Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise in support of this private senators' bill, the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024. I do congratulate my good friends and colleagues Senator McKenzie and Senator Smith, who have been heavily involved in this bill. I also commend them both, especially Senator McKenzie for her passionate pursuit of fairness in the aviation sector for the Australian public.

It might be a private senators' bill, but it's a public cause. It is seeking fairness for the millions of Australians every year who fly around our beautiful country and who are required to fly. This isn't a luxury in our country. It's not a luxury; it's a requirement—for family obligations, to catch up with friends, to attend material events or to go to urgent medical appointments. Flying is required in a country such as ours. This bill needs to be seen in that context.

It also needs to be seen in the context of the rate of flight cancellations in this country, which is absolutely appalling. In January 2024, passengers endured 3.1 per cent of flights being cancelled, and the long-term average of cancellations has blown out to 2.2 per cent. But in January it was 3.1 per cent. How are we going to rectify this unless there is an economic impact upon the service provider and unless the service provider is held to account through legislation such as this?

We just saw Qantas get hit with a $100 million penalty and having to do a $20 million remediation program in relation to its conduct. Qantas is going to have to pay a total of $120 million, subject to Federal Court approval, as a result of its conduct in relation to flights. That means 86,000 customers are going to participate in a $20 million remediation program, and there is going to be a $100 million civil penalty—$120 million.

The Australian public should not have to wait for the ACCC to take action in order to get compensation for services which are not provided on time or to their satisfaction. Those 86,000 customers shouldn't have to wait for the ACCC to take action. They should be able to take action under the contract they have with the airline. They shouldn't have to wait for the ACCC to take action, and that goes to the crux, to the heart, of this legislation.

The Senate aviation inquiry which was held last year was fiercely resisted by the Labor government. I think we've seen now, with the $120 million hit Qantas is taking and with this private senators' bill, how wrong the Albanese Labor government was to resist that aviation inquiry. Again, I congratulate my good friend and colleague Senator McKenzie for her passionate advocacy in this space. It has made a difference.

What this bill will do is actually restore the balance between the supplier and the customer. Services in this country are monopolistic—at least, not an oligopoly but tending towards a monopoly. It will also make the Australian market consistent with our international competitors. Why is it that consumers have the benefit of these sorts of rights in Canada, but we don't have them in Australia? Why do consumers in the United States have these rights, but we don't have them in Australia? Why do they have them in Europe, but we don't have them in Australia? Why do they have them in the UK, but we don't have them in Australia? There are no answers to these questions from the government, and that's why the coalition has been forced to put forward this private senators' bill.

The other important point on this bill is that it involves heavy consultation on a number of its key components, including the minimum standards that consumers have a right to expect with respect to accommodation, meals and, potentially, monetary compensation. An aviation code of conduct would be required to be established within 12 months, and 12 months is long enough. Consumers have been putting up with this for far longer than 12 months. This needs to be done, and it needs to be done quickly.

The consumers of aviation services in Senator Bilyk's home state of Tasmania deserve this bill. They deserve to be compensated when their flights are cancelled and they're inconvenienced. The consumers of airline services in Minister Farrell's home state of South Australia deserve to be compensated when they're faced with monetary cost when their flights are cancelled, as do people from my home state of Queensland when they go to fly to South Australia to visit the great vineyards and their flights are cancelled. How do you compensate someone for that loss of opportunity? It's very hard to compensate, in fact. Consumers across this whole country deserve to be treated fairly when their flights are cancelled.

There are a number of really good provisions in this bill. I don't have time to talk about all of them; there's so much good stuff. There's a rhetorical embarrassment of riches in this bill, so I have to keep to the main points.

Firstly, in relation to protection of minors, there's a very important point that requires rules to be made to ensure that minors under the age of 14 are seated next to their guardian at no extra cost. That really should be a no-brainer. It's hard to think of any circumstance where a minor shouldn't be able to be seated next to their guardian at no extra cost. As the movers of this bill said, 'This provision is crucial for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of young passengers and providing peace of mind to families and caregivers.' A lot of the bill is common sense! I do not understand why the government is resisting this private senators' bill. You should really reflect on it, because I think this is good work that's been done by this Senate and the senators involved, and it should be adopted by the government. It should be supported by the Greens and the crossbench, and it should be adopted because it will make a real difference to families in Australia.

Secondly, the bill would require the transport minister to make rules to establish minimum standards of treatment for passengers who experience delays, cancellations or denial of boarding. It shouldn't be done on an ad hoc basis. It shouldn't be a lucky dip. There should be standard minimum rules that apply—standard minimum rules of treatment, in this case—across the board. Each Australian should be treated fairly, and a component of that fairness should be consistency of treatment in terms of minimum standards. That would include the payment of compensation for significant delays, cancellations or denial of boarding.

Thirdly, there needs to be compensation for lost or damaged baggage. Again, there should be rules applied on a fair basis, consistently, across the whole industry. Again, it shouldn't be a lucky dip. The same rules should apply, so passengers know what to expect in that situation. Refunds should be provided in a timely manner, as should other compensation owed. You shouldn't have to wrangle with the airlines in relation to whether or not they're going to give you some offset for future travel or they're going to give you this or that. There should be clear rules about the payment of compensation when the service which you have paid for has not been delivered. It should be clear, it should be consistent and it should be fair.

On ground delays: in the case of tarmac delays lasting over three hours, the bill requires rules for carriers, including the obligation to provide timely information and assistance to passengers as well as the minimum standards of treatment of passengers that the carrier is required to meet. This closes any loophole through which a carrier could board a flight to avoid penalties, knowing the aircraft cannot depart within a specified time. We know; we've all been in this position. I've certainly been in that position. I've had family members in this position where they've boarded a flight and sat on it for hour after hour, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, at the end of the day, whether or not you're sitting in the aircraft or the lounge when your flight is delayed. The end result is the same. Your flight is delayed. Therefore, the treatment should be the same. It doesn't matter where you're sitting during the course of the delay. Again, this is common sense. And this bill is replete with common sense.

On information: the carriers should be required to provide timely information in language that is simple, clear and concise. This includes any information regarding recourse against the carrier under the carrier's obligations. This is an important point. The rights of consumers to compensation in these circumstances should be clear and accessible. You shouldn't have to go digging through pages and pages of terms and conditions in small type to find your rights. It should be absolutely clear what your rights are, and the carriers should advise you of your rights in terms of compensation.

On an aviation code of conduct: the requirement should be to establish an airline code of conduct in direct response to the ongoing concerns of the ACCC—as evidenced by this $120 million hit imposed on Qantas—and other consumer advocacy groups regarding carriers' pricing strategies, inconsistent fare types and the experiences of third-party purchasers of airfares. The purpose of the code should be to ensure the fair and proper treatment of passengers and that passengers reach their intended destination as booked.

Finally, the government would also be required under the code to ensure transparency in pricing through a consistent definition of a 'ticket of carriage' in the terms and conditions of carriage, preventing hidden fees and charges and ensuring consumers are fully informed at the point of purchase. We should be making it as easy as possible for consumers to understand what their rights are, the terms and conditions of their contract of carriage and their rights to seek compensation.

We have a major issue here. Just reflect. Following the ACCC's action against Qantas, 86,000 passengers of Qantas are going to receive compensation for the way they were treated by Qantas under their contract.