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; Second Reading

Witty supported the bill, stating it established the most significant reform to aviation consumer protection in decades by creating an independent ombudsperson and protection authority. Witty cited research showing low satisfaction with current complaint handling and lack of information for passengers during disruptions. Witty explained that the framework sets minimum standards for assistance, communication, and refunds, while exempting small airports with fewer than one million passengers annually to protect regional viability. Witty argued that automatic financial compensation could raise fares without improving performance, preferring a focus on clear rights, proper refunds, and accountability.

Haines welcomed the overdue consumer protections but expressed concern about the lack of detail on how the framework would operate and its potential negative impact on regional consumers. Haines noted that regional routes are often the first to be cancelled and questioned whether exemptions for smaller airports would leave regional passengers with lower levels of protection. Haines criticised the absence of a clear impact analysis, making it difficult to assess effects on prices and flight availability. Haines called for the government to work across the parliament to ensure benefits flowed to all consumers, including those in regional areas.

Ambihaipahar supported the bill, emphasising that it addressed long-standing issues of passengers feeling powerless during flight disruptions. Ambihaipahar highlighted the establishment of the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to enforce standards and the independent ombudsperson to resolve disputes fairly. Ambihaipahar noted that the reforms included specific protections for passengers with disabilities, who often face barriers in accessing assistance. Ambihaipahar argued that the framework balanced consumer rights with industry realities by exempting small regional airports while covering major hubs that handle the majority of passenger movements.

Ryan opposed the bill, arguing it fell short of international standards by failing to provide automatic compensation for delays and cancellations within an airline's control. Ryan cited high cancellation rates and elevated airfares, noting that the EU and Canada offer fixed compensation schemes that Australia lacked. Ryan criticised the delegation of the passenger rights charter to regulation rather than legislation, preventing parliamentary assessment of its adequacy. Ryan moved an amendment calling for the tabling of a draft charter with mandatory content and the inclusion of fixed, automatic compensation consistent with international best practice.

France supported the bill, stating it delivered significant reforms to protect passengers and address systemic issues in the aviation sector. France highlighted the creation of an independent ombudsperson to resolve complaints and a protection authority to enforce minimum standards for bookings, baggage, and assistance. France also noted the establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsperson to address community concerns about flight paths and noise impacts. France argued the legislation balanced consumer protection with the need to keep aviation competitive and sustainable, particularly for regional routes.