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
Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (13:07): I'm speaking today to the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026 and Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill 2026. The Greens will be supporting these bills as a small step in the right direction. However, there are lots of missed opportunities here.
The central concern around this bill is that the actual consumer protections will be contained in regulation—that is, the charter, which was made public only a few days ago, well after it was introduced. However, the department has advised that it will not include monetary compensation for delayed flights and cancellations. This is going to leave Australian consumers with significantly less protection than those in the EU and in other jurisdictions.
The government's reasoning for this is that the concentrated aviation market in Australia would not be able to absorb the extra costs associated with compensation. Frankly, I just don't buy this. Qantas made almost $1.5 billion in profit in the first half of this financial year.
Virgin also made a tidy half a billion in the same period. They can afford to compensate for delays that are within their control. It's true that the EU scheme is quite generous, starting at 250 euros for a three-hour delay.
In many cases that's going to be significantly more than the cost of the flight itself. But if there's real concern about the cost of compensation being passed on or causing operational issues, it doesn't have to be as much as that of the EU scheme. You could meet somewhere in the middle.
That's why I just don't buy the government's line. They haven't even tried to make this work. Additionally, our aviation market is the way it is because of government policy, including the privatisation of Qantas in the 1990s.
The government has themselves to blame for this. Ultimately, people's time is valuable. Most Australians don't have enough of it, and our Aviation Consumer Protection Framework should reflect that.
That is not unreasonable. Instead, the government has simply taken the airlines' word for it. They're prioritising the profits of Qantas and Virgin over providing real consumer protections for Australians just trying to get where they need to go.
As for regional airlines, I'm obviously sympathetic to not wanting to impose extra costs on regional airlines providing essential services—regional airlines that are already struggling to stay afloat and compete against the majors. But this bill already exempts regional airports. There's no reason you couldn't exempt regional airlines as needed.
On a slightly more positive note, this bill does move the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman—that's the ANO—from the purview of Airservices Australia to the department, which is a small step towards more independence, though, in my view, it's not independent enough. Previously, the ANO was essentially overseeing the work of Airservices Australia, its own boss. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's still overseeing the work of the department under this new arrangement; it's just not quite as direct. The real independence of the ANO is important, because, all over Australia, aircraft noise is a real issue that people are experiencing, and they're by and large being ignored by the authorities around this really serious problem. Just a few weeks ago, the Brisbane Airport draft master plan was approved by the minister.
This is a plan that will see a massive increase in air traffic over Brisbane and, therefore, a massive increase in noise. But where were the noise projections? They weren't even there.
No, we only have a noise mapping for current volumes of traffic, but the minister approved it anyway. You can't even do noisy construction work at night. You can't have a huge, noisy party in residential areas at 2 am without the police knocking on your door, and you can't mow your lawn at night, but what about flying an A380 a couple of thousand feet above your home?
No worries. The minister has signed off on those overnight flights that disrupt people's sleep continuing with no restrictions. In fact, it is international flights—those that use the larger, noisier planes—that are getting the biggest increase under the master plan.
That's going to happen, and, if the government seems to have no desire to curb these flights that consistently disrupt people's sleep, then we need a truly independent ANO—one that isn't worried about the department looking over their shoulder or making the government look bad. With all of those concerns, I move: That all words after "the" (first occurring) be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "bill as presented to the House gives consumers no guaranteed compensation for flight delays and cancellations within the airlines' control; (b) the movement of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman from Airservices Australia to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts does not make the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman truly independent; and (c) ministerial approval of the Brisbane Airport 2026 Master Plan was given, despite not containing any forward noise forecasting and leaving Brisbane residents in the dark about the effects of airport growth on noise; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) guarantee real consumer protections, including in the form of financial compensation for flight delays and cancellations; (b) make the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman truly independent; and (c) take meaningful steps to address aircraft noise in Brisbane, including considering a night curfew".
Dr Scamps: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.