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 ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:33): 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— the operation of, or compliance with, the legislation the performance of function or duties or exercise of powers under the legislation an offence provision of the Criminal Code relating to the legislation eligible complaints, including the handling of complaints by regulated entities complaints, and the handling of complaints, about aircraft noise membership of the ACO the reasons for disruptions, cancellations or delays of airline services.

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.