates how Airservices Australia spread aircraft movements across various departure and arrival modes to ensure aircraft noise and emissions are shared across the Sydney basin has an established target of a 17 per cent load for the north. I've also learnt that, in practice, this load is more than double what it should be. The reason for that is unclear—whether Airservices Australia is either incapable of implementing, or unwilling to implement, the long-term operating plan in the way that it was originally conceived—despite this plan being subject to a ministerial direction. Either way, the result has been that communities to the north of Sydney airport are continually subject to more aircraft noise than they should be. With Airservices Australia operating its own noise complaints service, it's not surprising that the experience of my community has been that any complaints about aircraft noise have fallen—pun intended—on deaf ears. The establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsperson that is separate from Airservices Australia is therefore welcome. This should give the community some greater confidence in both complaints handling and reporting, as well as relevant community consultation processes.

However, while acknowledging that the scope of the ombudsperson includes review of the agency's management of aircraft noise, it is apparent that the role is primarily concerned with how complaints are handled and the presentation of aircraft noise information rather than with actually addressing the cause of the problem. It would make perfect sense for the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson's remit to include a specific responsibility for ensuring Airservices' compliance with its obligation to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the community through stricter adherence to the long-term operating plan. What's the point of having a world-class complaints-handling process that does not actually address the cause of the complaint? For communities like mine in Bradfield, aircraft noise is a daily reality, particularly for the communities in South Turramurra and West Pymble. They are impacted by this every single day.

This package is an important and overdue step towards stronger aviation consumer protections. It creates real pressure and opportunity for the department and Airservices Australia to work more closely together to deliver better outcomes. It's just unfortunate that this set of bills, with so many positives, leaves unanswered questions about whether it will deliver a reduced and fairer share of aircraft noise for the people of Bradfield.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Living in Australia means understanding distance—not the distance between suburbs or neighbouring towns, but the enormous distances that shape our entire nation. From Perth to Sydney, from Darwin to Adelaide, from regional communities to major cities and from remote towns to specialist health care, education and economic opportunity, aviation is what keeps this country connected. For millions of Australians, boarding a plane is not some occasional luxury; it is part of daily life. Workers fly interstate to keep industries operating. Regional families rely on aviation such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service to access medical appointments and specialist care. Businesses depend on reliable air travel to grow investment and create jobs. Tourism operators depend on flights arriving safely and on time to keep local economies alive. Families separated by thousands of kilometres rely on aviation to stay connected to the people they love. That is the reality of living in Australia.

Because aviation matters so much to this country, Australians deserve an aviation system that treats people fairly. Passengers deserve transparency when flights are delayed. Families deserve support when cancellations occur. Travellers deserve assurance that, when something goes wrong, somebody is accountable. Too many Australians have lost that confidence in recent years. Depending on which airlines they've booked, wishing friends good luck to even get off the ground has often been a running joke. People have sat stranded in terminals for hours without updates. Parents have missed weddings, funerals, milestones and family moments because flights were cancelled with little explanation. Travellers have spent days trying to chase refunds or basic assistance for disruptions, and many Australians feel like the system has been tilted too far away from the consumer for far too long.

That is why the reforms before the House today are so important. The Albanese government is delivering the most significant reforms to the aviation sector in more than a decade. These reforms are about restoring balance, restoring accountability and bringing back confidence for the travelling public. As discussed already, aviation plays a critical role in Australia's economy and national life. Regional connectivity depends on it. Trade depends on it. Tourism depends on it. The movement of workers, students and families depend on it.

Because aviation is such an essential part of modern Australia, Australians rightly expect high standards from airlines and airports. However, for years passengers have often been left navigating confusing complaint systems, with little clarity around their rights. People have felt powerless, with complaints processes dragging on in a seemingly endless fashion, and the current system, where airlines are largely left to police themselves, has simply not delivered the standards Australians deserve. The Australian government recognised that change was needed. That is why during our first term we began laying the groundwork for reform. We released the Aviation white paper, we introduced reforms to improve competition at Sydney airport, we reinstated the ACCC's monitoring of airlines after those opposite planned to remove it and we released the draft aviation consumer charter of rights.

But identifying the problem was only the first step. Australians expected more than acknowledgement; they expected action to strengthen protections, improve accountability and restore confidence in the aviation system, and that is exactly what this government is now delivering. These Australian-first aviation consumer protections will establish clearer standards across the aviation sector and provide stronger protections for travellers. Importantly, they will clarify airline obligations and outline the minimum assistance consumers should receive when scheduled flights are disrupted. That matters enormously because Australians should not need to argue for basic support after their travel plans collapse, nor should they be left wondering what their rights are after a cancellation or major delay.

One of the most important reforms in this package is the creation of the independent aviation consumer ombudsman. It is a major shift away from the old system, where too many Australians felt like complaints disappeared into a maze of automated responses, long wait times and endless frustration. For the first time, Australians will have access to an independent, external dispute-resolution process specifically designed to assist with aviation complaints.

Too many Australians have felt completely powerless when something goes wrong with their flight. Passengers are shuffled between online chatbots, customer service hotlines and automated emails, with little clarity about who is responsible for resolving their issue. Families dealing with cancelled flights have often spent days chasing refunds, accommodation support or even basic information about when they'll be able to get home. Travellers should not have to spend hours sitting on hold, repeating the same story to different staff members or navigating complicated complaint systems simply to access support after a disruption. That frustration builds over time, and, when people lose faith that complaints will be handled fairly or efficiently, trust in the entire aviation system begins to erode. The ombudsman will help provide fairness, transparency and accountability for customers navigating disputes with airlines and airports. Importantly, it will operate independently, and that independence matters. Australians deserve confidence that complaints are being reviewed fairly and objectively, not simply handled internally behind closed doors.

These reforms also pave the way for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. The charter will establish clear minimum standards for how aviation consumers should be treated. For too long, many Australians have struggled to understand exactly what rights they have when flights are delayed or cancelled. Important information is often buried deep within lengthy terms and conditions or scattered across confusing airline websites that ordinary passengers should not have to navigate during already stressful situations. These reforms are about replacing uncertainty with clarity, ensuring travellers know exactly what standards airlines and airports are expected to meet and what level of support passengers should reasonably receive when disruptions occur. A stronger aviation system relies on consumers knowing that the rules are transparent, the obligations are enforceable and that the travelling public will be treated fairly when things do not go to plan. Australians deserve certainty about what support should be available when disruptions occur. Whether that involves accommodation, transport, meals or refunds, consumers should understand their rights without needing to fight through layers of bureaucracy. That is exactly what these reforms seek to improve.

Supporting the charter will be the new Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. Its role will be to enforce compliance and ensure the standards outlined in the charter are upheld across the sector. The government has taken a practical approach in establishing this authority within the department rather than creating a standalone agency. That ensures strong oversight while avoiding unnecessary duplication. Importantly, the ACCC will continue its broader role of overseeing competition and consumer issues within the aviation sector, including misleading or deceptive conduct by airlines and airports. These reforms can complement the work rather than replace it.

Another important measure in this legislation is the establishment of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. For communities living around airports, aircraft noise is not a theoretical issue. It's something people live with every day. Families deserve to know that their concerns around aircraft noise are properly heard and independently reviewed. These reforms provide another important layer of accountability and transparency for communities impacted by aviation operations. Again, this comes back to trust—trust that concerns will be heard, trust that systems are fair and trust that government is willing to stand up for communities and consumers alike.

The evidence supporting these reforms is overwhelming. The Preparing for take-off survey highlighted just how widespread dissatisfaction has become amongst Australian travellers. More than half of Australians experienced a flight disruption over a 12-month period, yet only one-third were satisfied with how those disruptions were handled. That should concern every member of this House. Even more concerning was the lack of support passengers reported receiving. Of all travellers affected by disruptions, 82 per cent said they received no support at all—no meaningful assistance, no proper communication and often no clear explanation of what they were entitled to, just a pop-up notification or an email delivering some inconvenient news. At the same time, 81 per cent of Australians said they were not informed of their consumer rights during those disruptions. That tells us the current system is failing consumers because protections only work if people understand them and can access them.

The study also revealed widespread frustration with the complaints process. Only 39 per cent of people who made complaints were satisfied with the outcome. Even fewer, just 17 per cent, were satisfied with the complaints process overall. The findings from the study make it clear that too many Australians feel let down by the current aviation system. Passengers are frustrated by poor communication, disappointed by a lack of support during disruptions and increasingly losing faith that complaints will be handled reasonably, transparently or in a reasonable timeframe.

Accessibility is another critical, important part of these reforms. Australians living with disabilities, medical conditions or injuries deserve the same level of access when travelling as everybody else, yet many continue to face unnecessary and unfair barriers. Around one in four travellers surveyed identified as having a disability, medical condition or injury. Alarmingly, two out of five Australians in that category did not know how to access available assistance services. That is not acceptable in a modern aviation system. Accessible travel should not feel complicated or uncertain. The Aviation Consumer Rights Charter will help ensure airlines and airports provide fair and reasonable treatment for all passengers, including Australians with accessibility needs. That is an important reform because aviation should connect Australians, not create additional barriers for them.

The government has also carefully considered how these reforms will operate in practice. Australia's aviation sector is diverse. Major metropolitan airports operate very differently to small regional airfields. Regional aviation is incredibly important to the connectivity of communities across the country. Many smaller airports are council owned and operate with limited resources. That is why the framework allows sensible exemptions where appropriate. Under subordinate legislation, the government intends to exempt airports handling fewer than one million passengers annually from the framework. This ensures the reforms focus on Australia's major airports and the overwhelming majority of passenger movements, while recognising the practical realities facing smaller regional facilities. That is a balanced approach—strong consumer protections where they are most needed combined with practical flexibility for smaller operators.

The issue of compensation has also been considered carefully. The government's priority is improving standards and ensuring passengers receive meaningful support when disruption occurs. International experience demonstrates that mandatory compensation schemes can often increase ticket prices without necessarily improving airline performance, and Australians are already dealing with significant cost-of-living pressures. That is why the government is taking a measured and balanced approach to these issues. At this stage, airlines will not be required to provide automatic monetary compensation for cancellations or major delays. However, passengers will still be entitled to appropriate support when disruptions occur within an airline's control. That includes reasonable consequential costs such as accommodation, meals and transport. Importantly, consumers should also receive proper refunds in cash or through their original payment method when flights are cancelled, unless they actively choose a travel credit instead. That is basic fairness. Australians should not have to fight to get their own money back when a service they have paid for is not provided to them.

These reforms represent something broader about the Albanese government's approach to consumer protection. We believe markets function best when consumers are treated fairly. We believe transparency matters. We believe accountability matters, and we believe Australians deserve to know that large corporations will be held to appropriate standards. Those principles apply to the economy, and they apply to aviation, because aviation is too important to Australia to allow confidence in the industry to continue deteriorating. Families rely on aviation. Regional communities rely on aviation. Industries rely on aviation. Our economy relies on aviation, and Australians deserve a system that recognises the importance of that responsibility.

These reforms are practical and are focused on improving outcomes for the travelling public. No reform will eliminate every delay or cancellation. Unexpected events will always occur in aviation, but Australians deserve to know that, when disruptions happen, they will be treated fairly, communicated with properly and supported appropriately. That is what these reforms seek to achieve—a stronger aviation system, a fairer framework for consumers and a more accountable industry for Australians right across the country, no matter where they live.

Gabriel Ng (Menzies, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the aviation consumer protection bills before the house today, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill 2026 and the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. These bills matter because air travel is no longer a luxury for many Australians. It is part of everyday life. These bills matter because the aviation industry holds a special place in my heart.

My dad has worked in the aviation industry for almost his entire working life. He migrated to Australia from Singapore, which is where he got his qualification. He was conscripted into the air force and learned his trade there, studied in London and then came to Australia in his mid-20s, where he became qualified as a LAME, a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer. He worked first for Ansett and then for Virgin Australia. He started work, as I said, in his mid-20s in Australia. He's now in his mid-70s, and he theoretically retired this year. That means that, last week, he only took four casual shifts because he can't help himself.

Families in my electorate of Menzies and people like my dad and my wife travel to see loved ones across Australia and across the world. This is an electorate where almost 45 per cent of residents were born overseas. In communities across Box Hill, Doncaster, Blackburn, Templestowe, Mont Albert, Warrandyte and Park Orchards, international travel is not an occasional luxury. It is how families stay connected across generations and continents. People travel to visit parents and grandparents overseas. Workers travel to keep businesses and industries running. Students travel for university placements, study opportunities and new careers. In an electorate as culturally diverse as Menzies, where the largest overseas-born communities include people with heritage from China, Malaysia, India, Hong Kong, Iran, Italy and Greece, aviation is deeply connected to family, culture and community life. That means that when the aviation system fails, the consequences are very real for people. Families lose money, workers miss shifts, businesses lose incomes, parents are stranded with children at the airport, people miss weddings and graduations and time with loved ones that many will never get back.

Australians understand, of course, that the weather can upset plans, and they understand that aircraft can be subject to technical faults, that this can cause delays and that safety must always come first. What everyday Australians don't understand is why so much of the burden of these foreseeable issues has had to fall on them—when flights are cancelled without clear communication, when refunds take months, when people spend hours on hold trying to speak to someone to resolve their issues, when they're stranded in an unfamiliar city and need to reach into their own pockets, when responsibility gets pushed from one place to another. People expect accountability and they expect a reasonable level of service and support, and that is why these bills matter.

Over the last several years, Australians have seen significant disruption across the aviation sector: delayed flights, cancelled services, lost baggage, reduced regional reliability and poor customer communication. And, while many airline workers have done their absolute best under pressure, too many consumers have felt powerless when things go wrong. Most people are not asking for any special treatment. They just want basic fairness. If a flight is cancelled, they want timely information. If they are entitled to compensation or support, they want to know how to access it. If they lodge a complaint, they want someone independent to hear it. That is not unreasonable. It is a minimum standard people expect when they pay for a service. And yet for too long many Australians have felt that they have nowhere to turn.

That has been especially difficult for regional communities. We're a big country and we often face the tyranny of distance, and so we are perhaps more reliant on airlines than many other countries. In many parts of Australia, aviation links are essential for work, tourism, business and family life. Delays and cancellations do not just create inconvenience; they create financial and emotional stress that flows through entire households. For someone travelling for specialist medical treatment, for example, a cancelled flight is not just a matter of frustration; it can be a matter of life and death. For a small-business owner, missing a client meeting interstate is not just annoying; it has real impacts on their bottom line. For parents travelling with young children after hours in an airport terminal, it's pretty exhausting—to be stranded with some young kids who have nowhere to sleep but on the floor or on the chairs. These experiences add up, and, over time, public confidence is damaged.

One of the biggest frustrations people have with the aviation sector is the feeling that ordinary consumers are expected to carry all the risk. When things run smoothly, airlines operate commercially and profitably. But, when things go wrong, too many passengers are left navigating a confusing complaints process with limited transparency and limited recourse. People often do not know who to contact, what rights they have, how long a complaint should take or whether anyone independent is overseeing the process.

That imbalance really matters, because aviation is not an ordinary market in many parts of the country. Consumers often have limited alternatives in Australia. That's just the reality of the Australian market. On some routes, there may only be two viable carriers—or even one. So accountability matters even more in this space. Australians should not need to be legal experts to understand consumer rights, and they should not have to fight through layers of bureaucracy to get a response. They should not feel ignored after paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars for travel.

These bills establish a stronger aviation consumer protection framework in Australia. They create clearer standards, stronger oversight and, importantly, an independent avenue for complaints and consumer protection. The legislation establishes an Aviation Consumer Ombuds Scheme. That is the most important part because independent complaints handling gives consumers confidence that somebody is listening to them as problems arise. The bills also strengthen information-sharing obligations and consumer protections around airline conduct and their complaints handling. This is about practical outcomes. It's about making sure Australians are treated fairly when they engage with airlines and aviation service providers—not after months of confusion or endless emails and call waiting times but at the point where the problem occurs.

The legislation is also supported through the aviation consumer protection levy arrangements, which ensure the scheme is properly funded and operational, and that principle is important too. Strong consumer protection systems cannot exist on paper alone; they need resources, oversight and enforcement capacity. Good consumer protection is not antibusiness. In fact, strong consumer protections support confidence in the markets—people are more likely to engage with industries they trust, and trust matters enormously in aviation. Australians hand over significant amounts of money to airlines and place enormous trust in them every single day—trust that they'll arrive safely, trust that they'll arrive on time and trust that, if something goes wrong, they'll be treated fairly.

Most aviation workers work incredibly hard every day to uphold that trust. I definitely see that with my dad. I understand the responsibility carried by people behind the scenes who keep planes operating safely and reliably—the cabin crews, the ground staff, the baggage handlers, the customer service workers, the air traffic controllers and the aircraft engineers and maintenance crews. It takes a lot of people to get a plane safely in the air and safely to its destination on time. These workers carried enormous pressure during and after the pandemic, helping keep Australians moving through one of the most difficult periods the aviation industry has faced. Those workers are supported by this legislation, because it ensures confidence in the industry and it ensures confidence in their ongoing employment. It's about making sure the overall consumer system works better for the public and for workers. Frankly, clear standards can also help workers because, too often, they are left carrying the frustration of customers without having the authority or the systems needed to resolve problems properly.

In communities across Australia, people rely on aviation for connection and for opportunity. Families from multicultural communities travel internationally to maintain important relationships with loved ones, students travel for study and work opportunities, and small businesses rely on interstate movement and tourism connections. When flights are unreliable or consumer protections are weak, those impacts ripple outwards, and regional Australia feels this even more sharply. A cancelled regional flight can mean missing medical treatment. It can mean losing a day's work. It can mean being stranded away from home for hours. That's why stronger consumer protections matter nationally.

We often say that we want an economy that works for people, not the other way around. Part of that is ensuring that the benefits of a growing economy are shared with workers. We've backed pay rises—the pay rise of six per cent for the minimum wage at the Fair Work Commission and award-wage increases of 4.6 per cent that we'll see come into place from 1 July. We back workers by protecting their penalty rates in legislation and through same job, same pay legislation.

But having an economy that works for people also means having strong consumer protections. I've spoken in this place about the stronger protections that we have in the telecommunications industry, because that is another essential piece of modern infrastructure which we need to ensure consumers are properly protected in and at the heart of. We also have made the supermarket code of conduct mandatory. We've outlawed price gouging—that's another measure that will come into place from 1 July—and we're addressing shrinkflation. This bill is another measure to make sure that we have an economy that works for people and that we have an aviation industry that works for people and that has consumers at its heart.

This bill also forms part of the Albanese Labor government's broader work to strengthen fairness and accountability across the aviation sector. For years, Australians have raised concerns about transparency, complaints handling and consumer rights in aviation, and they deserve a serious response to the concerns that were raised. This legislation responds to them. It recognises that consumer protections need to keep pace with the realities of modern aviation, and, importantly, it recognises that fairness is something that must be supported. It's not, unfortunately, something that is always passed on to consumers. It has to be built into institutions, built into oversight and built into accountability. The establishment of an independent ombudsman framework is a practical step towards ensuring confidence that complaints will be heard fairly and independently, and that matters for consumers. It matters for public trust because, when people feel ignored long enough, confidence in institutions starts to erode.

At its core, this legislation is about fairness. It's about recognising that, when Australians purchase a ticket, they are not just buying a seat on a plane; they're investing in something really important. It's time with family. It's a work opportunity, a major life event, medical care or connection. When disruptions happen, people deserve transparency, communication and fair treatment. That should not depend on how persistent someone is, how many hours they can spend on hold or whether they can afford legal advice. It should be part of the system itself, and this bill moves us closer to that standard—a fairer and more accountable aviation system, one where consumers are treated with dignity, they're properly heard and accountability means something practical in people's everyday lives. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My community is among the most affected by aircraft noise in Brisbane, with many Griffith residents experiencing significant disruption to their daily lives. While this legislation covers a range of issues, I'll focus my remarks on aircraft noise, what I learned before being elected to represent this community and what I have learned since.

Deputy Speaker, you may remember the former prime minister and former member for Griffith, the Hon. Kevin Rudd AC, who self-funded a campaign against the proposed parallel runway at Brisbane Airport more than 20 years ago. Kevin Rudd saw then what many in our community have seen since: aircraft noise has had and will continue to have a lasting impact on our community. In 1996, the former member for Griffith Kevin Rudd said:

My position is clear: a parallel runway would be an absolute disaster for the quality of life for all residents on the south side. It would simply double the traffic volume. It would simply create for us an unmanageable problem in terms of noise minimisation.

In his autobiography, Kevin Rudd reflects on this period and the lengths he went to in challenging the Howard coalition government's decision to approve this parallel runway.

Anyone who knows Kevin knows that he can be a determined person when he sets his mind to a task, and on Brisbane Airport he set about organising the biggest community campaign our part of Brisbane has ever seen. There were hundreds of thousands of flyers, letter-writing campaigns, a public petition with 10,000 signatures, public meetings and rallies with nearly 5,000 locals coming along together to Bulimba Memorial Park to protest, all in a community not previously known for its political activism. In Canberra, he made more than 20 parliamentary statements and successfully secured a two-year Senate inquiry into the legality of the decision with hearings in Brisbane and Canberra and nearly 200 public submissions.

He took both the Australian government and the Brisbane Airport Corporation to court to overturn their decision to approve the runway. But, frustratingly, without sufficient consultation, Brisbane Airport's new parallel runway was approved by the Howard government in 2007. Fast forward 13 years, and the new parallel runway opened on 12 July 2020. Aircraft noise generated from the new flight paths following the opening of the new parallel runway has significantly impacted some residents and raised concerns about future operations and resultant noise as our population and the number of flight movements grow. It's an issue I'm very aware of. I have lived in Hawthorn and in Cannon Hill and now live in Norman Park, and I have close family in Bulimba, all under the flight paths. Indeed, the 9 pm Emirates departure shakes the tin roof of our Queenslander home each night.

I've been a member of the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance online community, the BFPCA, since 2020. The BFPCA's goal is to demand that best-practice design principles be applied to minimise noise pollution and adverse health impacts from Brisbane airports flight paths on Brisbane residents and businesses. In the almost 15,000 doors I knocked in the lead-up to the last election and all the ones that I have knocked since, I've heard firsthand about the impact flight noise has on people's children, their work, their sleep and their enjoyment of their outdoor spaces.

When doorknocking in 2020 for state member for Bulimba, Di Farmer, I remember I met one lady who had just moved to Brisbane from Sydney. She and her husband had bought their beautiful home sight unseen during COVID and had not been informed at all that their property would be so heavily impacted by aircraft noise. This lady now found her sleep interrupted and her work, which she tried to do from home, almost impossible. She told me how much her mental health was impacted and that she was now having to take medication to sleep and stabilise her mood. I will never forget how this woman cried on her front doorstep about the aircraft noise.

I knew that, in being elected the member for Griffith in 2025, I needed to ensure that voices of residents were heard and considered in decisions about Brisbane Airport and to listen, learn and advocate for practical action on aircraft noise. From when I was first endorsed as a candidate, I have made sure that I have been in regular contact with the Brisbane Airport Corporation, the minister and her office and our local representatives of the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board. It is very important to me that I continue to increase my knowledge of this complex issue so that I can continue to advocate strongly for our community's interests.

There is little doubt that the aviation industry, directly and indirectly, underpins many jobs and livelihoods critical for Brisbane and Queensland's trade and tourism. The year 2025 was the busiest on record, with 25 million passenger movements at Brisbane Airport, an increase on the previous year of 10.7 per cent for international flights and 3.2 per cent for domestic. In fact, Brisbane Airport is home to the most connected network in Australia, servicing over 62 domestic routes. In terms of employment, Brisbane Airport supports over 20,000 jobs across 600 businesses. By 2050, this number is expected to grow to over 55,000 jobs. Indeed, there are many aviation industry workers who live in my community of Griffith, many of whom I've had the fortune to meet and get insights from.

But the strength of the aviation sector cannot come at the expense of communities being left unheard. A strong aviation sector and a fair deal for residents should not be seen as competing goals. We should be able to hold both together. That means we can support a competitive, reliable and affordable aviation industry whilst also expecting airlines, airports, regulators and agencies to treat people fairly. This bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill, is part of that broader task. It paves the way for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter that will set minimum standards for airlines and airports. It establishes the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson to help resolve consumer complaints. It establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to monitor and enforce compliance. Crucially, for my community, it establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, the ANO, to review the management of aircraft noise.

The Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson cannot undo past decisions. It will not move a runway, stop every aircraft flying over a home or provide a simple solution to a complex problem. My community understands that. After countless conversations with residents, it's clear they are looking for understanding, accountability, transparency, a fair hearing and fair outcomes. This bill moves the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson from Airservices Australia to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, providing greater independence where Airservices Australia's own actions may be under review.

The ombudsperson will independently review aircraft noise complaints, examine how Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence manage those complaints, assess community consultation processes and the provision of aircraft noise information, and publish reports and recommendations for policy or regulatory change. For communities like mine, this is about trust. To be frank, there is some distance that needs to be travelled on that front. When residents take time to lodge a complaint, gather evidence, attend meetings, read technical documents or explain the impact on their household, they deserve a system that treats their concerns seriously.

I want to touch briefly on two aircraft noise mitigation measures that are especially relevant to communities living under Brisbane's flight paths. One of the contributing factors to aircraft noise for my community is that, when the second runway was approved, pilots were able to take off over the bay in tailwinds of up to 10 knots. However, by the time the runway was completed, this had been dropped to five knots, greatly limiting the number of flights that can go over the bay.

An 18-month tailwind trial commenced on 1 December last year at Brisbane Airport, a trial that I have been advocating for since my endorsement as a candidate. Within safety parameters supported by CASA, this trial allows pilots to request a tailwind departure from air traffic control during overnight hours between 10 pm and 6 am. Given we are now more than six months into this trial, many locals have commented to me about how low the number of requests from pilots for tailwind departures is. Many of us held a lot of hope that this trial would provide our community with some much-needed respite overnight.

I recently caught up with representatives from Brisbane Airport to find out why the pilot requests have been so low. They said that prevailing wind directions were a factor, and said:

When combined with recent wet weather conditions, participation in the trial to date has been relatively low and in line with our expectations.

They explained, 'During the upcoming winter months, prevailing winds are more commonly from the south, meaning aircraft would ordinarily depart over the city. In these conditions, and when operationally appropriate, they advised there is greater scope for pilots to request a tailwind departure.' They said, 'For these reasons, we anticipate an increase in participation in the trial during the winter period.' My community was hopeful that this trial would have a positive impact and provide some much-needed relief, and I can assure you that my community of Griffith will be watching.

I also wanted to mention simultaneous opposite-direction parallel-runway operations—SODPROPS. SODPROPS allows one runway to be used for departures over Moreton Bay while the parallel runway is used for arrivals over the bay, keeping more aircraft over water when conditions allow. On 18 September 2024, the minister directed Airservices Australia to maximise SODPROPS whenever it is safe and operationally feasible, recognising the impact of aircraft noise across more than 220 Greater Brisbane suburbs. The latest data shows its potential but also its limits. In May 2026, weather meant SODPROPS was unavailable for 340 of 384 priority hours. During the 43 hours it was available, it was used 53 per cent of the time, with additional flights processed outside priority hours and during transition periods. Safety remains paramount. SODPROPS can only be used when weather, visibility, runway and traffic conditions allow. I will continue to monitor the operation's data and implementation of the ministerial direction to ensure SODPROPS is being used to its fullest extent whenever conditions allow and to assess whether it is delivering meaningful noise relief for our community.

The difficulty with aircraft noise policy is that small gains can be overwhelmed if overall flight movements continue to rise. That is why my community is right to look closely at the practical effect of each measure. It is not enough for a policy to sound good in theory; it has to be measured against what people experience in their homes.

If SODPROPS is used more often, people should be able to hear the impact from their lounge room. If overwater operations are prioritised, people should be able to hear the result on their back deck. If a change is described as noise-sharing, people should be able to understand who receives relief, who receives more noise and whether the overall burden is actually reduced. I continue to support measures that provide genuine respite. I will also continue to be honest when the measure does not go far enough or does not deliver the relief that was anticipated.

I'd like to take this opportunity, very quickly, to pay my thanks to one of our community champions, David Diamond—'DD'—for his work and fierce advocacy in our community on these issues. He has been a tireless advocate, an ever persistent presence and a force for driving action, serving as the initial Chair of the BFPCA. He recently shared, in an article in InDaily:

If you live in a Queenslander, with a tin roof and an open deck, it's a lot of noise—

from the aircraft—

You have to live inside and shut the door … Most of the community are not against aviation—and I will never be … (but) we can have flights going overhead every three minutes without proper consultation and accurate flightpath proposals and reporting.

David's been a strong advocate in our community. He recently stepped down from the AAB after many years, and I want to thank him for his service.

This bill is a step forward to a fairer aviation system for my community. For passengers, it means clearer protections and stronger accountability, and for communities like mine, who are impacted by aircraft noise, it means a stronger and more independent pathway for review. But I also want to be clear about what I will be looking for as this reform is implemented. I want the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson to be accessible to everyday people and ensure residents know where to go, what steps to take and what information to provide. I want complaints data and systematic issues to be taken seriously. I want reports and recommendations to be written in plain language wherever possible to ensure impacts on my community aren't hidden by jargon. We've had a gutful of unreadable materials from relevant authorities. I want community consultation to be reviewed against the lived experience of residents, not only against whether a meeting was held or a document was uploaded. I want communities like Griffith to know that, when they raise concerns about aircraft noise, those concerns can lead to scrutiny and action.

I would like to thank all of the community members who regularly meet with me to discuss the impacts of aircraft noise. They undertake this advocacy because they want to protect the liveability of our neighbourhoods. This is always so helpful in my advocacy within government, with Airservices Australia and with the Brisbane Airport Corporation. I want to assure my community that I am continuously working within government and with other stakeholders to clearly communicate our community's frustrations with aircraft noise and other impacts.

Aviation is vital to Queensland's economy. Brisbane Airport supports thousands of local jobs, including a significant proportion in my electorate of Griffith. It connects families and businesses, underpins tourism and trade and will only become more important as our population grows. But the success of our aviation sector should not come at the expense of the communities that live beneath its flight paths. I see it as my job to determine where there are genuine and achievable opportunities for respite and improvement, given the disappointing placement of the runways and the growing aircraft traffic coming in and out of the airport.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill will not solve every problem facing communities under flight paths. I won't pretend that it will, but it does recognise that aviation must work better for people. I will keep working with residents across Griffith, community advocates, the minister and her department, Brisbane Airport and Airservices Australia and support the work of the independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, once established, to pursue practical, genuine and achievable improvements for our community. Our community understands that aviation is an important, essential part of Brisbane's future, but that future must be planned with our communities. It must be honest about impacts, responsive to evidence and never forget the families, workers, children and older residents whose daily lives are shaped by the decisions made in this place and by the agencies we empower to act. That is the fairer aviation system I will continue to fight for.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) | Link to this | Hansard source

We've all received the text message prior to a flight, 'Your flight has been cancelled,' or, 'Your flight has been delayed.' On some routes, it's almost expected that the flight will be delayed. What used to be an occasional inconvenience has, for many travellers, become a routine part of flying in Australia. It has an effect on people's lives and their businesses. It disrupts family plans, work commitments, medical appointments and important moments people simply can't afford to miss. The inconvenience is real, and it's felt across the country.

We all know that these disruptions can result in the abuse of staff from frustrated flyers. Airline workers, the people checking bags or assisting at gates, trying to do their best to help, often bear the brunt of the anger for decisions that they're not responsible for. They deserve better. Travellers deserve better, and the system itself needs to work better. Right now there is little sanction or downside for airlines when flights are delayed or cancelled without adequate explanation or support. The system is tilted in favour of the airline, not the passenger. For too long, consumers have been left with uncertainty, long waits for refunds and limited avenues for recourse when services fall short. People feel powerless in situations where they should have a clear right and clear protections.

Our government is rectifying this with new reforms designed to provide more balance and more rights for passengers. These reforms recognise that aviation is not just a commercial service; it's an essential part of how Australians live, work and stay connected. When flights are unreliable, when information is unclear or when passengers are left stranded, the impact is felt far beyond the airport terminal. The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 is about addressing these longstanding issues. It's about ensuring that consumers and passengers are treated fairly. It's about ensuring that airlines meet their obligations and that passengers have enforceable rights when things go wrong. It's about shifting the system from one where inconvenience is accepted as inevitable to one where accountability is expected and delivered. And it's about restoring confidence in an industry that millions of Australians rely on every day.

The Albanese government is delivering an Australian-first aviation consumer protection package, and today we're introducing this package into the parliament. These reforms are long overdue. For years, passengers have been left without clear rights, without timely remedies and without a system that genuinely puts consumers first. The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill changes that. It reshapes the way travellers interact with the aviation industry. It provides the protections that they need when things go wrong, and it does so while supporting an affordable and competitive aviation sector.

The new Aviation Consumer Protection Framework will set clear consumer standards for services provided by airports and airlines. It will assist travellers to resolve complaints, including those related to flight delays, cancellations, baggage issues, accessibility services and other disruptions that have become far too common. The framework recognises that aviation is essential infrastructure. When flights are delayed or cancelled, the consequences ripple through people's lives. Passengers deserve certainty and fairness.

In developing these reforms, the government has undertaken extensive consultation with the industry, consumer groups and the public, and we've listened carefully to travellers who feel powerless when things go wrong. We've listened to industry stakeholders who want a fair system and want consistent and sustainable rules. We've listened to consumer advocates who, for too long, have urged that Australia needed to take stronger protections. Our legislation strikes the right balance between meaningful protections for passengers and a competitive, sustainable aviation sector.

The recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated how a global crisis can impact us domestically. They led to flight disruptions and uncertainty for Australian travellers. We've seen passengers unsure of what to do next. We've seen passengers unsure of what recourse is available when flights are cancelled or delayed. This is why this legislation is so important. It ensures that, when global events disrupt travel, Australians have clear rights, they have clear information and they have clear avenues for assistance.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill creates the legal foundation for the entire framework. It does four major things. It enables the creation of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. The charter will set minimum standards for airline, airport and accessibility services. The charter will be developed through regulation and ensures flexibility as the industry evolves. It provides for systemic monitoring, compliance and enforcement of those standards. This will be done by the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. The ACPA will be established within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts. The ACPA will investigate systemic issues, it will enforce the charter and it will ensure airlines and airports meet their obligations.

The bill enables the authorisation of an external dispute resolution scheme. The scheme will be known as the Aviation Consumer Ombuds Scheme. The ACOS will be operated by an independent not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. For the first time, passengers will have access to impartial, accessible and fair aviation-specific complaint-handling services. The current system of self-regulation has not delivered effective complaint resolutions. The ACOS will change that.

It also establishes an aircraft noise ombudsman, and, the electorate that I represent, Kingsford Smith—which has Australia's busiest and largest airport in it—this is a welcome development for local residents. This ensures independence from Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. The ANO will review how aircraft noise complaints are managed, the ANO will assess community consultation processes and the ANO will publish independent reports and make recommendations for policy and regulatory change.

In addition, the reform package includes three other bills: the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill; and the Aviation Protection Levy Bill and the Consumer Protection Levy Bill, which will impose and collect levies.

This bill ensures proportionality. It avoids unintended consequences. These bills create the legal foundation for the framework. The charter will set out the minimum standards that aviation consumers can expect, and the charter will be enforced by the ACPA. The government will work closely with stakeholders in the establishment of the ACOS, and the legislation provides the responsible minister with the powers to exempt entities from the framework. It also allows the government to balance consumer benefits and regulatory impacts.

Under subordinate legislation, the government intends to exempt airports with fewer than one million passengers per year. This means the framework will apply to the largest 14 airports in Australia, and that will include the new Western Sydney international airport. Together, those airports capture around 93 per cent of all passenger movements. Exempting smaller airports recognises their role as critical community infrastructure. It recognises their limited financial and operational capacity. The cost impacts on airlines and airports will be kept as low as practical. The subordinate legislation includes the charter and the regulations supporting industry levies.

The government wants consumer protections to focus on fair remedies and support. This includes prompt rebookings, it includes access to food and accommodation and it includes timely refunds. International experience shows that fixed compensation schemes often lead to higher airfares; they don't improve standards. However, if airlines and airports do not raise their standards, the government may consider further action, and it now has the powers through the ombudsman and the ACPA to enforce those standards. However, if airlines and airports don't raise their standards, the government can consider further action.

This legislation is about fairness, about accountability and about restoring confidence in Australia's aviation industry. It's about ensuring that every traveller, no matter where they live or why or when they fly, is treated with dignity and respect.

Rebecca White (Lyons, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026. As a member who has a flight path over my own electorate, Lyons, I've received representations from members of my community about concerns they have with noise, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been the place where they've taken those concerns. There's been consultation undertaken in Tasmania, as recently as in the last six months, regarding the current flight path going into and out of Hobart airport, which raised the issue in my community, and some proposals for alternative flight paths were consulted on with the community at the time.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority have recently provided feedback to the community about how they intend to deal with the consultation that was undertaken—that is, to make no changes to the flight path. This has upset many members of my community who participated in good faith in the consultation, particularly in relation to noise and other concerns they had about the frequency of planes flying over them. I have only recently been made aware of these findings by CASA. The legislation that we're debating today is about making sure that there are appropriate places for people to raise their complaints and do that in a way that is independent to how they're currently dealt with through CASA. My community will welcome this. They have participated in good faith in consultation that's been underway over a period of about seven years now and have felt, at times, that they've been listened to and, at other times, that they haven't been properly heard. I will be communicating back to my community, once this legislation is dealt with by this parliament, about the new ways they will be able to raise their concerns with the ombudsperson and have their legitimate worries about noise—as well as other issues relating to pollution that they feel are warranted and that, at this point in time, they feel haven't been properly dealt with—heard.

As an island state, Tasmania relies very heavily on airports and other ports, both for passenger traffic and for goods and some services coming into and going out of our state. I'm very supportive of the essential provision of air services into and out of Tasmania, so I want to make it very clear that when I raise these matters on behalf of my community I am not making derogatory remarks about the importance of our air services. Indeed, they are essential, given our island nature. We are very fortunate to have a number of airports across the state that service remote communities as well as our major centres, and it's important that, when they are considering, in particular, the flight paths that are agreed upon, they consider community feedback and make sure that they are appropriately listening to concerns that people have.

This legislation is about strengthening the way that community voices can be heard and making sure that their representations can be appropriately be dealt with. I congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation forward.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly support the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, a bill about something simple and important: fairness for Australian travellers. When Australians buy a plane ticket, they're not buying a maybe, they're not buying a gamble, they're not buying the right to be left waiting at a gate, stranded in an airport, chasing a refund or wondering whether promised assistance will arrive. They're buying a service, and they deserve to be treated with respect when that service is disrupted. That is the simple principle at the heart of this bill. When things go wrong, passengers should not be left powerless, confused or out of pocket. They should receive clear information, reasonable assistance, fair treatment and access to proper complaint pathways.

Aviation is not just about planes and airports; it's about connection. It's about opportunity. It's about social cohesion. It keeps families connected, workers employed, businesses moving and people present for weddings, funerals, medical appointments and long-planned trips. Above all, this bill says that, when Australians buy a ticket, they should not be buying uncertainty; they should be buying confidence.

Now, we all understand that things can go wrong in aviation. Weather events happen. They did this week in Melbourne with some fog. Safety must always come first, and operational issues can arise. No responsible government can promise that every flight will leave on time every time. What a responsible government can do, however, is make sure that, when things do go wrong, passengers are treated fairly, receive clear information, understand their rights and options and have access to an independent complaints process. The current system has not been good enough. We've heard Australians.

Industry was given the opportunity to develop an effective complaint mechanism, but the 2024 Aviation white paper concluded that the industry-led Airline Customer Advocate had not delivered an effective or trusted complaint resolution mechanism. Too often, passengers are directed to online forms, long call queues, confusing terms and conditions or travel credits they did not ask for. Too often, people are left to work out their rights when they are most stressed and least able to deal with the problem. That is not fair for families travelling with children, older Australians, people with disability, workers who rely on flights or passengers who have saved carefully for a trip and cannot afford unexpected costs. A fair system should not require passengers to be persistent, to be lucky or to be legally trained just to receive basic assistance. This bill puts a simple standard into law: treat passengers fairly, communicate clearly and be accountable when things go wrong.

This bill establishes a comprehensive aviation consumer protection framework to improve the aviation travel experience for consumers, including travelling with airlines and accessing airport services. The first key part of the bill is the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, which will set minimum standards covering matters such as information and assistance, delays, cancellation, disruption, refunds, baggage accessibility services, complaint handling and dispute resolution. These standards will not just be words on paper. The charter will be enforceable, and regulated entities that fail to comply may face civil penalties. Rights only matter when they can be enforced.

The bill also protects the integrity of the complaints process by prohibiting victimisation connected with making a complaint. Passengers should be able to raise concerns without fear of being punished, threatened or disadvantaged for speaking up. The bill establishes the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson to resolve individual consumer complaints and the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to monitor compliance with the charter and enforce obligations under the framework. The bill also establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson to provide independent review of aircraft noise complaint handling by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. Together, these reforms create a practical and balanced framework. This bill does not replace Australian consumer law. It creates an aviation-specific framework that sits alongside existing consumer protections and responds to the particular realities of air travel. That is the right approach. When a flight is cancelled, baggage is lost, a passenger with disability is not assisted or a family is stranded overnight, the cost is immediate and personal.

In my electorate of Lalor, this reform will make a practical difference because air travel is part of life for so many households. Families in Werribee, Hoppers Crossing, Tarneit, Truganina, Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and Manwaring use Melbourne and Avalon Airport to travel interstate and overseas. Lalor is a diverse mix of old and young, metropolis and farmland, rivers and bays, and established and growing and multicultural communities. Many families have loved ones interstate and overseas and travel to visit parents, grandparents, children and extended family. Many people also fly into Victoria to visit family and friends in Lalor. They come to stay with children and grandchildren; attend weddings, funerals and religious celebrations; support loved ones during illness; help care for family; and be part of important moments in our community. People also travel to Lalor for work, conferences, accommodation, tourism and local events, including meetings, functions and visits to places such as the Werribee Park precinct. When flights are delayed or cancelled, that can affect not only the passenger but also local businesses, venues and families waiting for them.

For those families, visitors and travellers, flight disruptions are not hypothetical issues. A delayed or cancelled flight can mean missing a connecting flight. It could be a connecting flight overseas. You could miss a family funeral, miss a wedding, miss a shift at work, miss a medical appointment or arrive too late for the moment you came for. In a community like the one I represent, aviation is not just about leaving home; it is also about people being able to come home, come back and come together. For households already managing budgets, these costs matter. People in Lalor and the visitors and loved ones who come should not need a law degree to understand what they are entitled to when a flight is cancelled. They should not have to spend weeks chasing a refund or fight to be treated with basic respect.

Looking at a practical example, a family from Tarneit might book flights to Queensland during the school holidays. If that flight is cancelled, they should not be left guessing whether they are entitled to meals, when they'll be rebooked or whether they should go home, book accommodation or stand in another queue. A worker from Hoppers Crossing might book a flight for a work commitment interstate. If that flight is cancelled for reasons within the airline's control, that worker should not be forced to accept a travel credit if what they need is their money back. A refund should be a real refund.

An older resident from Werribee might need mobility assistance at the airport. They should not be left uncertain about how to access that assistance, forced to tell their story over and over again or left at a gate without the help they were promised. Accessibility is not an optional extra; it is part of a fair, modern and respectful aviation system. A person from Wyndham Vale might arrive at their destination and find that their baggage has not arrived. It might contain work clothes, medication, cultural clothing or a child's essential items needed for a wedding or funeral. Passengers should know what support is available and how to escalate the matter.

One of the strengths of this bill is that it recognises the whole passenger journey: booking assistance, rescheduling, cancellations, check-in, baggage handling, boarding, seating, onboard service, accessibility assistance, disembarking and lost property. Passengers do not see a neat separation between the airline, the airport, the contractor and the service provider. They bought a service, and they expect that service to be delivered properly. Accountability cannot disappear into the cracks between the airline, the airport and the contractors.

One of the most important features of this bill is the Independent Aviation Consumer Ombudsman. The previous Airline Customer Advocate was criticised for limited powers, incomplete coverage and perceived lack of independence. A complaints process should not feel like another part of the problem; it should be part of the solution. The ombudsperson will be able to investigate complaints, request information, facilitate conciliation and, where needed, make a determination. Complainants will not be charged a fee simply to have their complaint heard. The Aviation Consumer Protection Authority will focus on systemic monitoring, compliance and enforcement because, as I say so often in this place, we measure the things we care about, and my community cares about this when they travel. Individual complaints can help reveal broader patterns, including poor communication, poor treatment of passengers with a disability, failures around refunds or repeated baggage problems.

The evidence shows why these reforms are needed. More than half of the flying public experienced a flight disruption in a 12-month period. Only around a third were satisfied with how their disruption was handled, 82 per cent said they did not receive support and 81 per cent said they were not informed of their rights. 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 and 79 per cent of Australians reported knowing little or nothing about their consumer rights when travelling by air. For the year ending 31 December 2025, domestic on-time performance averaged 76.9 per cent for arrivals and 77.7 per cent for departures, while the cancellation rate was 2.5 per cent.

This bill responds to evidence, not to theory. The government's priority here is to lift the standard of the passenger air travel experience in Australia. The issue of financial compensation has been considered, but there is a need to balance fast remedies for affected customers with avoiding options that add costs that flow through to the ticket price. At this stage, consistent with the Aviation white paper, airlines will not be required to provide monetary compensation for flight cancellations, significant delays or disruptions.

However, passengers are not left with nothing. The proposed scheme seeks to ensure airlines cover reasonable consequential costs, including meals, transport and overnight accommodation, where the service has not been provided for. For a local family stranded overnight, that matters. A meal voucher matters. Transport matters. Accommodation matters. Clear communication and a prompt refund matter, because household budgets are already under pressure.

The government intends, under subordinate legislation, to exempt airports receiving fewer than one million passengers per year. This means the framework would apply to Australia's 14 largest airports and Western Sydney airport, capturing 93 per cent of passenger movements. This is targeted, practical reform.

I welcomed the establishment of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, which will review the handling of aircraft noise complaints by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. Moving this function away from Airservices Australia also helps address concerns about perceived conflicts of interest.

This bill builds on the work of the Albanese Labor government. It builds on the work we've already done in aviation, including the white paper, new laws to boost competition at Sydney Airport, the draft passenger charter of rights and reinstated ACCC monitoring of the airlines. Now we are delivering Australian-first aviation consumer protections. These protections will clarify airline obligations and the minimum level of assistance required when a scheduled flight is disrupted.

When Australians buy a plane ticket, they are not buying a maybe. They're not buying a gamble. They're not buying the right to be left waiting at the gate or stranded at an airport, chasing a refund or wondering when the promised assistance will arrive. They're buying a service, and they deserve to be treated with respect when that service is disrupted. That is what this bill delivers. It says passengers should not be left powerless. It says families should not be left stranded without answers. It says people with disabilities should not be left wondering whether assistance will arrive. It says complaints should not disappear into a corporate inbox with no clear outcomes.

Aviation is about movement, but this bill is about trust. It is about making sure the systems that move Australians across the country and around the world also treat Australians with fairness, dignity and respect. Aviation connects families, communities and economies, but connection has to come with accountability. Service must come with standards, and when those standards are not met, passengers must have rights, remedies and a real pathway to be heard. Above all, this bill says that when Australians buy a ticket, they should not be buying uncertainty. They should be buying confidence. This bill is about confidence, fairness and accountability in an aviation sector Australians rely on every day.

I want to give a shout-out to all the people in my community who use our air services, which is many a day at both Avalon and Melbourne airports. Of course, many of my locals work at those airports as well. This bill is about making sure that when Australians are travelling, they can feel confident in the services they have and they can feel confident that, when things go wrong, they won't be left stranded at that airport gate.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia has an unusual aviation market. A population our size is thought by many experts to be able to support about three airlines, and we do have three airlines. The problem is that two of them are owned by the same company: the Qantas group. That means that the Qantas group and Virgin have 98.5 per cent of the market. The top two players having 98.5 per cent of the market means that industries like banking and telecommunications look pretty competitive by comparison.

This is one of the most concentrated industries in Australia. Most regional routes are monopolies and, as work carried out by the competition taskforce in Treasury by Omer Majeed in conjunction with Robert Breunig at the Australian National University has shown, there is a strong relationship between the lack of competition and the prices that flyers pay. When one airline services a route, they find, airfares average 39.6c a kilometre. When two airlines compete, the average fare drops to 28.2c per kilometre. With three competitors, it drops to 19.2c. In other words, if you've got a route where there are three competitors, flyers are paying about half the price per kilometre that they pay over a monopoly route. Even the threat of competition, researchers have found, brings down lower prices.

Australia's aviation history points to the same pattern. Before the Second World War, more than a dozen airlines operated in Australia, and our aviation volume in that period was among the highest in the world. But, from the fifties to the 1980s, a duopoly prevailed and kept prices high. Only with the deregulation of aviation in the late 1980s did flying become affordable for many middle-class families and small-business people. It's still not competitive enough. Many residents of Darwin have noted that it is sometimes cheaper to fly from Darwin to Singapore—a longer, international flight—than it is to fly the domestic flight from Darwin to Sydney. Where we see a high degree of market concentration, we often see problems for consumers. As the assistant minister responsible for competition, I'm keenly interested in the way in which our competition and consumer reforms interact.

As a Canberra representative, I also have been keeping a keen eye on the cancellation rate of the Sydney-to-Canberra flights. For a period, that was the most cancelled route in Australia. In the most recent data, for May 2026, five per cent of those flights were cancelled, making it the fourth-most-cancelled route in Australia. That's an improvement, but there is still a way to go.

In December last year, according to data presented by the transport minister in her second reading speech, over a quarter of domestic flights were delayed on arrival and delayed on departure. While there's been an improvement in on-time performance since the COVID pandemic, there is a need to better protect aviation consumers.

This is hardly an isolated issue. Research from the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government shows that more than half of all Australians travel by air in any given year, and about half of those travellers experience a flight disruption. How do people feel when they experience a flight disruption? Well, only a third of those travellers were satisfied with how their disruptions were handled. Australians with disabilities, medical conditions or injuries, who account for about a quarter of air passengers, report even lower levels of satisfaction as to how their disruptions are handled.

That's why the government is putting in place a more coherent aviation consumer protection framework and putting in place aviation consumer protections that clarify airline obligations and the minimum level of assistance required when a scheduled flight is disrupted. Our bill will establish the independent Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson to assist in resolving complaints, will pave the way for an aviation consumer protections charter that sets out the minimum standards that aviation consumers can expect from airlines and airports, will establish the aviation consumer protection authority and will establish an aircraft noise ombudsperson. We know that the current system of airlines policing themselves has not worked, and our reforms represent an unprecedented increase in protections for Australian travellers.

At the outset, I mentioned that the airline industry is highly concentrated, but that's not the only part of the aviation ecosystem that is concentrated. Our airports in most cities operate as monopolies. Where there is a second airport, such as the airport in Geelong, it provides relatively little competitive pressure to the major airports. The exception to this is going to be Western Sydney International Airport, which we are proud to support and which will provide, when it opens in October, a huge improvement to the degree of competition in Australia's largest city. Labor believes in competition; Labor believes in looking after consumers, and this bill and the government's reforms do both.

This bill is based on work carried out in the Aviation white paper: towards 2050, which is a series of 56 policies that set the direction for the aviation industry to give passengers a better deal and enhance competition while ensuring the aviation sector maintains Australia's strong safety record. People who are nervous about flying can often be reminded that the most dangerous part of any trip is the drive to the airport, not the flight itself, thanks to the hard work that has been done by the aviation sector to maintain high safety standards.

This work, drawing out of the white paper, is supported by feedback from consumers, consumer advocacy groups and fair trading regulators who've told us in recent years that the domestic airline industry has demonstrated poor customer service and decreasing service quality and that the industry led body the ACA, the Airline Customer Advocate, has been ineffective at resolving disputes. The experts have advised us that what we need to do is put in consumer pathways that, unlike the current processes, are clear and do not vary in their effectiveness.

By putting in place the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, we will establish minimum standards that consumers can expect from airlines and airports. They will be able to seek redress through the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson if they are dissatisfied with the way in which an airline or an airport operator has managed their complaints. The charter will create obligations for airlines and airports. It will support greater public transparency and accountability through facilitating the reporting and publication of reasons for flight delays, cancellations and disruption to the department and consumers respectively.

That ensures that, in instances in which unavoidable fog delays are causing problems, consumers know and can distinguish that from instances in which a plane is simply taken out of service in order to assist on another route or two flights are combined in order to boost the revenue of the airline. This was apparently one of the causes for the very high degree of cancellations of Sydney-Canberra flights, which hit a high of one in eight flights a couple of years ago. Apparently, what was happening was that, largely, Qantas was choosing to use the planes flying from Sydney to Canberra as fill-ins for regional flights out of Sydney when those planes experienced mechanical problems.

Flyers between Sydney and Canberra shouldn't be put in the position of feeling that, if you buy a ticket between Sydney and Canberra, you're buying an option for the airline to fly you in the event that enough other passengers also want to fly at that time. People deserve certainty, in particular, when they're flying for important business meetings; for family commitments such as funerals, weddings or birthdays; or for other important personal reasons. The certainty of the flying public will be improved as a result of the reforms in this bill.

This bill will put in place an ability for the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson to carry out independent reviews of Airservices Australia's and Defence's management of aircraft noise related activities. It will improve outcomes for consumers, and it will ensure that the aviation sector is accountable for the services they offer and is focused on aviation consumers. This bill will apply to airports that receive more than a million passengers a year. This means that it'll apply to Australia's 14 largest airports and Western Sydney airport and will capture 93 per cent of passenger movements through Australian airports. That means that small airports—which are commonly council owned or in regional, rural and remote Australia—are not subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as the larger, more commercial airports. This will be important in reducing the uncertainty that the flying public faces and improving the knowledge of rights that the flying public has.

In a highly concentrated sector, it is appropriate that we put in place stronger consumer safeguards. Labor's consumer focused reforms have indeed, in many cases, focused on highly concentrated sectors. On Saturday, I stood up in Dickson, in front of Coles and Woolworths, to remind people that, on 1 July, Labor's supermarket price gouging laws come into effect. That applies to the biggest two supermarkets which, between them, have two-thirds of the market. As they say in Spider-Man, 'With great power comes great responsibility,' and, in concentrated sectors, we do need to be holding those major players to account.

Textbook economics since Adam Smith has taught us that monopolies and oligopolies have a propensity to raise prices beyond a reasonable profit margin plus the cost of supply. It teaches us that there is a risk to consumers where sectors are highly concentrated. That is why we have increased penalties for anticompetitive and anticonsumer conduct, from a maximum dollar figure of $10 million when we came into office to now, a maximum dollar figure of $100 million. It's why we're cracking down on shrinkflation through a review of the unit pricing code of conduct. It's why we've put in place the mandatory food and grocery code, which implements multimillion-dollar penalties on supermarkets who do the wrong thing by their suppliers, replacing the toothless, voluntary code that existed under the former coalition government with a food and grocery code that properly protects farmers.

It's why we have been so passionate about the National Competition Policy, now revamped by the Treasurer's leadership with a $900 billion productivity fund, engaging the states and territories on those pro-competition reforms. These are reforms that, in the 1990s, saw a huge increase in productivity, delivering thousands of dollars into the household budgets of the typical Australian household. Labor's productivity-boosting competition reforms will do so again, and the modelling for Treasury suggests that the benefit to Australian consumers is extremely high.

From 1 January 2027, Labor is scrapping non-compete clauses for nine out of 10 workers, making it easier for a worker to move to a better job. For a government that's passionate about competition policy, a non-compete clause is like a red rag to a bull. We want to get rid of these clauses because they're gumming up the Australian economy, making it harder for startups to get off the ground and harder for early-childhood workers, security guards and disability support workers to move to better jobs.

Labor's merger reforms, which kicked in from 1 January this year, were the biggest shake-up to our merger laws in some 50 years, recognising the value of careful merger scrutiny but also the value to business of getting quick approvals for low-risk mergers—more attention on the high-risk mergers and less attention on the low-risk mergers. Allow them to go through in the interest of productivity and focus on the ones that are going to have the biggest competition risk. Labor's passion for consumer reform and competition reform is reflected in this bill, which looks after aviation consumers. I commend it to the House.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an honour to speak following the assistant minister, someone who's so passionate about consumer protection. I congratulate him and all the work he's done in advocating within government for stronger protections for consumers not only here in this bill but in all the ways he just told the House.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a consumer champion.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a consumer champion. That's exactly right. What we're seeing right now with the war in the Middle East is how disruption and uncertainty with air travel has impacted travellers, family members, backpackers and people just flying abroad. But we've seen this uncertainty before. The ramifications from the impact that COVID had on the country's borders, the number of aeroplanes that were actually in the sky and fuel supply chains are still being felt today and, of course, are now being accentuated by conflict in the Middle East. Global uncertainty like this has an impact. We learned during COVID that there were many questionable practices from airlines. There were changes in their conduct. There was poor communication to travellers, and there was potential anti-competitive behaviour. These experiences have shown us that it's hugely important that travellers have increased protections when they travel but also a clear understanding of what they're entitled to. For over a decade under the previous coalition government, things stagnated. Consumer protections waned, and too many people were ripped off. It's staggering that over half of the flying public have experienced a flight disruption in a 12-month period and only a third of those were satisfied with how it was handled.

Here are some more stats from the same survey done by BETA: eighty-two per cent said they did not receive any support when they experienced an airline disruption, and 81 per cent also said that they were not informed of their rights as consumers when these disruptions occurred. That's not to say that delays are always the fault of an airline. Obviously, they're quite common, and they happen for a whole heap of reasons. Air travel is a complex industry with so many factors at play, and sometimes delays are inevitable. But what it does tell us is that consumer rights and their knowledge of them is at a low, with a whopping 79 per cent of Australians surveyed reporting that they know either nothing or only a little bit about their rights when they're travelling by air. The point of this legislation is to change that. We need to lift the standards of the passenger air travel experience in Australia.

So what we have here is a big package of bills. We've got the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill and the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill. There's quite a bit in there, but it shows the complexity in our current system and outlines the level at which this government is committed to giving all air travellers a fair go and providing transparency to them when travelling. Importantly, this package of bills will hold the aviation industry accountable. It will deliver better outcomes for consumers and will deliver on our commitment to improve aviation consumer protection. This package of bills puts the onus on airlines and airports to treat customers in a fair and reasonable manner when delays inevitably occur.

Let's start from the top. The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill will enable the creation of an aviation consumer protections charter, which will set minimum standards for the provision of airline, airport and accessibility services for aviation consumers, with the charter itself to be developed through regulation following the passage of this legislation through parliament. As well as this, the bill will provide for systemic monitoring, compliance and enforcement of those standards by the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. This will be established within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. Next, it will enable the authorisation of an external dispute resolution scheme. This will handle any and all aviation related complaints and be operated, importantly, by an independent not-for-profit. This scheme will be known as the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson. The bill will also establish the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, shortened to the ANO, within the same department. This will ensure that the ANO is independent of both Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. This is important because it will review the management of aircraft noise complaints by Airservices Australia and the department.

As mentioned, three additional bills are included in this package which are needed to implement these reforms. The Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill, together with the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill, will provide the necessary imposition and collection of levies to cost-recover the administration expenses associated with the ACP Bill. And the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 will manage the transitional provisions of the bill, such as clarifying that a breach of a standard in the charter by an airline will not result in the cancellation of a licence under the Air Navigation Act. That's all quite a lot to cover, so in short we'll be establishing a charter to ensure airlines and airports meet the standards customers expect; on top of that, two separate ombudspersons will help with aviation complaints handling and aircraft noise complaints handling; and obviously there'll be a manner to fund these reforms. Like all our legislation, this was carefully thought through. The government has undertaken extensive consultation on the development of these bills and this policy to make sure it's right.

In August 2024, one such consultation undertaken by the government was through the important Aviation white paper, which received more than 2,000 submissions and convened 22 roundtables across Australia. These consultation processes are incredibly important because they help the government form the development of this framework. We would not have been able to design this scheme or the charter without these initial consultations, so a level of gratitude needs to be given to those in the industry and, importantly, to the consumer stakeholders who have assisted in this process, including Airlines for Australia and New Zealand; the Regional Aviation Association of Australia; the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia; the International Air Transport Association; Qantas and Virgin; the Australian Airports Association; the Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney airports; the Australian Lawyers Alliance; CHOICE; and the Justice and Equity Centre. My point, though, is that when we develop important reforms like this we listen and engage constructively. We meet with industry, we meet with consumers and we encourage direct feedback from our local communities, and further engagement is ongoing. There has been an extensive number of briefings, information sessions and workshops in the lead-up to this bill coming before parliament today.

I want to mention a constituent of mine in Bennelong. Edilia Ford wrote to me in January this year not only about an episode she went through a few years ago in particular but also in regard to these important reforms. In 2020, Edilia and her husband had plans to travel internationally. Sadly, due to COVID, their trip had to be cut short. On their departure day, despite Italy declaring a lockdown, the travel company they used advised them the tour was proceeding and to board the flight, and the only way they could avoid losing their $7,600 tour payment was to board the flight. Of course, immediately upon landing in Budapest, they were told their trip was cancelled, and because the booking company held the airline authority they couldn't change their original return flights, so they opted to book their own flights home. I'd make the case that this was the right thing for them to do. It was an uncertain time, and a once-in-a-generation pandemic had just started.

However, following their cancellation and their new plans, they were entangled in a five-year struggle to recover their money. The booking company refused to cash refund; instead it offered a partial refund that could only be used for international travel. Given they had no plans to travel, they ended up losing this credit. Edilia had sought remedy through organisations such as the NCAT and the ACCC, but the solutions provided by these agencies weren't enough. It was clear that consumer laws needed to be changed. It's not fair for air travel customers to be trapped in a responsibility loop, with blame being deflected between airlines, hotels and booking companies. It's because of stories like Edilia's that we are putting these important reforms in place. They will hopefully reshape the way consumers interact with the aviation industry. They'll provide better booking information, provide clarity if things go wrong and afford consumers more protections if that happens.

These are the most significant reforms to the aviation sector in more than a decade. As mentioned, we released the Aviation white paper, passed new laws to boost competition at Sydney airport, released our draft passenger charter of rights and reinstated ACCC monitoring of the airlines. Now we're delivering the Australian-first aviation consumer protections that will clarify airline obligations and the minimum level of assistance required when there is flight disruption. This framework strikes the right balance. We need to balance supporting air travellers and passengers with sensible standards while also ensuring that airlines are still operationally feasible. A strong and competitive aviation sector is fundamental to growing Australia's economy and support regional connectivity, which is why this balance between standards for passengers and the aviation industry operations is so important to get right.

The current system of airlines policing themselves has not worked as well as it should have. These reforms represent a necessary increase in protections for Australian travellers. We'll continue to consult with airlines and airports of the development of any subordinate legislation and regulation and the final form of the charter, ensuring that they'll all be ready to implement these important standards. I commend this bill to the House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill. This suite of legislation represents the most significant reform to aviation consumer rights in our nation's history. Reliable air services give local businesses the confidence to grow. They attract visitors and improve access to education, health care and employment opportunities. In my electorate of Richmond on the beautiful North Coast of New South Wales, we're very fortunate to be serviced by both the Gold Coast Airport and the Ballina Byron Gateway Airport, essential economic assets that support the prosperity of our local communities.

Gold Coast Airport serves as a major international and domestic gateway on our northern border, the border with Queensland. It is the country's sixth busiest airport, welcoming more than 6.2 million passengers a year and contributing $514 million to the local economy. I'm advised that the economic contribution of the airport is expected to reach more than $965 million by 2044. The Ballina Byron Gateway Airport is the third largest airport in New South Wales and provides critical regional connectivity for the Northern Rivers. More than 550,000 passengers travel through the airport each year to our region. These airports' continued success supports local businesses, tourism and local jobs and attracts investment and helps ensure our region remains a vibrant place to live, work and visit.

Together, these four bills that we've put forward provide a comprehensive framework that will fundamentally transform the relationship between Australian travellers and the airline industry. Millions of Australians rely on aviation every year for work, family, education and health care. We have one of the world's busiest domestic aviation markets and are amongst the world's most frequent air travellers on a per capita basis. For Australians, aviation is essential infrastructure that binds our communities together right across the continent. Whilst our aviation safety standards are amongst the best in the world, our consumer protections have failed to keep pace with community expectations and international best practice.

Travellers experience flight cancellations, sometimes with little explanation; prolonged delays without adequate assistance; difficulties obtaining refunds; confusing fare conditions; and complaints processes that are often too slow, fragmented and ineffective. Travellers need certainty, and nowhere is this more important than in regional and remote Australia. Communities across rural Australia depend on reliable air services for health care, employment, tourism and economic development. When flights are disrupted or cancelled, the consequences extend far beyond inconvenience. Missed medical appointments, disrupted supply chains, lost tourism revenue and reduced economic activity all impose real costs on communities.

Recent events have underscored how international conflicts can very quickly affect Australians at home. The situation in the Middle East has disrupted aviation, causing flight cancellations, delays and uncertainty for travellers. Many people have been left asking what their rights are when the travel plans fall through. Throughout this period, Australia's airlines have been operating under extraordinarily challenging conditions and on many occasions helping Australians to travel and return home safely. But these disruptions also reinforce the need for stronger consumer protections and clearer rights for every Australian traveller. These bills seek to restore confidence to travellers. They're the result of significant consultation with and feedback from the aviation sector, consumers, advocacy groups and regulators.

At the centre of the legislative package is the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, which enables the creation of an aviation consumer protections charter. The charter will be developed through regulation and will contain minimum standards in relation to booking information and assistance, communication with consumers and complaint handling. Compliance with and enforcement of standards in the charter will be the responsibility of a new aviation consumer protection authority, a regulatory body that will be established within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts.

The bill also, very importantly, creates an external dispute-resolution scheme through an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson scheme. Currently what we have is an industry-led airline customer advocate, but we know from the Aviation white paper and through feedback from consumers and regulators that this has not delivered an effective complaint-resolution service—and I know that, too, from hearing from my constituents who've had issues.

Because current consumer protections rely really heavily on voluntary industry arrangements and quite fragmented complaint mechanisms, they result in inconsistent outcomes for passengers and very limited enforceability of rights. That's why this bill replaces the current voluntary industry-led arrangements with the Aviation Consumer Ombuds Scheme, or ACO, operated by an independent company. Airlines and airports will be required to join the scheme, and the company will be governed by a board of directors with equal representation from industry and consumers and an independent chair.

Where a traveller believes that an airline or airport has failed to meet its obligations under the aviation consumer rights charter and they have not been able to resolve the matter directly, they'll be able to take that complaint to the ACO. It's very important for consumers to be able to do that. The ACO will have strong powers to investigate complaints, require information from airlines and airports, recommend remedies and facilitate dispute resolution where appropriate. Where necessary, the ACO will also be able to make binding determinations requiring an airline or airport to resolve a complaint in a specified way. If judicial processes are necessary to enforce ACO determinations, it will be the responsibility of the regulator to carry out these enforcement activities. So this really is a huge change in terms of responding to consumer concerns.

Separately, an aircraft noise ombudsperson will be established as a function within the department and will review the management of aircraft noise complaints by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson will provide a dedicated review pathway for complaints relating to aircraft noise management, ensuring independent scrutiny of how these complaints are handled by responsible agencies. This also is a massive improvement—having that specific Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson in place to address issues that people have in relation to noise. I know, again, that in my electorate that has been an issue over many years.

This bill creates a comprehensive oversight framework with clear and complementary roles for regulation, consumer redress and community advocacy. It combines a regulator within the department, an independent aviation consumer ombudsperson and an independent aircraft noise ombudsperson to strengthen accountability right across the aviation sector. Do not underestimate how big a change this is in terms of the regulation and, in particular, the protection of consumers when it comes to travel.

The bill also introduces new transparency measures by requiring airlines to report the reasons for delays, cancellations and other disruptions—information that, at the moment, can often be quite difficult to acquire. This information will be provided to the department regulator and published for consumers, helping the regulator and the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson determine whether a disruption was within the airline's control and whether consumers are entitled to support under the charter itself.

The fact is that greater transparency benefits and assists everyone in every sector—particularly now. When it comes to airlines and airports, it'll make a huge difference. Consumers gain better information when making travel decisions, governments gain better visibility over systemic issues, and industry benefits from increased public confidence. By strengthening accountability and improving consumer confidence, these reforms support not only passengers but also the long-term sustainability of Australia's aviation sector.

As part of this suite of bills, the Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill and Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill will enable the administration costs of the new consumer protection functions to be covered by the imposition and collection of levies from industry. The levy ensures that the costs of maintaining a fair and transparent aviation consumer protection framework are shared appropriately across the industry that benefits from increased consumer confidence. And, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has explained, the government is mindful of the way the conflict in the Middle East has impacted the industry and will be cognisant of these realities in any cost recovery efforts.

We also have the Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill. It will manage the transitional provisions for the bills, including, importantly, clarifying that an airline that breaches a standard will not have their licence cancelled. It will also manage the transition of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman from Airservices to the department. Again, don't underestimate what a huge move this will be, as people will have one particular place they can go to for noise complaints. As I said, this has been an issue in my electorate, and I do acknowledge that we have had, for many years, very good community based representatives who have been listening to those complaints and forwarding them on. I acknowledge the people who have been involved with that for many years.

In conclusion, these reforms also represent a shift in the regulation of consumer protections in aviation. It's a huge shift. Instead of fragmented complaint handling and voluntary compliance, we're establishing an integrated national framework based on enforceable rights, independent oversight and transparent, system-wide reporting. This aligns aviation consumer protections more closely with modern regulatory approaches used in other essential service sectors where baseline protections are available regardless of the provider of those services.

This legislative package has been carefully designed to balance consumer rights with commercial realities. We have to balance both of those—the commercial realities of what the airlines and the airports face and the increased demand, rightly so, for consumer rights. We look around the world and see that there are places with consumer rights when it comes to airlines. We've had to balance those to get the most effective outcome. These bills also establish really clear obligations whilst recognising the operational complexities faced by airlines. They also promote accountability without imposing disproportionate administrative burdens and create certainty for both industry and consumers. That's certainly, I think, what everyone was looking for—just having that certainty and that clarity. As I said at the beginning, this is probably the most major reform that we've seen in our nation when it comes to our aviation sector. It will be of benefit to all travellers, particularly those in regional and remote areas, who need that certainty and that clarity. I certainly commend these bills to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 because it is of great interest to the people of Makin. Firstly, within Makin, we have the Parafield Airport. It's located just north of Adelaide, in the midst of suburbia, and has now, as a result of the aircraft that use that airport, become a constant source of complaints from residents. Secondly, and just as importantly—as so many other speakers have already highlighted—airport services by the two Australian major airlines have deteriorated over the years and are now a frequent cause of community criticism and complaint. In my view, however, those complaints, are never directed towards the airline staff—who I believe provide an exceptional service, often under very difficult circumstances—but are directed at senior management, who seem to have little regard for client inconvenience or staff pressures. From late arrivals and departures, lost, delayed or damaged luggage and the offshoring of aircraft maintenance to price gouging, poor responses to refund requests and reduced leg room on aircraft, the airlines have indeed become a constant source of grievance and even ridicule. Other members in this place have referred in their contributions to the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government. The report they prepared under the title Preparing for take-off confirms what other speakers have highlighted and that is the constant source and number of complaints with respect to our airlines.

Australian airlines were once a source of pride and good standards, but today they have deteriorated to just another industry sector motivated only by profit. My understanding is that over 100 million passengers use airline flights in Australia each year. Some 60 million are on domestic flights and around 45 million on international flights, while 4.3 million travellers are flying via domestic charter flights around Australia. That equates to well over 600,000 flights domestically and another 200,000 internationally each year. That is more than double the number of flights that we had about a quarter of a century ago. So it is indeed understandable that maintaining timetables and standards becomes increasingly difficult, particularly when flights are disrupted by events outside the airline's control, such as bad weather. However, the most irritating complaints relate to matters that are within the airline's control and arise from management decisions. Adding to that, the privatisation of Australia's airports has also put profitability ahead of passenger comfort, with a prime example being excessive car-parking fees.

The fact is that this legislation is only before us because of airline complaints and dissatisfaction. It is reactive legislation that would not be necessary if all airlines maintained their own code of good customer service and good corporate social responsibility. But the reality is they don't. For the benefit of anyone who's following this legislation, I'm going to quote from the Parliamentary Library briefing paper because I believe it clearly articulates what this legislation is all about. It summarises the issues that people tell me they want addressed:

The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 … and the related Bills … aim to improve aviation consumer protection by strengthening oversight of aviation industry practices and providing aviation consumers with an improved process to resolve disputes.

The Bill creates the legal basis for the Aviation Consumer Protection Framework, with most of the details to be contained in regulations, instruments and rules.

The Aviation Consumer Protections Charter will set out the minimum standards applying to regulated services in subordinate legislation. These minimum standards will be enforced by a regulator, the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. An Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will oversee a dispute resolution scheme.

An Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson to provide a review process for the management of aircraft noise complaints will replace the existing Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.

It goes on:

The Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026 provides for regulations to set levy amounts imposed on regulated entities to cost recover the administrative expenses associated with the Aviation Consumer Protection Framework …

The proposed framework is a significant reform that will have impacts on the aviation industry …

The Government has recently announced it intends to 'exempt airports with less than 1 million passengers … from the framework'.

The last part of the paper says:

The ACO will have a range of powers to join parties to complaints, require attendance at conciliation conferences and issue notices to require information or documents … In determining a complaint, the ACO may affirm a scheme member's decision or conduct if satisfied it 'was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances'. If not satisfied, the ACO may vary the decision, set aside the decision or specify an action for a scheme member to take or refrain from taking. If the scheme member does not comply with an ACO determination the Minister can seek an injunction from the Federal Court to enforce it … Parties to a complaint may also appeal determinations to the Federal Court on questions of law …

With respect to the aircraft noise ombudsman, part 4 'establishes an aircraft noise ombudsperson within the department to review Airservices Australia's or the Department of Defence's management of aircraft noise'.

The very last part I want to quote from the Bills Digest is this:

The EM—

the explanatory memorandum—

notes that, while the ACO—

the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson—

will work to resolve individual eligible complaints, the ACPA will be responsible for 'systemic oversight, compliance activities and enforcement action in relation to regulated entities' … It will have a range of investigation and compliance powers that may be used to ensure that regulated entities are complying with the legislation including the Charter and Standards. These include empowering the Minister to require persons to provide information or documents … and the Secretary to require a person to answer questions or give evidence … in relation to—

and these next dot points are important—

Persons who fail to comply with notices may be subject to civil penalties.

That's the end of what I'm going to quote. I specifically did that because I want everyone, particularly those people that I know will want a copy of my remarks and those in the chamber today, to know exactly what this legislation is going to do and what their rights are going to be.

On 29 April, a trainee pilot and his supervisor, Robert Hoyle, were both killed in a flight training accident at Parafield Airport when a Diamond DA-42 Twin Star plane crashed into a hangar. In addition, 10 other people were working in the aircraft hangar, and they were taken to hospital—one at least with very serious injuries. To the families, friends and colleagues of those killed, I offer my profound condolences. To those injured, I wish a full recovery—albeit that the terrifying experience will never leave them. To the first responders who attended the crash scene, fought the resulting fire and assisted those injured, I say thank you. This was the second flight-training accident at Parafield Airport this year. Thankfully, no-one was killed or seriously injured in the first incident in January.

By way of background, Parafield Airport is a general aviation airport located 18 kilometres north of the Adelaide CBD. It was established in 1927—at the time, well away from suburbia. In 1998 it was privatised by the Howard government, with a 50-year lease plus a further 49-year extension option to Adelaide Airport Limited. Occupying a 433-hectare site, much of which has been carved out and used for a variety of retail businesses, the airport today is surrounded by houses predominantly. There is some light industry also in close proximity, but the retail facilities have now become the dominant use of the land around the airport. In recent decades, the airport's aviation dominant use has in fact been flight training, and the airport now hosts an international flight training school that has been based there for, in fact, close to 50 years. Over the years, the school has trained countless overseas students, many of whom live in onsite accommodation during their time here, and, as such, the airport has been considered an economic driver for South Australia.

However, in recent years the flight training at Parafield—with, at times, incessant circuit training—has been the source of considerable complaints and angst from residents, particularly those whose homes are located under or in close proximity to the circular flight-training paths. The aircraft noise has become a frequent source of complaints to my office and to the offices of state MPs whose electorates are within the flight path area. For new mothers and babies, for the sick, and for shift workers in particular, the aircraft noise can be incredibly disruptive and affects their wellbeing. As a Commonwealth owned entity, the airport has a general exemption from state and local government laws, and past efforts to limit circuit training have been futile, as has been their 'fly friendly' policy, which quite frankly is something that they don't have to adhere to, even though I assume that they do their best to do so.

For the wider community, the disruption to outdoor activities and community events can also be much more than a minor irritant. However, the accident on 29 April and the earlier accident in January both highlight the inherent risk posed by flight training at the airport. A response from the airport manager will likely say that flight training accidents are far fewer than motor vehicle accidents, and that may well be true. But whilst it might be statistically true, even that view depends on how statistics are measured, and, I suspect that if you took a much more detailed analysis of the number of motor cars that are on the road in that area on any given day and the number of aircraft that are in that area, then maybe the stats wouldn't be so different.

There's also a widely held community view that it was only a matter of time before the actual accident occurred, and it is likely only a matter of time before we have another incident of some sort. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the cause of the accident, and a preliminary report suggests a cracked gear actuator may have contributed to the accident. I look forward to finding out, when the final report comes out, what all the conditions were.

But I ask this question: if it were not a trainee pilot but a more experienced pilot, would that pilot still have been able to manage to successfully land the aircraft? I will never know that. No amount of controls or stronger safety procedures will ever make any airport accident-proof. Parafield serves as a secondary general aviation airport to Adelaide, and it could continue to do so without the flight-training school. There is a widely held view throughout the community that circuit training at Parafield has reached its use-by date, and a new circuit-training location away from suburbia should be considered. However, whilst the airport continues to operate as a training airport, this legislation—particularly the new Aviation Noise Ombudsperson—will be able to at least assist with many of the noise complaints that we receive in the various offices both state and federal.

I note that, with respect to that, the Aviation Noise Ombudsperson now will report to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts rather than Airservices Australia. I think separating it from Airservices Australia is a good thing.

Finally, I note that this legislation only applies to the nation's 14 largest airports and to the Western Sydney international airport. Those smaller airports will be exempt from all the levies and other obligations that the large airports won't be.

In closing, can I say this: a number of countries around the world, including in the EU, Canada, Brazil and India have all taken steps to make the airline industry much more accountable to passengers, and I believe that this legislation will also do that here in Australia. I commend it to the House.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We have all been there, no matter whether you fly Jetstar, Qantas or Virgin. You show up to the airport two hours early to catch your flight, only to find it has been delayed by hours, or, in some cases, cancelled until the next day—maintenance issues, fog rolling in, crew shortages and an earlier delay in the day pushing your flight past the curfew. While the delay itself is frustrating enough, what often makes it worse is the lack of communication, the lack of support and the lack of accountability from airlines when things go wrong.

Australian people are patient people. They understand, whether delays happen, safety must always come first. But what they do not understand is why, when they are stranded, they are left completely on their own. In the last 12 months, more than half of the flying public experienced a flight disruption and two-thirds were unsatisfied with how it was handled by the airline. More than 80 per cent of the passengers who experience a disruption said they received little or no support. Currently, in Australia, there are very few enforceable protections for aviation consumers. This is simply not good enough because in a continent as vast as ours aviation is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Australia is home to 27 million people spread across an area larger than Europe. People rely on aviation to visit loved ones, attend universities, seek medical treatment, run businesses, transport freight, support tourism and keep communities connected. For regional Australians in particular, aviation is often the only practical transport option available. Aviation is essential infrastructure for modern Australia.

Australians deserve an aviation sector that is safe, reliable, transparent and fair. Right now, too many consumers feel powerless when things go wrong. Recent figures show that satisfaction with the performance of domestic airlines by Australians is almost 15 per cent lower than flying on their international counterparts. That is why the Albanese Labor government is introducing the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill. This bill represents the most significant reform to aviation consumer protections in Australia's history. It establishes clear, legal, enforceable rights for passengers. It creates proper accountability mechanisms for airlines and airports, and it finally gives Australians an independent avenue to resolve disputes when they are treated unfairly. At its core, this legislation is about restoring balance. For too long, the system has been weighted entirely towards airlines. Passengers have had little leverage, little clarity and very few rights. This bill changes that.

The first major reform in this legislation is the establishment of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. This charter will set minimum standards for the provisions of airline, airport and accessibility services for aviation consumers. The government has already released a draft of the chapter in a consultation paper outlining six proposed rights: first, aviation customers must have the right to be treated with dignity and respect in an accessible and inclusive environment; second, customers have the right to accurate, timely and accessible information and customer service; third, customers have the right to prompt and fair remedies and support during and after cancellation, delays or disruptions; fourth, customers have the right to safe, timely baggage handling and fair remedies for baggage damage or delays; fifth, customers have the right to protect their personal information; and, last, customers have the right to provide feedback or complaints and have them responded to in a timely manner.

These may sound like common sense principles—and they are—but right now too many Australians do not receive even these basic standards of treatment. Under this bill, if a flight is delayed for more than three hours due to circumstances within the airline's control, airlines will be required to assist passengers to rebook flights at no additional cost. This may include rebooking on another airline if necessary. When passengers incur reasonable costs because of a delay or cancellation, airlines will be required to provide appropriate support, including meals, transport and overnight accommodation. Importantly, if a flight is cancelled and a passenger is not rebooked, the airline must provide a refund within 14 days in the original form of payment—no airline credits, no vouchers, no complicated loopholes, a proper refund. Australians work hard for their money. When they pay for a service and that service is not delivered, they deserve fair treatment. This bill recognises that principle.

The second pillar of this legislation is the establishment of the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts. This regulator will oversee compliance with the charter. It will monitor industry behaviour. It will investigate systemic issues, and it will ensure airlines and airports uphold the decisions of the ombudsman. Importantly, airlines will also be required to provide detailed reporting on delays and cancellations, including weather disruptions, where within their control. This transparency is crucial. Consumers deserve to know the truth about the airlines' performance and regulators need accurate data to determine whether obligations under the charter have been met.

The third major reform is the creation of an independent aviation consumer ombudsman. This will provide passengers with a free, accessible independent dispute resolution mechanism. When consumers believe an airline or an airport has failed to uphold their rights under the charter, they will be able to lodge a complaint with the ombudsman. The ombudsman will help resolve disputes quickly and fairly, without passengers needing to navigate expensive legal processes. This body will have equal representation from industry, consumer advocates and an independent chair. All airports with more than one million passengers a year, as well as all domestic and international airlines operating to Australia, will be required to participate in this scheme.

This legislation also responds directly to the findings of the government's 2024 Aviation white paper. In the wake of the Qantas ghost booking scandal and a sharp loss in confidence in our aviation sector post pandemic, the Aviation white paper recognised the need for stronger consumer protection, greater transparency and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism within the aviation sector. It acknowledged that the existing complaints framework operated by the airlines themselves was not transparent and was fragmented and ineffective. This bill delivers on those recommendations. It establishes a modern framework that balances a strong aviation industry with strong consumer protection. Because these two goals are not in conflict, aviation business can succeed while still treating customers fairly. In fact, stronger consumer confidence benefits the entire industry.

I want to acknowledge the many Australians who have shared their stories with me—parents stranded overnight with young children; regional passengers missing medical appointments; workers unable to get home; families separated during emergencies; people left waiting for hours with no information, no support and nowhere to turn. These stories matter, and this legislation responds to them, because every delay or every cancelled flight is someone stressed, exhausted and trying to get home. That is why this reform matters.

I want to take a moment to speak directly to the Australians watching this debate at home, because this issue affects almost everyone. Maybe it was the flight you booked months in advance to finally take your kids on a holiday. Maybe it was travelling interstate to see your parents. Maybe it was getting home after working away for weeks. Maybe it was a funeral you nearly missed or a wedding you never made it to. Australians understand that delays happen. We understand safety comes first. But what frustrates people is being treated like they do not matter. Being stuck at the airport with no answers, watching the departure board change every hour while nobody can tell you what's going on, and spending hundreds of dollars on meals, taxis and hotels because your flight was cancelled, only to fight for months to get reimbursed is not good enough. Australians are tired of feeling powerless. This bill says something simple but important: if you buy a ticket, you deserve fair treatment, you deserve clear communication, you deserve support when things go wrong, and you deserve someone independent to turn to if the system fails you.

These reforms are about restoring trust, because flying in Australia should not feel like a roll of the dice. It should feel reliable, transparent and fair, and this is exactly what Labor is delivering. This bill will not eliminate every delay. It will not stop bad weather. It will not remove the operational realities of aviation, but it will ensure Australians are treated fairly when disruptions occur. It will ensure there are consequences when standards are not met. It will ensure passengers finally have rights, and that means something.

The final parts of these bills deal with the handling of aircraft noise complaints by Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. This bill will establish an aircraft noise ombudsman within the department, to be responsible for undertaking independent reviews of aircraft noise complaints. When changes are proposed, it will always be able to ensure that community consultation has been conducted to expected standards.

I want to thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, who is here in the chamber, for her hard work and dedication on this legislation. I hope to see its implementation over the next few years lifting the standards of the whole Australian aviation industry. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution to this debate on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the related bills. I'll just give the one summing-up speech here. They deliver on the government's commitment from the 2024 Aviation white paper to establish for the first time a dedicated consumer protection framework for aviation passengers in Australia. I know there are a number of second reading amendments that members moved earlier in the debate, and I'll address those towards the end of my summing up.

From the speeches we've heard across the entire chamber, it is absolutely clear that members are passionate about improving the standards across the aviation sector. We are all agreed on that and on ensuring that our constituents get a better deal when they travel through our airports and on our airlines. This legislative package represents, frankly, the most significant reforms for aviation consumer protection ever introduced in this country. These reforms have been developed through close consultation with consumer advocates, industry and the public to deliver meaningful protections for passengers while also maintaining a competitive and sustainable aviation sector. The government has taken stakeholder feedback into account to ensure the framework is effective in protecting consumers and holding the sector to account.

The Australian Consumer Protection Bill, as you know, establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Framework, which comprises an impartial aviation consumer ombudsman, which will provide a fair, accessible and independent external dispute resolution service that can assist with resolving individual consumer complaints in relation to the supply of airline and airport services, and the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter, which sets out the minimum standards that aviation consumers can expect from airlines and airports and which will be enforced by a regulator: the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. The authority will be responsible for investigating systemic issues facing consumers in the aviation sector. The framework facilitates improved outcomes for consumers on both individual passenger and on an industry-wide bases.

The bill also facilitates the publication of reasons for flight delays, cancellations and disruptions. Finally, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, responsible for independent reviews of Airservices Australia and Defence's management of aircraft related noise, will transition to the department and will continue their current work independent of Airservices Australia and Defence. The delivery of the Aviation white paper commitment is about ensuring that the public has confidence in the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's findings and recommendations independent of the entities that it oversees.

I acknowledge the second reading amendments from the member for Kooyong, the member for Riverina and the member for Ryan. The government is not supporting these second reading amendments. In relation to the member for Riverina's second reading amendment, it's important to remember where we've come from. Frankly, under their watch there was the collapse of Virgin, the collapse of Tigerair and not a lot of action in dealing with some of these systemic issues we're seeing in the aviation industry. We also saw the collapse of many smaller regional carriers as well as the outsourcing of jobs. We saw the issuing of COVID flight credits instead of refunds, and still we really didn't see enough action in terms of protecting consumers. We're trying to deal with that now. It's exactly because of these reasons that we had to work to deliver the Aviation white paper in 2024 and why we introduced the Aviation Consumer Protection bills.

In relation to regional airlines and airports, we understand the limited operational and financial capacity that often comes with operating the long and thin routes throughout regional Australia. It's why we've already announced the intention to exempt airports with fewer than one million passengers from the framework. In relation to regional airlines, we believe it is important that all airlines be subject to operationally reasonable and appropriate standards. However, the bill does allow us to exempt smaller regional carriers from levies and fees if it is deemed appropriate.

The importance of our regional aviation sector is also a major reason why we're not proposing to proceed with mandatory compensation at this time. The marginal nature of many of our regional routes means that a mandatory compensation scheme would carry a real risk to the viability of many of these routes and to the services regional Australians rely on. We've seen this play out in practice in places like Europe and in Canada, which have mandatory compensation schemes. Evidence provided before the Senate inquiry into this bill showed that some unintended outcomes included low-cost carriers exiting the market and the costs of airfares going up. I would note that the member for Riverina's Senate colleague Senator Cadell agreed that a mandatory compensation scheme may not be effective, stating in the Senate inquiry:

I see why the prescriptive model may not be fit for purpose.

In developing these reforms, our focus has been on lifting the standards of passenger air travel in Australia. That means providing a set of minimum standards so that passengers get what they pay for and, when disruptions occur, are entitled to remedies that get them back on their journeys as soon as possible. We believe that in developing these reforms for the first time in Australia, it is important to focus on providing remedies for passengers in the moments where they experience disruption rather than a fixed monetary payment some months after the fact. International experience has also shown that focusing on mandatory compensation has not led to improvements in on-time performance or in cancellation rates.

In relation to the member for Kooyong's second reading amendment, we continue to consult extensively with the aviation industry and consumer stakeholders on the charter and the minimum standards. I acknowledge the member's commitment to transparency and can confirm that the most recent draft has been circulated widely with stakeholders and is publicly available on the Australian Parliament House website.

In relation to the member for Ryan's second reading amendment, the government made a commitment in the Aviation white paper to establish an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman that is independent from Airservices Australia. That is a commitment that is delivered through this legislation. The independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman will have the power to conduct independent investigations into aircraft noise complaints, handling published reports and make recommendations to government about the handling of noise complaints, community consultation processes and the presentation of noise related information.

In relation to the aircraft noise in Brisbane, the government does understand the concerns of residents who live in the vicinity of the airport, and it is an issue that we have taken very seriously. As members know, the new runway at Brisbane Airport opened in 2020 following approval by the former government. We've taken the issue seriously and have implemented a significant number of measures to reduce the impacts of noise on the community. In addition to establishing the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board, we've changed the timing of flights and flight paths to minimise impacts on residential areas, and we continue to work on additional solutions. I've also issued a direction that requires Airservices to increase the use of SODPROPS during both daytime and night-time operations at Brisbane Airport when meteorological conditions and other operational conditions, including traffic levels, allow for it. The government is not, and I repeat is not, considering introducing a cap or curfew at Brisbane Airport.

We're focused on delivering practical and responsible measures to address issues of aircraft noise and to offer greater protections to travellers. This bill will improve outcomes for consumers and ensure the aviation sector is accountable for the services that they offer and is focused on aviation consumers. I commend the bills to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Riverina has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be admitted with the view to substitute other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Riverina be agreed to.