Concerns Over Bureaucratic Complexity in Aviation Consumer Protections
Airlines and consumer advocates have raised concerns that new consumer protections aimed at safeguarding air travellers may inadvertently create a complex bureaucratic system, where passenger complaints become trapped in a “referral roundabout.” These concerns were highlighted in submissions to a Senate committee reviewing the government’s proposed Aviation Consumer Protections Framework.
The Law Council of Australia warned that the framework introduces multiple institutional actors with overlapping responsibilities, alongside existing regulators who share jurisdiction. This could lead to confusion for both consumers and industry players. Advocacy groups argue that the legislation might prevent passengers from easily finding the right authority to address their complaints, resulting in situations similar to the current system.
The Albanese government introduced the legislation into Parliament in April, aiming to establish an Ombuds Scheme to resolve eligible individual consumer complaints that cannot be directly addressed by airlines or airports. It also proposes the formation of an Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to enforce a charter setting service standards for the aviation industry.
This legislative reform follows several high-profile service failures, such as customers being booked on non-existent Qantas flights and flight credits being lost after the COVID lockdowns.
Calls for a ‘No Wrong Door’ Complaints Process
The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations has urged the legislation to include a “no wrong door” complaints process, ensuring quick resolution of issues related to jurisdiction. They recommend that all regulators must refer directly to each other and cooperate in any complaint procedure or investigation. The Australian Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia have supported this suggestion.
Currently, aviation-related complaints are handled by the industry-run Airline Customer Advocate. In 2024, 60% of the 4,353 complaints sent to the advocate were deemed “ineligible.” The ACCC addresses systemic issues affecting aviation but not individual complaints, while the Human Rights Commission deals with discrimination or disability-related complaints.
The Federation of Disability Organisations emphasized that agencies must work collaboratively to help people find the right complaint pathway, avoiding situations where individuals become stuck, frustrated, or lost in a “referral roundabout.”
Industry Concerns and Challenges
The recommendations are part of a series of statements submitted by airlines, airports, peak bodies, individuals, and representative groups to the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.
Transport Minister Catherine King has stressed that although airline performance has improved since the pandemic, there is still a need to better protect aviation consumers. She noted that the war in the Middle East has highlighted how travellers can face disruption and uncertainty domestically, making increased protections essential.
“The Albanese Government will continue to work constructively with consumer groups and the aviation industry as this legislation and the associated regulations are progressed,” King said.
Consumers have traditionally relied on airlines handling escalated complaints through voluntary arrangements, often leading to disappointment. A government-sponsored survey of 4,000 Australians found that 95% did not complain when encountering travel disruptions.
While Qantas and Virgin support the goal of improving customer outcomes, they questioned the structure of the framework and the cost of funding it, which would be charged to airlines. Virgin raised concerns about “inequitable cost allocation and unbounded financial exposure,” particularly for low-cost carriers like Jetstar.
Qantas noted that its on-time performance, customer satisfaction, and ability to rebook disrupted passengers have “improved materially” since the 2024 release of the Aviation White Paper, which proposed the new laws.
The legislation assigns accountability to the airline that offers the service, whether it operates the service or sells it through a codeshare. Qantas, which has codeshare agreements with American, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, and Emirates, expressed concerns about expanding liability beyond areas of operational control and third-party services.
Virgin pointed to the bill’s complexity, suggesting it could create duplications with the ACCC and risk diminishing consumers’ clarity about their rights. The bill does not include a provision that the Ombuds won’t take up complaints already being pursued in a “court, tribunal or other complaint handling body,” according to Virgin’s submission.
“We are continuing to engage collaboratively with the government,” a spokesman said.
Upcoming Public Hearing and Next Steps
A public hearing has been scheduled for May 29, with the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport set to report its findings in June.
