Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill 2026
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:21): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and related bills. At the outset, let me be clear. The coalition supports stronger protections for airline passengers.
Australians deserve reliable air services, fair treatment when things go wrong and confidence that the aviation system is working in their interests. The reality is that the performance of Australia's domestic aviation sector has deteriorated significantly post COVID. Too many Australians have experienced flight delays, cancellations, poor communication and difficulties obtaining remedies when airlines fail to deliver the service that has been purchased.
We find just today that budget carrier Jetstar is blaming rising government taxes and charges and less-than-expected demand for the axing of two trans-Tasman services from late October. Sunshine Coast to Auckland and Cairns to Christchurch will go on hold indefinitely in the very latest route cuts by the low-fares airline. This is a concern, as are some of the other things I'm about to outline.
In 2025, one in four domestic flights were either delayed or cancelled. In Labor's first term, more than 50,000 domestic flights were cancelled and more than 427,000 flights were delayed, according to the government's own data provided monthly by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics. Australians have witnessed a step change for the worse in airline performance and reliability compared to what was happening pre-pandemic.
Millions of Australian families and small businesses have been inconvenienced and left out of pocket. Whether it's for a family holiday, a business meeting, a medical appointment, a wedding or a funeral, Australians expect airlines to deliver the service they have paid for. This is not to mention the concerns raised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about companies selling tickets for ghost flights and cancelling flight credits.
And, at a time when Australians were hit with higher airfares, Qantas turned political actor, funding corporate promotion for the government's divisive Voice referendum campaign. Australians have every right to be frustrated. Australians deserve better.
That is why the coalition has argued stronger passenger protections are required. Last parliament, Senators Bridget McKenzie and Dean Smith introduced the private senators Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill. That proposal would have provided direct compensation to passengers when airlines fail to meet their obligations through lengthy delays, cancellation or lost baggage.
Unlike Labor's proposal, a genuine compensation scheme creates a real incentive for airlines to improve performance. If an airline fails to deliver the service that a consumer has paid for, for the reason that is within the control of the airline, there should be consequences. Where travellers have incurred real additional costs for delayed cancelled flights, that should be recognised.
Labor has chosen a different path—we could say a different flight! This bill creates a new authority, two new statutory ombudsman schemes, a new levy and additional layers of bureaucracy. It creates a complaints framework rather than a genuine passenger-rights framework.
The government argues this legislation will improve consumer outcomes, yet many of the protections contemplated under the proposed Aviation Consumer Charter are already provided by major airlines today, including rebooking accommodation, meal vouchers and refunds in certain circumstances. The coalition notes the proposed charter has not been presented to this chamber for determination by the House.
The question remains: how will this framework materially improve airline performance and at what costs to the industry and ultimately to Australian travellers? That question was repeatedly raised during the Senate inquiry. Indeed, many stakeholders who initially described the legislation as 'better than nothing' ultimately concluded that the bill should not proceed without significant amendment.
Major airlines, regional airlines, airports, industry bodies, consumer groups and regional stakeholders all identified substantial deficiencies in the framework. One example of why stronger consumer protections are needed can be seen in the current controversy surrounding Virgin Australia's COVID travel credits. On 30 June, 2026, Australians stand to lose access to up to $93 million in unused COVID-era Virgin Australia travel credits.
Those funds belong to consumers. They do not belong on an airline balance sheet. Australians should be able to access those credits when they choose to travel or alternatively receive a refund.
Yet this legislation will do nothing to protect consumers' Virgin flight credits, one real consumer issue currently facing Australians. This legislation does not guarantee that, in the future, consumers will be offered refunds for cancelled or significantly delayed flights. This legislation fails to properly recognise the challenges faced by regional aviation.
For many Australians living outside our major cities, aviation is not a luxury; it is an essential service. Regional aviation provides access to health care, education, employment, tourism, business opportunities and family connections. Regional airlines are already facing significant financial challenges.
They are dealing with increasing airport charges. They are dealing with rising fuel costs. They are dealing with maintenance challenges and difficulties obtaining aircraft parts.
More recently, they've been dealing with significant increases in fuel costs resulting from instability in the Middle East and the crisis in Iran. Many regional airlines operate on very thin margins—you could almost say they operate on the vapour of avgas—yet this legislation risks imposing additional compliance obligations and unknown additional costs on small regional aviation operators to solve a problem largely created by the major airline duopoly of Qantas and Virgin Australia.
The coalition remains concerned that regional airlines and regional airports may ultimately bear a crippling cost for failures that are not of their making. The government has said that regional airports with fewer than one million passengers per year should be exempt from the framework. However, they have not put this in the bills before the parliament.
The government proposes to leave this to the discretion of the minister. All airlines and airports should meet minimum requirements of consumer protection. However, the coalition agrees that small and regional airports should be exempt from the cost of the government's proposed scheme and the exemption for small and regional airports should be included in the primary legislation.
Regional airlines operating smaller aircraft on essential regional routes should also be protected from unnecessary regulatory burden and cost. The coalition will propose amendments in this regard in the other chamber. A significant flaw in the legislation is the failure to include Airservices Australia within the framework where failures of the regulator to resource and deliver its air traffic control functions result in delays or the cancellation of flights.
If accountability is the objective, accountability should follow operational responsibility. Airservices Australia plays a significant role in the operation of the aviation network. Early this week, Sydney airport experienced delays and cancellations linked to staffing issues within Airservices Australia.
Shortages of air traffic controllers contributed to flight disruptions affecting passengers across the broader aviation network. Airlines were forced to cancel services and rebook passengers because of these issues outside their control. Australians understand if acts of God, severe weather events, cause delays to flights.
Australians get that. They know that airlines cannot control the weather. Australians value the safety of our regulations which ensure flights only occur when it is safe to do so.
However, the consumer sitting in an airport terminal does not distinguish between a delay caused by an airline and a delay caused by a failure to staff the air traffic control tower. They do not. They simply know that they paid for a service that they did not receive.
Yet, under Labor's framework, airlines will be subject to obligations under the scheme while Airservices Australia remains exempt. The exclusion of Airservices Australia creates an obvious gap in the framework and a double standard in consumer protection. The coalition also has concerns about the proposed aircraft noise ombudsperson arrangements.
This bill proposes bringing the aircraft noise ombudsperson into the transport department itself. That raises legitimate questions about independence. The representations we have received suggests the government's proposal lacks the confidence of the affected public.
There are broader stakeholder concerns with the development of the legislation itself, including the lack of an exposure draft or opportunity to properly scrutinise many of the scheme's operational details before the legislation was introduced. Parliament should understand the full costs, obligations and consequences of legislation before it is asked to approve it.
The coalition strongly supports the objective of improving consumer protections for travellers. However, in our view, this legislation falls far short of community expectations. It creates new bureaucracies but fails to address many of the concerns passengers have had.
It does not provide direct compensation. It leaves too much to regulations. It imposes unquantified costs on regional aviation, and it does not ensure consumers retain access to their own money through unused flight credits.
The coalition will propose amendments in the Senate to protect regional aviation, enhance consumer protection, strengthen accountability and deliver fairer outcomes for Australian travellers. I now move the second reading amendment in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that: (a) in the Government's first term, one in three domestic flights was cancelled or delayed, with 50,000 cancellations and 427,000 delays according to official data; (b) major airlines' performance and reliability has worsened post-COVID, inconveniencing millions of families; (c) two regional airlines have collapsed under the Government, yet the bill risks further costs on remaining regional airlines for problems not of their making; (d) the bill provides no support for families who are about to lose up to $93 million worth of unused COVID-era flight credits held by Virgin Australia; and (e) excluding Airservices Australia creates a gap in consumer protections for travellers affected by air traffic control failures; and (2) calls on the Government to develop and implement an aviation consumer protection framework that: (a) does not penalise regional airports and airlines for failures of the major airline duopoly; (b) provides timely refunds and compensation for cancellations, significant delays or lost or damaged baggage within the control of airlines, airports or Airservices Australia; and (c) protects COVID-era flight credits for future use or refund".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ): Is the amendment seconded? Mr Birrell: Yes. I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
( Quorum formed )