Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, along with Senator Smith, I am moving the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 to step in where the Albanese Labor government and particularly the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, have failed. When I was chosen to take on this portfolio as shadow minister, I determined that, if the government was not going to do their job, the opposition would make sure that we stepped up and did the right thing by everyday Australians. Airlines around the world are on notice. Consumers are absolutely fed up with higher airfares, coupled with declining service standards and increasing interruptions. The ACCC's latest airline report showed service reliability remains below long-term industry averages, as flight cancellations and delays remain higher than they should be. Nearly 30 per cent of flights were either cancelled or delayed across the January holiday period, showing there has been no improvement in the on-time performance over the past 12 months. That's according to data released by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics.

Despite the Prime Minister's claim that Australia has the most competitive airline market in the world bar none—a claim contradicted by his own ministers and government's green paper—Australia has stumbled into a situation where the domestic aviation market is dominated by two airlines. More than 93 per cent of the domestic market is owned or managed by Qantas and Virgin. When this is coupled with the dominance of the two airlines' international codeshare arrangements and frequent flyer programs, the picture becomes very clear: there is an imbalance in consumer choice. The Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill seeks to ensure that consumer choice, convenience and reliability are being prioritised over big business. This issue transcends mere inconvenience. It is a matter of fairness, transparency and respect for Australian consumers.

The global airline industry has witnessed significant changes over the past decade, with jurisdictions around the world bolstering consumer protections to ensure that passengers are treated fairly. For instance, in the EU, the UK and Canada, common rules of compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellations or long delays have been established. This comprehensive framework sets a benchmark, ensuring that passengers are not left stranded or out of pocket due to disruptions within the control of airlines. In contrast, Australia's approach to consumer protections in the airline industry, while robust in theory, have often fallen short in practice. The Airline Customer Advocate's annual report highlights a trend of increasing complaints, with issues ranging from flight cancellations and delays to mishandled baggage and disputes over refunds. This trend underscores a growing disconnect between consumer expectations and the services delivered by our airlines.

A case in point is the recent actions by the self-styled national carrier, Qantas. Once a symbol of reliability and national pride, Qantas has been at the centre of escalating consumer complaints. Issues have ranged from significant delays and inexplicable cancellations to allegations of misleading consumers about their rights to refunds or compensations, and I could go on. Indeed, it took the intervention of this Senate through the cost-of-living inquiry last year to shame the former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce into honouring or refunding nearly half a billion dollars in flight credits beyond December 2023. I thank Senators Dean Smith, Matt Canavan and Jane Hume for their work to ensure that former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce fronted that inquiry. Unfortunately Labor, the Greens and Senator Pocock have continued to block any further scrutiny of Mr Joyce by voting down any attempt for this Senate to force him to account for his time as leader of the nation's largest carrier and the part that he played in the flight credit debacle, the serious allegations around ghost flights raised by the ACCC and his involvement in the illegal sacking of thousands of baggage handlers. These issues, coupled with the increasing number of unexplainable cancelled flights, severe delays and frequent situations where you'd fly to one destination and your bags would fly to somewhere else, have led to the general public coining the term, 'You've been Joyced.'

In a landmark move underscoring the gravity of these issues, the ACCC launched legal proceedings against Qantas. This lawsuit, centred on allegations of misleading conduct regarding consumer rights to refunds for cancelled or significantly altered flights, marks a pivotal moment in our pursuit of stronger consumer protections. The ACCC's actions send a clear message: no entity, irrespective of its heritage, its position or its mates in positions of power, stands above the law.

The challenges faced by consumers extend beyond Qantas, reflecting a broader systemic issue within the aviation industry, and these challenges highlight the need for a comprehensive review and overhaul of consumer protections in the airline sector. Australian consumers deserve clear, enforceable rights that ensure fairness and transparency. Drawing lessons from jurisdictions with robust consumer protection frameworks, it's clear that Australia must evolve its approach, and this evolution involves not only adopting best practices from around the world but also innovating to address unique challenges faced by Australian consumers. Our vast geography and reliance on air travel for domestic connectivity amplify the impact of airline service disruptions, making strong consumer protections not just beneficial but essential. I'm sure you'll hear many contributions as we debate this bill that go to that fact. Ensuring fairness and equity in transport is of paramount importance to every individual who relies on air travel. It's an issue that resonates deeply with our values in the National Party. As champions of the regions, we understand better than anyone the lifeline that airline travel represents for connecting our communities, supporting our local economies and bridging the distance that separates us from our cities, our families, our business interests and indeed from health and education services, as is often the case.

It is with this understanding and commitment to serving the people of regional Australia that we recognise the urgent need for enhanced consumer protections in the aviation sector. The Harris review's recommendations for reforming the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act also play a crucial role in our vision for a more reliable and efficient aviation industry. The review's recommendations focus on introducing more dynamic and responsive management practices that can adapt to evolving operational realities whilst minimising environmental and community impacts.

By embracing these recommendations, we can unlock Sydney airport's potential to deliver more reliable services, thereby reducing the frequency of disruptions that so deeply affect passengers—and not just into Sydney airport. This approach not only benefits consumers but also enhances the operational efficiency of airlines and the broader economy. Addressing the operational constraints at Sydney airport presents a golden opportunity to enhance efficiency and reduce passenger disruptions. Unfortunately, after months of sitting on her hands, the transport minister has finally announced the government's response to that review in February. The response can only be described as underwhelming, but it is almost emblematic of this particular minister's work in this space. Only minor tweaks have been made to a system that needs wholesale reform.

The coalition will continue to advocate for greater transparency in slot allocations and for ways to increase competition to ensure that consumers are not the ones being penalised for an airport that is being constrained by government intervention and legislation. In government, we introduced a grocery code of conduct. We are always on the side of Australian consumers, and this bill allows us to once again demonstrate that there is one political movement within the Senate that is absolutely going to stand up for Australian consumers against big corporations, and that is the Liberal and the National parties.

The bill requires the transport minister to introduce an airline code of conduct and a series of obligations to protect passengers that find themselves at the mercy of airlines during significant disruptions. The code would be a significant series of reforms that enhance consumer protections. It is clear and necessary. The time for action is now. We must work together—government, industry and consumers—to improve standards and safeguards. Every single person in Australia has a story of missing significant family events, business meetings or health services as a result of the aviation sector's failure.

Within 12 months of the commencement of this act, the transport minister must make rules prescribing carriers' obligations in relation to flights to and from Australia and within Australia, including connecting flights. This includes an airline code of conduct to provide greater protections for passengers of all carriers, regardless of the type of service. The purpose of the aviation industry code of conduct is to ensure the fair and proper treatment of passengers and that passengers reach their intended destination as booked.

We remember when Qantas was trying to argue that flights weren't from a specific place to a specific destination at a particular time. That's what Australian consumers thought they were buying when they purchased a ticket—but not if you were buying it from Alan Joyce's Qantas. This bill would actually deal with that issue. It would also supplement the Australian Consumer Law and extend those protections to all carriers operating to and within Australia. The code must also make provision for the recourse or intervention available to passengers in the event of improper conduct by carriers, and would strengthen the role of the Airline Customer Advocate and the ACCC in dealing with complaints.

The code requirements for a consistent definition of a ticket of carriage would apply to all tickets of carriage issued by the carriers, including the minimum rights which passengers and third parties are guaranteed when they purchase a ticket of carriage from a carrier. The minister would also be required to address the most significant issues that affect passengers, including delays, cancellations, denial of boarding, lost or damaged baggage and seating allocations of minors.

Drawing inspiration from other jurisdictions that have already enhanced their consumer protections, the bill would require the implementation of a minimum standard of treatment framework for passengers affected by cancellations, significant disruptions or denial of boarding, both domestic and international. The bill requires the minister to specify the standard of treatment in the event of a range of scenarios within the carrier's control. It also addresses situations where there are safety issues, mechanical failure, and natural disaster or security events. This ensures that passengers and airlines have clear obligations in place when unforeseen events occur. These obligations would also ensure clearer communication of entitlement for travel options in the event of disruption and any recourse available against a carrier. Airlines should be required to clearly inform passengers of their entitlements in cases of delays, cancellations, and other service disruptions. This includes straightforward information regarding entitlements to refunds, compensation and accommodation.

You shouldn't have to email senators in this chamber to get action from airlines, which is what occurred following the aviation inquiry last year. Australian consumers, being so frustrated with the aviation industry's pushback on getting simple refunds, had to go through their local MP, and that is absolutely untenable and what this bill seeks to address. There should be clear information and clear recourse, and consumers should have a clear understanding of their rights when they purchase their ticket. We should look at the legal case between Qantas and the ACCC as a warning and ensure that carriers cannot weasel their way out of obligations that our consumer laws are actually designed to protect.

The obligations would also address an issue that affects many passengers travelling with children, by ensuring that children under the age of 14 are seated in close proximity to a parent, guardian or tutor at no additional cost. This provides peace of mind for parents and guardians: they will not be separated from their children by computers randomly assigning them seats far away from their children next to strangers in what is often crowded seating.

The minister has failed on multiple counts. It has been this chamber and the opposition that have had to drag her kicking and screaming to address the obvious failures within our aviation sector. The ACCC cancellation and delays reporting has been reinstated thanks to the work of the opposition. In the evidence to the aviation inquiry last year it was clear: Qantas and Virgin operate under consumer protections when they're flying internationally. Why shouldn't their customers onshore here in Australia be protected by a similar framework? If the minister's not going to step up and do the job, we're very happy to do it for her. We're looking forward to hopefully sending this to an inquiry for further expansion of the issues.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024. I want to start by making it clear that the Albanese government is very supportive of ensuring businesses are accountable to their workers and their customers. It won't come as a surprise to anyone that I personally am very supportive of that principle, especially when it comes to Qantas. What I find astonishing is that Senator McKenzie is now claiming to be worried about the way Qantas behaves, because we never heard a peep out of Senator McKenzie and her colleagues in the Liberal and National parties in the nine years they were in government. At all of the times and in all of the ways that Qantas ripped off its customers or its staff during those nine years, there was no interest from those opposite.

In fact, not only did they not take any action against Qantas; they had to go one step further. It wasn't enough for the Liberals and Nationals to stand by and do nothing when Qantas was illegally sacking 1,700 people. Those opposite had to take the extra step of giving Qantas a $2 billion no-strings-attached handout. And we've seen how much of the taxpayer money so generously doled out by Senator McKenzie and her colleagues has ended up in the pockets of Alan Joyce and his sycophants. It would be funny, wouldn't it—except for the fact that the very behaviour this bill was complaining about was being financially rewarded by the very authors of the bill.

Of course, those opposite haven't turned over a new page at all. It was only last year we saw their true colours come through. At the hearing on the closing loopholes bill on 10 November, Senator McKenzie said:

I do personally find it offensive that you made an assertion that I support the Qantas Group underpaying wages … I am not on a unity ticket with Qantas and Alan Joyce when it comes to ripping off Qantas workers through labour hire … And I do ask you to withdraw that because I never have and never will.

There you have it: she never has supported and never will support Qantas ripping off workers through labour hire. Fortunately, you don't have to take my word or her word for it, because just a few weeks later we had a vote on legislation to close the Qantas labour hire loophole. What did Senator McKenzie and her colleagues in the Liberals and Nationals do? How did they vote? They came into the chamber one by one and voted against the legislation. They truly swore their fealty to Alan Joyce and Qantas and their labour hire loophole. It's a matter of public record for all eternity. Talk is cheap. Action is what really matters. By voting against the legislation, you have proven you have no interest in fixing the aviation industry.

Let's take the case of the 1,700 Qantas workers illegally sacked in 2021. Just this week 1,700 people and the Transport Workers Union have taken court action to determine compensation. This government intervened in the case on behalf of those workers. What did the previous government do? Minister McCormack said illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'in the best interests of the company going forward'. Christian Porter said illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'a good model'. Senator Cash said of illegally sacking 1,700 people, 'Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' That's the record of those opposite on Qantas.

I want to go to the evidence provided by the bilateral air service agreements committee in September. I was on the committee and so was the late Senator Linda White. Between us we both have a bit of experience in taking on airline bosses. Through that inquiry we heard from Damien Pollard. Mr Pollard was one of the 1,700 illegally sacked workers who were abandoned and left for dead by those opposite. Here is what Mr Pollard told the inquiry about the level of support he received from those opposite in his struggle against Qantas management:

Mr Morrison refused to meet us, and I can remember that quite clearly. It's very hard to explain that we actually felt abandoned by the government of the time because nobody would meet with us, except for the Labor opposition. The Morrison government offered no support, and they continued to praise Qantas and say that it was a decision for Qantas. That feeling of abandonment was quite striking. I can remember, many times, various politicians and prime ministers saying, 'We will govern for everybody,' and we just felt that nobody wanted to tackle Qantas. We were left to sink or swim until … the Labor opposition came in, as well as the TWU, and started supporting us.

Mr Pollard went on to say:

Scott Morrison, as I said before, refused to meet with us. Michael McCormack did meet me once. He said he could look for some support service hotlines for us. I also remember quite clearly that he told me the best thing that ever happened to him was being retrenched in his early 40s. I thought at that time, 'It may have worked for you, but it's not working for a lot of my colleagues.' I thought it was rather a strange comment.

He went on to say:

It seems quite strange to say, but the gentleman who we met with that day seemed more interested in telling his own story than listening to our story. That was the common consensus amongst the other delegates who attended that meeting that day.

So that was the experience of Qantas workers desperately trying to get support from those opposite in their fight against Alan Joyce and Qantas. It is in that context that I look at this bill before the Senate today. At every previous opportunity when those opposite had an opportunity to rein in Qantas, they instead egged their behaviour on. When given the opportunity to save Ansett and Virgin from bankruptcy, those opposite let them collapse while being more than happy to pump $2 billion into Qantas. When this government—this government—intervened in the High Court to support the 1,700 illegally sacked Qantas workers, those opposite opposed it. When we closed the Qantas labour loophole, those opposite sat on their hands and opposed it.

It is clear this bill is nothing more than a political stunt. In nine years, those opposite have had no plan for the aviation industry, no reforms to make the industry fairer for the travelling public or for the people who work in the industry. Together with Senator Sterle, I led an inquiry into the future of the aviation sector throughout 2021 which finished shortly before the 2022 election. That inquiry looked extensively at the workforce challenges facing the industry, including the long-term impact of Qantas's aggressive outsourcing and labour hire strategy. The two coalition senators on that committee said in their dissenting report that looking at those workforce issues was a waste of time and a failure to properly examine genuine aviation industry issues.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, on a point of order?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order on relevance.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is relevant. Senator Sheldon.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, that inquiry looked at the workforce challenges facing the industry, including the long-term impact of Qantas's aggressive outsourcing and labour hire strategy. The two coalition senators on that committee said in their dissenting report that looking at those workforce issues was a waste of time and a failure to properly examine genuine aviation issues.

But what did we see once aviation ramped up after lockdowns ended? We saw severe staffing issues that created chaos at our airports, leading Alan Joyce to shift the blame onto passengers for not being 'match fit'. It showed that those opposite have no idea about, or interest in, the broad range of challenges within the aviation industry. We have inherited a real mess in aviation, with a policy for the last decade that left the airlines and airports to self-regulate. Even in the rare cases where those opposite seemed to recognise there was an issue, as in the case of slots at Sydney airport—following a report commissioned by the Harris review—they never bothered to act on the recommendations. The report was left to gather dust.

Then, last year—you won't believe it—Senator McKenzie recommended to her inquiry that the government should 'urgently respond to that report'. They didn't respond to it when they were in government, but now they are out there saying we should respond to it urgently. You can't take them seriously. There is no serious solution being offered for the aviation sector by those opposite. They are just lame attempts to get a headline or to pre-empt what the government is already considering and trying to get ahead. It is not a serious approach for them.

In contrast, we are looking at the sector holistically through the aviation white paper, which will be released in the coming months. That will include looking at the consumer rights that this bill purports to deal with. As the minister said in a press conference on the release of the green paper late last year, 'We are seeking to deliver a more competitive aviation sector. It covers issues in relation to complaint-handling processes, particularly when it comes to canvassing whether we do need a consumer bill or rights when it comes to aviation.' She also said, 'We are considering whether options pursued in other jurisdiction such as a consumer rights charter or a stronger ombudsman model would deliver benefits for Australian aviation sector.' These are part of a string of critically important aviation responses that go to the whole series of matters, including the Harris review. Again, their comments were made more than six months ago, long before this latest thought bubble from the opposition. It couldn't be any clearer when looking at this issue.

When the minister refers to other jurisdictions, I note there have been longstanding policies in places in a number of countries. While the previous government did nothing on this for over nine years, the EU has a scheme where passengers can get up to 600 euros if their flight is delayed by over three hours, and there are similar schemes in the UK and Canada. But it needs to be considered in the context of the broad range of reforms needed to begin fixing the industry. Each piece relates and impacts on the next piece. Pretty logical. But why would we have logic when we want to deal with the aviation industry when there's a chance to get a headline rather than an outcome?

The Transport Workers Union also proposed a safe and secure skies commission. It's an admirable suggestion. It would be an independent body empowered to keep skilled workers in jobs and to lift standards by holding airports and airlines to account for safety and fairness. These are proposals the white paper should be exploring because the industry needs genuine reform after a decade of malaise and inaction by those opposite. There's a real opportunity to get this right. There's a real opportunity for proper debate. There's actually an opportunity for proper consideration.

This multibillion-dollar industry is critical to the arteries of this economy, critical to the social fabric of this country and critical as a fundamental strategic economic approach to how we run our economy. It requires a sophisticated approach, not because I'm opposed to any suggestions but because this is a stunt of a suggestion taken without consideration of all the other impacts on policy that's needed in this area. A white paper going to the strategies, the implementation, the impacts of all those reports that for nine years those opposite have sat on needs to be properly considered and properly weighed up in the interests of all the travelling public and the Australian economy, because the aviation industry deserves something better than a political stunt by those opposite.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the brief time that's available to me, I want to canvass a number of issues. But before I do that, let me just reflect on the contribution that the previous speaker, Senator Sheldon, has made. I note he is the only government senator speaking on the Airline Passenger Protection (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 this morning, which I think is a powerful demonstration of the government's commitment to aviation consumer issues.

Let me just make these quick points. When Senator Sheldon says the government has a holistic approach to aviation issues in this country, people should hear in that word holistic 'delay', 'procrastination'. When Senator Sheldon talks about the government and the minister for transport 'considering' the aviation white paper, what Australians should hear is that the government is not committed unequivocally—is not committed unequivocally—to doing something with strength on consumer protections.

Let me also just make this point. Senator Sheldon accused Senator McKenzie and myself, the authors of this bill, of yet another thought bubble. Let me tell you about the other 'thought bubble' that Senator McKenzie and myself had last year when we brought to this chamber a private senators bill to reinstate the ACCC monitoring regime. Guess what happened to that 'thought bubble'? Guess what happened to that 'political stunt'? We got the first report in the second tranche of the ACCC monitoring regime. So, in actual fact, when Australians are asked to look at and think about where airline aviation competition policy is being driven from in this country, it's not being driven from the department of transport. It's not being driven from Minister Catherine King's office. It's being driven by this Senate chamber. Who would have thought that the people driving, the people making a case for urgency around improvements to airline aviation issues are, in fact, Senator McKenzie and myself, supported by—rather reluctantly, but it is important to give credit where credit is due—the likes of Senator Pocock, who saw the merit in re-establishing the ACCC monitoring regime when the government did not want to do it. The government's hand was forced by a private senators bill in this place, an issue subsequently taken up by Senator Pocock. When Australians think about who the people are who are most committed now and into the future to driving better outcomes for Australia's aviation consumers, they see it is, in fact, the coalition. Far from being a stunt, far from being a thought bubble, private senators' bills like this one force the government's hand.

And why does the government's hand have to be forced on airline issues—issues designed to drive more competition? I just want you to think about this point: why is it that the government can be so committed to competition in supermarkets that it supported a Senate inquiry, appointed Craig Emerson to conduct a review and has the ACCC conducting a review? Why can the government focus on supermarket competition but be dead silent, with not a shadow of a movement of action, on airline competition issues? The government says, 'We've got an aviation white paper process which will follow the aviation green paper process.' Well, guess what. That is the government's second-term agenda. It is not the government's first-term agenda, because this first term of the government is almost finished. There will be a budget, and colleagues like myself and others speculate that there will be a federal election later this year.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There won't be an election until next year.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, are you saying there's not going to be a federal election later this year?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can go through consultation—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, there we go. I don't doubt that. I don't doubt the trickery. Senator Farrell says that we can go through to next year. I don't doubt that. That is a fact. That's not in dispute. But will you? I doubt you will.

This is my grand thinking. There will be a federal budget, the government will argue that the economic conditions are improving and we'll have a federal election later this year. And what does that mean for the government's aviation green paper and aviation white paper process? It becomes part of their second-term agenda. And guess who pays for that. With Australian families who want to travel to their loved ones and their extended families across this country, who pays for that? Australia's diaspora communities, who pay higher prices when they want to travel overseas to visit their families, and Australian businesses, who have to fly across this great, vast land of ours in order to do business.

Australians are paying a very high price for the government's inaction. Why do we know that the government is forcing higher prices and poorer outcomes on Australian aviation consumers? Why do we know that? It is because of the ACCC monitoring report released just last month, the first report in the second tranche, thanks to Senator McKenzie and my private senator's bill late last year and thanks to the support of people like David Pocock. Guess what it says. It says that Australian consumers are paying higher prices.

Let me read from the most recent ACCC monitoring report. The ACCC monitoring report is important because it uses the full armoury, the full resources of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to bring facts to the table about the extent to which this country does or doesn't enjoy competition in our airline industry. It brings facts to the table with regard to prices that Australian consumers are forced to pay. It's not a difficult document to read, and even the laziest of government senators need to read just two pages. Those are the first two pages in the monitoring report. I want to just highlight four or perhaps five comments in the first ACCC monitoring report in the second tranche of reports. The first point it makes is, I think, very, very revealing. It talks about the structural problems in Australia's aviation industry:

The trends observed over the past 12 months—

which are negative trends, I might add—

appear to be structural and unlikely to change in the short term.

That is a direct statement by the ACCC, making a judgement, I believe, that the government's reform agenda—if there is one—is not going to happen and is not going to deliver outcomes in the short term. It goes on to talk about the importance of economy airfares:

However, best discount economy airfares have not yet fallen to pre-pandemic levels. The general fall when adjusted for inflation may not reflect consumer experiences, who are still paying significantly more to fly in nominal terms than they did prior to the pandemic.

That's not Senator McKenzie's accusation, nor is it Senator Smith's accusation; that's a comment from the ACCC's monitoring report. It goes on to make this point, which is a critical point when we consider the matter of this bill which goes to consumer protections:

Despite evidence of falling airfares and stability in overall passenger volumes and capacity, service reliability remains a significant concern …

Factors contributing to poor service reliability and within airlines' control, include efforts to manage systemic issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, pilot shortages, pilot training bottlenecks and some supply chain disruptions.

That means that these matters are wholly within the domain of Australia's airline industry, and it is up to them. They have the capacity to fix them. But, because the government will not lead by bringing airlines and other stakeholders to the table to discuss and agree better consumer protections, Senator McKenzie and I have been forced to do so in this private senator's bill.

This private senator's bill is not a complicated piece of legislation. It says that the minister representing the government must consult within a specified time period to bring forward to this parliament a range of consumer protections that will substantially improve the experience of Australia's airline consumers. Interestingly, in Senator Sheldon's contribution, he did not say he was necessarily opposed to the bill. He did not. So there's no reason why Senator Sheldon can't add his energy and his very clear and obvious commitment to aviation issues to making sure that this bill passes so that it delivers consumer protections not in the never-never but in the immediate term. Australians are right to ask why, after two years, this government can make other issues—the Voice, for example—a priority but can't make it a priority to drive down prices, improve customer outcomes or deliver better service outcomes for Australian families who pay large sums of money to travel across this country to be reunited with their families or for leisure. Why can't the government make this a priority? Why can't the government fast-track its green paper and white paper process?

Senator Sheldon made another interesting comment. He said, 'All of these bits and pieces in the aviation reform process are interrelated, and they have to be addressed together.' That is just not true. Nowhere does the report say that airline consumer protections have to be dealt with at the same time as other aviation reform issues. Nowhere does it say that. In fact, when the ACCC made its submission to the aviation white paper process in March last year—its submission is now 12 months old—it made no comment about the interrelatedness of various aviation reform initiatives. In fact, pages 26 to 30 of that submission are a very valuable read, because the ACCC's submission acts as an endorsement of this private senators' bill that Senator McKenzie and I have introduced this morning. So whether or not Australians continue to pay higher prices for their airline tickets is completely within the control of the government, and the government's plan so far has been one of delay and procrastination.

And just think for a moment—higher airline prices are coming at a cost to Australian families and their household budgets at the same time they are adjusting to the cumulative effect of 12 interest rate rises, the cumulative effect on household budgets of energy price rises, the cumulative effect of increased prices on shopping centre shelves and the cumulative effect of declining real wages, and the government says, 'There's nothing to see here.' Well, let's give a gold medal to Senator McKenzie in her role as the shadow minister for transport, and therefore aviation issues, for bringing forward to this Senate chamber a real plan that would deliver better outcomes for Australian aviation consumers.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 because it's simply common sense. Australians should be protected and have consumer protections in place when their travel plans are disrupted, especially when those plans are disrupted by the large airline companies, who have significant market power in this country and have been exposed over the past few years as offering substandard customer experiences.

This bill is very simple, and I applaud my colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie for bringing it forward. It simply makes sure that, if an Australian consumer has their flight cancelled, they are properly compensated. There should be minimum standards of treatment. It makes sure that, if you lose your baggage and it doesn't turn up, you are compensated for that loss. I think most Australians would expect that to be the case, but it can sometimes be a costly and time-consuming procedure. It also makes sure that there is a cost associated with lengthy delays to the airline providers to make sure they're not gaming the system in delaying flights or otherwise trying to maximise their profits instead of doing what they promised to do.

These changes are necessary because our major airlines have not been responding to the legitimate customer complaints that we have seen, especially since flying resumed after the COVID pandemic. We have seen airlines state publicly that you don't, apparently, really book a particular time and location when you book a flight these days. According to one airline executive, you just book a right to fly at some undefined point in the future. That is not what Australians expect; it's not what they're told when they go to book. There are particular times when a flight is meant to take off and particular times when it's meant to land. Anything that the airlines think otherwise would be misleading and deceptive conduct in the extreme.

The provisions that are in this bill that Senator Bridget McKenzie has brought forward are very similar to protections that are in place in major other countries, including in the US, in Canada and in European countries too. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me that the government wouldn't be supporting these now. Who cares where the good ideas come from? Let's just support them and get this stuff done. Let's protect the Australian consumers and respond to this major issue. But, continuously over the past 18 months, this government have shown themselves to be running a protection racket for Qantas and the other major airline providers in this country. They have at every step of the way sought to defend the likes of Alan Joyce, the Qantas executive team and the other airlines, and they have done absolutely nothing to rein in the market power position and the abuse of that position that our airline companies are taking.

In response to the pandemic, the airlines all had to cancel a lot of flights, and that wasn't their fault. That was obviously something that was imposed on them, but a lot of flights had to be cancelled. Our airlines were provided with billions of dollars of taxpayer money to compensate them for that unfortunate outcome, and they dragged their heels in providing proper refunds for Australian customers. In fact, I heard from some in the industry that it was an explicit strategy of the Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, to force people, to push people, into taking a credit for their cancelled COVID-19 flights rather than getting a refund.

Apparently, Mr Joyce established two different call centre teams to deal with people that were seeking a change to or refund for their flights. If, on the automatic talking machine on your phone, you pushed the button that said 'I want a credit', you were sent through to a team that was very well staffed, had a lot of resources and would deal with your issue promptly. If you pushed the button that said 'I want a refund' because you actually wanted your money back for a service that wasn't being provided, you got pushed through to a call centre that was massively understaffed and you'd be on the phone for hours. Apparently, Mr Joyce was boasting about this wonderful corporate strategy that he had invented to maximise the profits of Qantas and maximise the benefits of the taxpayer funding they had received, effectively defrauding Australian customers across the country.

There has to be a response to this kind of corporate conduct. This is a very reasonable and sensible response to that, and it should be supported.

Now, I also want to talk broadly here about the situation of airline policies in this country. Senator Sheldon apparently made the point—I wasn't here for it, but I've been told that he made it—that the government can't do this right now because they have to look at airline policy in the broad, and there's a green and white paper process underway at the moment, so they need to wait for that. How long has this been going on? Some aspects of airline policy, going back to the former government, have now been waiting years for a response.

The former government did have a pretty good excuse. Given what happened with COVID, it was pretty hard to make many major changes to airline policy while most of our country's airline fleet was grounded. Flights weren't in fact taking off, or at least not many, so it would've been inappropriate to make major changes to regulatory settings at that time. But it's been years now since the government received a report on the slots allocation policy at the Sydney airport. It is a major issue for our country. It's a major bottleneck for our country, in that most flights leave from or terminate at Sydney, the busiest airport in the country, and the allocation of space for airplanes at the Sydney airport has huge ramifications and knock-on effects for other travel right across the country, including for those that aren't travelling to or from Sydney, because it affects the whole network of planes across the country.

Those slots, as they're called—they're parking spaces, basically, for planes as they arrive and depart—are allocated through a very complicated procedure which gives precedence, effectively, to the incumbent users of those slots or their historical allocation over time. Almost invariably the majority of those slots go to Qantas and Virgin, the incumbent providers. A few go to some regional operators and others, but mostly they go to Qantas and Virgin. Those slots remain with those incumbent providers, provided they use them for a certain percentage of the time. If they use them for a certain percentage of the time, they get to keep these slots.

There is very credible evidence on this matter, which came to us during the cost-of-living inquiry and hearings, that especially Qantas, and possibly Virgin too, are effectively gaming the slot allocation system to make sure that they maintain their slots and that those slots are, therefore, not made available to potential competitors to their market position. Because of this issue, which has been a longstanding issue, the former minister for infrastructure, Michael McCormack, commissioned a review into it. That review reported back, I think, in 2021 or something of that nature. It was years ago now. As I said, at the time it was inappropriate to respond to that review or make decisions because of the COVID situation, but now that's long gone. We've been flying again now for a couple of years. We opened up two years ago almost to the day, and we're still waiting on the now minister for infrastructure, Minister King, to respond to this major issue. The response, of course, could have a negative impact on Qantas but a positive impact for Australian consumers. If they are gaming the system and putting up unnecessary barriers to competition, that is weakening the customer experience in the airline market and potentially making these cancelled flight issues a bigger, bigger deal.

The way that Qantas could be gaming this situation is by booking these slots for a flight ahead of time and selling customers the seats and all these things. Then, just beforehand, they could cancel the flight for a variety of reasons and excuses that they can come up with. That would still give them that quota. It would still make them reach that threshold to keep that slot. But, of course, the customers who have their flight cancelled pay an enormous price. Even if they get their money back, there's the cost of the disruption and their travel plans are cancelled, all so Qantas can maintain an incumbent position in the market.

The system should change. It has to change. Things are not working as intended. Yet this minister, Minister King, has been sitting on this report for the almost two years that she's been the minister. There's seemingly no action on this. As I said earlier, she seems to be running a protection racket for Qantas. She kept Qatar Airways out of this country with very little excuse or reason for it—sorry, there were lots of reasons and excuses; they just changed almost every day over a matter of months. There was no coherent explanation for why the minister refused to have more competition to Qantas in the international market, and now the minister seems to be protecting Qantas from more competition in the domestic market as well. That is what's leading to these poor customer outcomes, which are continuing to bedevil the market. Cancellations are continuing to be above their historical average. There are constant complaints of lost baggage and poor performance by the airlines. There clearly needs to be a response here to bring the airlines into line. And that's what this bill does. This bill provides reasonable protections for consumers to make sure that they get proper outcomes when they're flying around this country.

I want to finish by stressing how important this is for people across Australia. Obviously we're a very big landmass that is somewhat sparsely populated, especially between our major cities. That has meant that we don't have, in this country, the same type of rail or timely road networks that other countries might have. It takes a long time to travel by road between our major centres, and we don't have the fast rail type networks that you see in Europe or in North Asia. So, really, most people are left with the plane as the only option to travel long distances. A lot of people have to do this not just to go on a holiday but to receive medical treatment or to do business, and that is especially true for those of us who live in regional areas, where we have to travel to a major city to access a variety of services. Some of those services are life changing and life saving. People often have to travel to receive cancer treatment or other medical treatment on a regular basis. It's for chronic treatment, not just in the case of an emergency; sometimes people have to travel multiple times a year to manage their health issues.

Other people in the town where I am, in Rockhampton, have to travel for business. They have to go to places like Brisbane for major financial or legal services, which are simply not available in their local town. These services are essential for people's livelihoods and peace of mind, and the frustration that has emerged in the past few years through the cancellations, through the excessive prices and through the lack of customer service when things go wrong has added a level of stress to those in very difficult circumstances—they might be in poor health—and a level of cost for those who are just trying to go about their business in this country. So it's very important that we, as a nation, have efficient airline networks servicing our entire country and our sparse population. Those industries are not serving Australians well at this stage, and there clearly needs to be a response to make sure that we have efficient airline service right around this country.

This government does seem to be doing something—running this protection racket, which I've mentioned—and then sometimes just seems to be completely asleep at the wheel. We haven't heard from Minister King. I don't know where she is. She has just completely disappeared off the face of the earth—

An opposition senator: She's waiting for a flight!

Yes, she's at the airline lounge, waiting for a flight, perhaps! We don't know. Where has she been? As I said, she has got this major report on slot allocation in Sydney. We've heard no response from her. What the hell is going on? Now we have a government that's seemingly not taking up these commonsense ideas, instead saying, 'We're doing more reviews,' and it could be months and months before Australians receive any kind of relief or response.

Why don't we just get on with it and pass this bill? It's very, very simple. It would make the minister actually do something. This bill doesn't outline in detail what the requirements would be. I think that's appropriate for an overriding piece of legislation. All the bill says is that the minister must, within 12 months, come up with some of these rules to protect Australian consumers. At the very least, passing this bill might actually make the minister for infrastructure do something. That would be good because she'd have to, within 12 months, do something for a change. Right now, it's pretty hard to understand what the minister for infrastructure is doing apart from just running a protection racket for Qantas.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to put a scenario to the chamber. I want to provide a case study. Imagine that you live a 2½-hour drive away from your nearest airport. Imagine you get up very early in the morning. The sun's still not up; you beat the sun. You're on the way to the airport to meet your flight. You know you've got to check in half an hour before the flight, so you're on the road. And you get a ping on your phone about 100 kilometres down the road. Obviously, you can't pick up your phone, because you're driving, and that would be illegal, so you pull over and you check your phone, only to be notified that your flight has been delayed. You're already 100 kilometres away from home, and you've still got 150 kilometres left to go. But they're letting you know your flight's delayed. At least you don't have to speed!

You get to the airport. You're delayed. You sit around, twiddling your thumbs and waiting. Meanwhile, you've got a connecting flight. And, because you know the track record of some of our airlines, you've actually left maybe a good hour and a half between when your flight should have landed and when your connecting flight was going to take off. But this delay is closing that window rapidly, and you get another notification: your flight has been delayed again. Well, you can write off getting your connecting flight. So you have to get online, try and book another flight and potentially wear the penalties. And, because you're travelling from a regional area, you're travelling different airlines. The first flight is a different airline to the second flight. There's no recognition or compensation that your need to change flights has been caused by an airline's delay. So you've now written off a whole day because of a flight delay.

That would be the reality for me every time I want to come to parliament if I chose not to drive. But, because I cannot rely on airlines, because the standard operating procedure for many airlines nowadays is to just delay flights, because the percentage of flights being delayed by the airlines is increasing, I can't afford to risk using the airlines to get me to Canberra. So I drive. It is faster. It's more efficient for me to drive. But the impact for regional people of the practices of the airlines to delay or cancel flights is significant.

I know people who live in Broken Hill and who have to fly to Sydney for specialist treatment. They end up booking flights for the day before their appointments just to be sure they are going to be in Sydney for their appointments. That increases their costs because now they have to pay for an extra night's accommodation. They pay for the flights, which are horrendously expensive when we're talking about regional flights, they pay for an extra night's accommodation, they see the specialist and then they hope that they can get back home that day—otherwise, they are faced with the expense of another night's accommodation. That is the reality for people living in the regions right across this country. When we can't rely on our airlines to depart on time and when that leads to increased costs for regional Australians who just want to look after their own health. It is a very sad state of affairs. When you purchase a plane ticket, the plane is meant to leave on time and arrive on time and your baggage is meant to arrive with you. Is that too much to ask?

Let me be clear: we all know that sometimes there are circumstances which require delays, and that is fair and reasonable. If there are weather concerns, it's fair and reasonable. If there are safety concerns, it is fair and reasonable. But if it's just because the airline has decided they didn't get quite enough bookings for the first flight of the day so they're going to bump everybody to the second flight of the day, that is not fair and reasonable. If it is just inconvenient for the airlines or if, as my colleague Senator Canavan said, they're selling tickets to book up the slots but then they want to consolidate the ticket sales so they cancel the slots, causing havoc to competition in the airline industry, then that's not fair and reasonable. And if it is because Airservices Australia have not looked into the future and determined how many people they actually need to run our airport services and therefore they haven't recruited and trained enough people, that's not fair and reasonable either, because that's not the fault of the flying consumer.

The aviation industry has gone backwards. Prior to COVID, if you booked an airline ticket, there was only a 1.5 per cent chance that your flight would be delayed. That could be considered fair and reasonable. In January 2024, 3.1 per cent of flights were cancelled, and the long-term average rate of cancellations has blown out. That's not fair and reasonable. What is going on? Why have we gone backwards from the pre-COVID era? Why are our airlines and, indeed, the minister not taking action? How can it be that, once upon a time, Qantas was one of our most trusted brands and was considered the airline to book because you knew you would leave on time and arrive on time, and now people are avoiding Qantas like the plague? When did we take our eye off the consumers and start focusing on the market giants?

This bill isn't a silver bullet—I admit that—but this bill will require action to be taken. This bill will put the focus back on the consumers. It will prioritise the consumers. It will actually make the airlines accountable. They will have to justify what is a fair and reasonable delay or cancellation. Many people don't realise that there is no code of conduct in the aviation industry even though there have been ongoing concerns raised and a call by the ACCC and other consumer advocacy groups to develop a code of conduct for the aviation industry. We need a code of conduct so that we don't have inconsistent fare types, so the experiences of third-party purchases of airfares can be highlighted and to ensure fair and proper treatment of passengers so that passengers get to where they're going when they need to get there and with their baggage.

Just this week one of my colleagues arrived here in Canberra only to find that their baggage had been lost in transit. They came in in very amusing mismatched attire because their baggage had been lost. What was the response of the airline? 'Eh, we might find it. We'll let you know when we might find it. We don't know how many days you might have to walk around in the same socks and jocks, but we will find it eventually.' That's not good enough.

You arrive at the airport with your bag half an hour beforehand because that's what you are required to do. You check in your bag. It's tagged. You watch it go down into the belly of the airport and you expect it to get on the plane with you—the same plane that you're getting on. You've got your barcoded boarding pass and the barcoded ticket that went on your suitcase. You should be getting on the same plane. How is it then possible that, when you land, there's no sign of your baggage in this day and age, when you just should be able to point your little laser at the barcode and you should know where it goes? It is absolutely ridiculous that we are still losing baggage in this day and age. It is not fair, again, particularly to regional passengers that we can't be guaranteed that we're going to land on time with all our bags.

This bill will establish minimum standards. It's not too much to ask. They will be minimum standards for the treatment of passengers to experience delays, cancellation or sometimes a denial of boarding—minimum standards to ensure that passengers are provided with the essential amenities needed such as food, water and accommodation during such disruptions. That is what is required.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired.