BALAKRISHNAN, Ms Sheetal, Senior Solicitor, Justice and Equity Centre [by video link] CAMPBELL, Mr Morgan, Head, Policy and Government Relations, CHOICE [by video link] GLEZER, Mr Adam, Owner, Consumer Champion KELLY, Mr Andrew, Director, Campaigns and Communications, CHOICE [by video link] [09:42] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you all. Do you have any comments to make on the capacity in which you appear? Mr Glezer : I'm a consumer advocate from Consumer Champion. CHAIR: Would you like to make a brief opening statement before we go to questions? I'll start with you, Mr Glezer. Mr Glezer : Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would like to acknowledge the interim ombudsperson, Samantha Palmer, and the team for the work undertaken. Some elements of the draft charter are a step in the right direction. For instance, I welcome the proposal allowing consumers to be rebooked onto alternative flights, including with competing airlines, as well as stronger transparency requirements around the conditions of carriage and consumer rights. However, more reform is still needed to adequately protect Australian consumers. Firstly, terms in the draft charter, such as reasonable efforts, best efforts and reasonable time, need to be clearly defined. Leaving these obligations open to broad interpretation creates uncertainty and disadvantages consumers, as it has in the ACL. Secondly, a notable omission from the draft charter is the absence of any financial compensation. Where cancellations, significant delays or involuntary bumping occur within an airline's control, consumers must be fairly compensated. International jurisdictions have been financially compensating customers and providing refunds for all cancellations for years. In the EU, passengers may receive compensation of up to 600 euros for significant delays or cancellations within the airline's control, while, in the US, passengers involuntarily denied boarding due to overbooking may receive compensation of around US$1,550. Thirdly, refunds must be available for all flight cancellations, regardless of the reason. The principle is simple: if consumers pay for a service that is not delivered, they should receive their money back. The lessons from COVID should have settled this issue long ago. Finally, the joint industry submission shows a disconnect between the position of the airlines and the lived experience of Australian consumers. Claims that stronger consumer protections would substantially increase airfares or reduce competition are difficult to reconcile with international experience. For example, Qantas already operate under significantly stronger consumer protection regimes in the US, EU, UK and Canada, which raises a simple question: if these protections are workable elsewhere, why are Australian consumers considered less deserving of them? Refunding consumers for services not provided and compensating passengers for avoidable disruptions are not radical proposals. They are fundamental principles of consumer protection. CHAIR: Now to CHOICE. Mr Kelly, would you like to make an opening statement? Mr Kelly : Good morning, senators. Thank you for inviting CHOICE to address the committee this morning. We've been hearing horror stories from travellers for many years, but the COVID-19 pandemic really exposed the gaps in Australia's lax aviation consumer protections. We saw consumers lumbered with deliberately difficult-to-use credits with short expiry dates and difficult-to-access customer service. Some consumers had to go to extraordinary lengths to get to their destination or to make it to an important event like a wedding or a funeral. When complaints went unresolved, consumers could only turn to the dismal industry-funded Airline Customer Advocate, which received a Shonky Award from CHOICE for being little more than an email forwarding service for consumers. Far too often, consumers are given the run-around by airlines when trying to access a remedy for a delayed or cancelled flight. Travellers are often not even given a reason why their flight has been delayed or cancelled. This information asymmetry gives airlines significant power because consumers aren't even given the information that they need to know about what remedy they're entitled to by law or by contract. We welcome and support the aviation bills to address these issues and establish an independent ombuds scheme, something CHOICE has been calling for for many years to help resolve consumer complaints and provide a pathway to redress. We're pleased that feedback on its independence has been reflected in the bills. CHOICE also welcomes the creation of a new regulator to enforce obligations on entities and the aviation consumer rights charter still to come, which will set out protections consumers should expect. We broadly support the bills and believe they should be strengthened further. We're concerned that the new regulator's functions will sit within the department of infrastructure. The Aviation Consumer Protection Authority should be independent. We appreciate that the new regulator will benefit from being established within existing infrastructure. However, we believe that being within the ACCC would be a more appropriate initial set-up. The regulator should be free from ministerial direction and influence on daily decisions. If the regulator is to sit within the department, a statutory review should be included to consider its performance and positioning. We are also concerned that the minister will have broad powers to exclude any entity from the entire regime indefinitely. If an exemptions power is included, appropriate guardrails like time limits or conditions should be imposed on any exclusions, which should all be open to public consultation prior to being granted. Otherwise, the legislation and protections it offers to consumers could be hollowed out over time. Finally, the regime will only work if the promised aviation consumer protections charter is strong. As you're aware, most of the core consumer rights and obligations on airlines and airports will not be set out by the bills before parliament but by legislative instrument, limiting parliamentary scrutiny. We have seen some good improvements since the initial draft of the proposed charter, but we're concerned that the final charter may still not go far enough to protect consumers from a future pandemic or, as we've seen recently, the impacts of acts of war. Existing consumer laws are inadequate, so the charter must go much further than simply reflecting the existing law. Thank you for your time. Mr Campbell and I are happy to answer any questions. CHAIR: Ms Balakrishnan. Ms Balakrishnan : Thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear today. The Justice and Equity Centre has a long history of working in public policy and advocacy to promote the rights and equal participation of people with disability, including access to air travel. Our submission draws on both our policy work with disability advocates and our legal practice representing people with disability in complaints against airlines and airports. Through that work, we hear regularly about the barriers people with disability face at every stage of the travel journey. When services are inaccessible or not delivered as promised, the consequences are serious and disproportionate. They can affect people's safety, dignity and independence. The scale and seriousness of these experiences show that existing legal frameworks are not working effectively. In that regard, we welcome the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and, in particular, its recognition that protections for people with disability need to improve. There are, however, key areas where it should be strengthened to ensure that those protections are meaningful in practice, and I will briefly highlight five. First, the framework should apply across the entire travel journey. The government's intention is to exclude security screening, and in our opinion that would be a significant gap. Airport screening is widely recognised as one of the most difficult stages of travel, especially for people with disability. Excluding a stage that is associated with well-documented systemic issues would undermine the effectiveness of the framework. Second, protections must apply to all consumers. The government's proposed exemption of small airports risks creating uneven protections, particularly for people in regional and remote communities where air travel is essential. People with disability are already disproportionately affected by service failures, and that impact is greater in the context of small airports, where alternatives may be limited. The framework shouldn't entrench geographical inequality. Instead, it should adopt flexible mechanisms that ensure consistent protections, and in our submission we suggest ways this could be done. Third, the bill must properly recognise disability aids. While it addresses baggage handling, it does not adequately distinguish disability aids. Disability aids are not a subset of baggage. They are essential to mobility and independence. When they are damaged or lost, the consequences are far more serious than for ordinary baggage. The legislation should explicitly reflect that. Fourth, we support the proposed ombuds scheme, including its balanced governance model. However, with accessibility being a core objective, people with lived experience of disability need to be properly represented in decision-making on the board, and this should be, at a minimum, two consumer directors and should be guaranteed in the primary legislation. Finally, the ombuds scheme adopts a legalistic merits-review approach to decision-making. In our view, this is not well suited to an ombuds model. Comparable ombuds schemes such as AFCA and the TIO apply a standard of 'fair and reasonable in the circumstances', which is more accessible and better suited to resolving consumer disputes. This bill should adopt that approach. Our submission makes 33 targeted and technical recommendations to constructively improve the bill, and I'd be happy to take questions. CHAIR: Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: Mr Glezer, you raised the question of why Australian consumers should receive less consumer protection than people in the US, EU and the other jurisdictions you named. Why should they? Mr Glezer : Why should they? Senator COLBECK: Yes. Mr Glezer : They shouldn't. They should be getting— Senator COLBECK: I thought that's what you'd say. Mr Glezer : The gap between the other jurisdictions and Australia is massive. All you've got to do is look at Qantas's conditions of carriage for each jurisdiction—I was having a look at them last night—and Australians are treated terribly in comparison. That's the reality of it. Senator COLBECK: Do you think the bill provides sufficient powers to drive systemic change, which is what you're talking about, and cultural change across the sector, rather than just creating a complaint system? Mr Glezer : In my opinion, it will drive change, not a complaint system, because as long as everything is set out in terms of—if I'm answering it correctly. If I'm not, stop me— Senator COLBECK: Does the bill do enough, as it sits now, to make those changes? Mr Glezer : Not even close. Senator COLBECK: That was what I was— Mr Glezer : Sorry—not even close. Senator COLBECK: So it really doesn't drive systemic change as it's currently structured. Mr Glezer : No. Senator COLBECK: It's providing some change. Mr Glezer : It's providing some change, minimal change, but it's got to be weighed up with the ombudsperson scheme. We've got to weigh it up with how much it's going to cost the taxpayer. If these are all the changes that are going to be there, is it going to be worthwhile? It still doesn't address the two core issues, which are automatic refunds for all flight cancellations, without some of these bizarre exceptions I've been told about, and compensation when the issues are within the airline's control. We're inconveniencing the public. What happens if they're going to a family member's funeral or wedding and it's the airline's fault and they miss it? They've got to be compensated. It's also a way of deterring this type of behaviour from airlines going forward. Like with anything, like with a young kid—it's punishing them for doing the wrong thing. Senator COLBECK: More broadly, with respect to the enforceable protections for passengers with disability, there's been a lot of discussion with respect to the definitions and the scope within the bill. Can I just get thoughts with respect to that from members of the panel, please. I'll start with CHOICE. Mr Kelly : My apologies. Could you repeat the question for me, please. Senator COLBECK: The question being adequate enforceable protections for passengers with disabilities—do you think the bill effectively does that? I'll come to you next, Ms Balakrishnan, but it directly relates to the issues with respect to support for people with disabilities. Mr Kelly : For a lot of the questions that are going to be around protections for consumers, protections for consumers with disabilities or protections generally, a lot of the devil is going to be in the detail of the aviation consumer protections charter, which isn't part of the bill but lays the groundwork. So it's a difficult question to answer. But the question about passengers with disabilities isn't our area of expertise. Ms Balakrishnan : In our submission, we do make several recommendations about enhancing the definitions of some of the key concepts. We've made some recommendations around the definition of 'accessibility service' to make it more inclusive, and we've suggested particular wording that amends what is currently proposed in the bill. We've also suggested that the definition of 'airline service' could be made more broad to ensure that it captures all aspects of the air travel journey that's associated with what the airline service provides. In relation to airport service, probably the biggest point with the definition is in terms of what I raised in my opening statement about that not currently including security screening. Our strong recommendation there is that security screening is included within the scope of the framework. We've also suggested a change to the definition of 'airport accessibility service' to clarify that that can be provided by both an airline and an airport, not simply because it's called an airport accessibility service. There are some good bases from which to work there, but we've certainly suggested ways that those definitions can be enhanced. Senator COLBECK: There's already been discussion about where the standards sit with respect to either in the bill or in delegated legislation. Would you support them being more defined within the primary legislation rather than in the delegated legislation, the regs? Ms Balakrishnan : We at the JEC did participate in the consultations that were run by the department towards the end of last year on both primary and subordinate legislation. We have also, similarly to CHOICE, seen various iterations of what's proposed in terms of delegated legislation for the charter. I will make two comments. The first is that, currently, the bill provides that the minister 'may' establish the charter and 'may' establish the ombud scheme, and so I think that wording of 'may', from our perspective, seems a little bit problematic. While we appreciate that that is giving way for flexibility and the adaptability in terms of the discussion that's been had in the earlier session, and while we also appreciate that the intention is to make both of those things, it's not clear from our perspective why it would be necessary for those powers to be discretionary in the way that they've been framed in the current bill, so we would be suggesting that those become mandatory so that the charter and the ombud scheme are established and provide certainty in that regard. The concern is that, even though the current government has stated its intention to create both of those things, a future government may decide to revoke the creation of both of those aspects. The second recommendation we've made in terms of going to the point about delegated legislation is that there should also be a statutory periodic review to ensure that those pieces of delegated legislation remain current and have opportunities to be updated as necessary. Mr Campbell : I don't think we have an issue with the charter being a delegated legislation in principle, but I think that, to the point made by Ms Balakrishnan, the discretionary element of what's currently proposed is problematic and there's no real reason for it to be a 'may' rather than a 'will', but having the charter as a delegated instrument does have some benefits as well—more broadly around being able to be updated more frequently without having to go through the full legislative process. Senator COLBECK: Do you think the legislation would benefit from having some better direction with respect to navigation? It covers a whole range of different jurisdictions. There are overlaps. If someone's got a problem with the airlines, they're going to go through the airline process to get access to whatever support or compensation or whatever they're seeking as a part of the process. How do we make sure that the navigation of that is appropriate for consumers from any perspective in the way that they're looking to have their complaints addressed? Mr Campbell : There are probably two parts to that from our perspective. One is to the point that Mr Kelly made earlier. The detail of the charter and, further to that, the way that the charter is drafted is a really important part of the way that consumers are going to navigate this whole process that is ultimately going to be the source of truth around their rights. So that needs to be as clear as possible, and those rights, as well as needing to be strong, need to be clearly articulated. Also, to the point that that JEC have made, we also support a statutory review to see if there are unintended consequences or particular difficulties that consumers are facing and trying to understand their responsibilities in the way that the act, if it is to be an act, works. Ms Balakrishnan : I agree in terms of the clarity that's needed to ensure that consumers aren't being left to navigate complex complaint systems. From the work that we do and the types of issues that people with disability have raised with us in terms of their travel experiences, sometimes their complaint simultaneously raises consumer law issues and potential breaches of discrimination law. The remedies that are available for consumer law issues are different from the types of remedies that one could get through a discrimination law forum. In this case, the ombud scheme is aimed at individual is aimed at providing remedies for individuals to undo the unfairness that someone has experienced. That might be, for example, quicker practical remedies such as refunds or compensation. But discrimination law has other tools for addressing, perhaps, underlying systemic problems—for example, changing discriminatory policies and practices of an airline or an airport. Consumers need to be able to have a choice in terms of what kind of process and outcome they're seeking, especially given the different types of remedies that can be gained through those different avenues. So clarity is definitely needed. On top of that, we have also recommended in our submission that there need to be cooperative and proactive working arrangements between the ombud scheme and the other relevant bodies so that consumers are provided with clear, timely information about their avenues for redress and at the same time that the bodies are also working together in the collective goal of improving and making systemic improvements to the industry. Mr Glezer : In the US, hot off the press, about three days ago, on 26 April, it was introduced that the airlines need to have a one pager that, in layman's terms, sets out the main rights that consumers have when it comes to things like refunds, cancellations and the like. They are not hiding them, like some insurance companies do, at the bottom of a PDS. It's there for them to see so they know their exact entitlements. That's something that would be extremely handy here so that everyone can navigate it and also serves the interest of transparency. Senator COLBECK: So there needs to be, in that sense from every perspective, an appropriate process for navigation and dealing with the relevant aspects of a particular complaint through the way the system operates. That needs to be properly explained to consumers as part of this process. I now ask each of you about the exemption powers in the bill and to give us some clarification with respect to those. I'll start with you, Mr Glezer. Mr Glezer : I'm not 100 per cent. Can we start with one of these with them? Senator COLBECK: Sure. I'll go to you, Ms Balakrishnan. Ms Balakrishnan : For the exemption power, we have previously recommended in the consultation we participated in with the department that there could be a tiered membership model to account for variations in the size and operations of regulated entities. That is one way that that exemption power could be utilised. In terms of passengers with disability, particularly in the context of small airports and appreciating the rationale that's been given by the government in terms of operating capacities and resources of those kinds of entities. in our submission, we've suggested ways that the exemption powers should be improved to still prioritise the rights of passengers with disability. For example, the exemption power could be narrowed to prohibit exemptions from compliance with the charter requirements that go to accessibility and also to narrow the exemptions so that complaints about airport accessibility services could still come within the scope of the framework. That's one way that we have suggested that the exemption power could be improved. Another way would be to ensure that any kind of exemption is time limited, particularly when it comes to accessibility related obligations and also complaints about those accessibility services. A third way we've suggested is to require, particularly around subclause 9(5)(c), that the minister expressly consider the impact of an exemption on people with disability in addition to the general impact on consumers. I certainly don't mean to suggest that these are the only ways that the exemption power could be improved, but these are the ones that we've suggested and could be used in a way that preserves flexibility for entities like small airports while ensuring that the framework still delivers consistent protections for people with disability. Senator COLBECK: CHOICE? Mr Kelly : Yes, and, if I can just quickly add a point on the previous question about navigation, CHOICE has been recommending that there be a requirement on airlines to proactively identify complaints. In financial services, the phrase is 'any expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint'. We wouldn't want a situation where consumers have to say the magic words of 'I'd like to make a complaint' in order for it to be treated as such, to enter into a complaints process with the airline to then get to the ombuds scheme. So that's something that we've been recommending, as well as that the reason for the delay or cancellation be provided, including clarification about whether that is within or outside the airline's control, so that the consumer knows what remedy they're potentially entitled to in that situation. On the current question on the exemptions, we have recommended that there needs to be a process here where appropriate guardrails are put in place so conditions are imposed appropriate to the entity seeking an exemption. A process to apply for one should be open to public consultation. There should be time limits. There should never be an indefinite exemption provided. The government could also consider other ways to assist smaller operators, smaller entities, to comply with the framework and with the charter as well as opposed to just exempting them entirely. Senator COLBECK: I just want to go back to the discussion around definitions and the definition of the term, for example, 'reasonable' efforts and how that is appropriately defined so that it doesn't become something that the airlines think that they might have done rather than have a specific obligation. Where should we be sitting with that? Should we be aligning it more with other elements of consumer law? How do we improve the definitions in that sense? Mr Glezer? Mr Glezer : I actually had one thing as well that I just wanted to quickly mention in relation to the exemptions. It's a tough one because the smaller operators, entities and airlines still affect the consumer in the same way, so it's a bit of a tough balancing act with that. I think they should have to not necessarily prove but—for example, I know that airlines are opposed to them needing to put customers on a different airline entirely. To get them to their destination in a prompt period, they should have to actually see and actually try to get them on. If it's Qantas and they've got to go to Virgin, they should actually have to go and try to get the customer on that flight. If it's sold out or there are no flights left, that's obviously a reasonable effort. But it's got to be defined where they actually do something proactive to at least attempt to get the result, even if it is costing them a bit, because otherwise there's no point in having it in there, because they can just say, 'We've tried; we've given it a reasonable effort.' Senator COLBECK: CHOICE? Mr Kelly : I'm happy for the Justice and Equity Centre to take this one, if you prefer. Ms Balakrishnan : It's not something that we've referred to in our submission directly, and our expertise has been focused on the issues for consumers with disability, so I'm not actually sure, sorry, where the reference to reasonable efforts is appearing in the bill. Senator COLBECK: I suppose it's more about what the airlines say and how we properly define what their obligations should be under this legislation. There have been a number of references in submissions to the definitions, so my question relates to those definitions and the fact that the definitions aren't adequate. My question to you is: How do we ensure that they are? What do we look at in that context? Ms Balakrishnan : I can speak generally, drawing on my legal expertise. When we come across vague terminology in legislation, it certainly doesn't assist in terms of people being able to preserve their rights or vindicate their rights. Definitions certainly need to be clear and not raise any unintended consequences or interpretations which make it difficult for consumers to then be able to stand up for what their rights are in this legislation. Mr Kelly : If I can just add quickly to that, going back to the point that the core obligations in the charter will be determined later. It should make sure that the consumer has the right to a refund as a first option, rather than allow the airlines to do basically everything else except give a refund—and then only as a last resort do you get the refund. The consumer should have the choice. Senator COLBECK: Thank you. CHAIR: Senator Mulholland. Senator MULHOLLAND: Thank you to our witnesses for joining us. I would first like to go to CHOICE, in particular. Your submission talks about the proposed charter being, I guess, below the compensation models that we're seeing elsewhere in Europe and Canada. I had a little look at some of those compensation models myself, just to get a bit of a sense of it. The Canadian one has compensation. If you're delayed by three to six hours, Can$400; six to nine hours, Can$700; or nine or more is Can$1,000. There are similar sorts of dollar figures for the European model. I think we're all pretty much on a unity ticket here that we're sick and tired of airlines trying to shirk their responsibilities around refunds. The No. 1 thing that people talk to me about is not wanting compensation; they actually just want their damn refund. If they've been cancelled, sometimes they just want their money back. That comes through to me as a first principle from people. I would like to come to you around those considerations. When I hear from consumers, they talk to me about wanting to get on the flight, or wanting to get on a reasonable other flight. They want to get their money back as a first principle, rather than wanting to seek additional compensation. I open that up to you for your comment. Mr Kelly : Thank you for the question. In relation to the charter—again, it's difficult to talk about because we don't know exactly where it's going to land—the first thing I will say— Senator MULHOLLAND: Just on that, have you been consulted on versions of the charter from the government? Mr Kelly : Yes. We've been engaged throughout the process. In terms of what consumers want in these types of situations, it really depends on the consumer. However, under the existing consumer law and under consumer guarantees, which apply to services, the goal of the law is to put the consumer in the position that they would have been in had the breach of the consumer guarantee not occurred—so providing the service within a reasonable timeframe and with due care and skill. There is existing law that applies to this situation, and that goes beyond just a refund or a rebooking of the flight, in certain circumstances. In particular, when it's within control of the airline or, more specifically, not because of the actions of a third party, the consumer may also be entitled to compensation, already, under the consumer law. These bills give a pathway for consumers to achieve that through making the complaint to the airline but also going through to the external ombud scheme to try to achieve that. Of course, setting set compensation amounts has benefits. It's a much more efficient system because fewer people will most likely need to go through to the ombud scheme in order to get compensation. That could consider things like, 'Well, I've also lost all these future bookings that I've made, or I have really no reason to travel now because I missed the funeral or the wedding, and there are other things that need to be made right.' Senator MULHOLLAND: JEC, do you have a comment? Ms Balakrishnan : I will defer to colleagues on this panel who have expertise in terms of general consumer law issues because of our expertise focusing on people with disability. Thank you. Mr Glezer : I've got something. CHAIR: Senator Mulholland, Mr Glezer would like to answer that too. Senator MULHOLLAND: Sorry, just for background—I did catch your opening address before—are you working in an advocacy space? Mr Glezer : Yes, I'm an advocate. Senator MULHOLLAND: Is it a fee-for-client process where you're working on behalf of people, or are you sort of a free advocacy advice service? Just so I can get a sense of the skills in the mix here. Mr Glezer : I've got a paid service, but for this type of thing—I obviously don't charge for things like the rules and the laws for airlines; I don't get paid anything. But I have got a business called Consumer Champion which is no-win no-fee. With this, most Australians aren't aware of the overseas models, and when I let them know, they're generally outraged. I know you mentioned that most constituents don't mention anything about the compensation side. That's because most of them don't know about it. I noticed that Andy mentioned compensation. What compensation? There's no financial compensation now. You might get eight bucks at an airport to get some food or something nominal, but there's no level of financial compensation available in Australia at the moment unless it's under a different country's laws. Senator MULHOLLAND: Thank you. I'm from Queensland, and we've got a number of regional airports. We've got regional airlines that are hanging in there. We've had Rex go to the brink and come back. We've lost Bonza, we've lost Tiger. We've lost a lot of low-cost airlines, but a lot of regional airlines are also hanging in there. What concerns me is around any other additional financial burdens that are going to create challenges, I think, particularly in the regional aviation market. I know that there was a bit of discussion before about the exemptions, the carve-outs, for regional airports. I would hate to see a situation where we have a system in place that unfairly sends our regional airports and regional airlines to the wall, and then the people who live in my state don't have an airline at all to get to medical appointments, to get to Brisbane, to get to work, to get to mine sites. So that's my concern. I would welcome your advice or your feedback around the exemptions and the carve-out for regional airlines. CHAIR: That question is to all of you, I gather, so whoever wants to put their hand up and answer, go for it. Mr Kelly : I'm happy to speak to that. Just quickly, to respond to Mr Glezer's comment about compensation: as I said, consumers are, in certain circumstances, entitled to it, just to clarify the existing law. However, we see the problem of actually accessing it. There's nowhere to go in terms of external dispute resolution at the moment in order to actually receive it from the airlines. As I said, set compensation amounts are a much more efficient way of doing it, but it may not completely cover somebody's costs if you go down that route as well. On the exemptions front, I completely appreciate the complexities and challenges. This is something that we're very concerned about as well in terms of consumers being able to access affordable services. That's obviously the most important thing. However, we don't believe that should come as a trade-off for consumers' rights and protections; they should still be protected. Perhaps there's a role for government to think about ways that it could help regional airlines and regional providers actually comply with the law and provide the same level of experience to consumers by way of grants or other things. We don't think that consumers should pay the cost there. If the exemption framework stays, there just have to be appropriate guardrails in place. These are important things; they particularly affect regional consumers. If a regional airport or a particular airline is going to be exempt, that should be open to public consultation. People should be able to have their say on that and then, from that process, appropriate conditions and timeframes put in place around that exemption. Senator MULHOLLAND: I think it was the JEC evidence that was around wanting to see the inclusion of screening in the consumer protections. We're going to get a bit of evidence later today from the pilots association. They are quite concerned broadly about compensation and inclusion of things like screening, not that I want to put words in their mouth in reading their evidence. One issue that they've raised is that airlines will be driving to get people onto planes when pilots and crew think it's not safe to do so. They're really worried about that. There's also a real concern about trying to put a consumer overlay over regulatory pieces that, particularly, the Australian Border Force operates at screening processes. They are upholding the laws and some pretty significant restrictions and biosecurity and all sorts of stuff. Trying to put a consumer overlay over that is also something that we've had some concerns raised with us about. So I would like to ask you about your submission and where it proposes entities like Border Force and Airservices Australia come within this framework. Do you accept that there is a fundamental difference between commercial passenger services and government functions like border control and air traffic management? Trying to bring that into a consumer lens could be problematic. CHAIR: Before the witnesses answer, I'll remind you that we are on a hard timer. We've got about four minutes left with these witnesses. Mr Glezer : If you're talking about refunds and the like when it comes to issues with border security—if I'm understanding the question—customers should always be refunded for any kind of cancellation irrespective of the issue. Senator MULHOLLAND: What if they've broken the law? Mr Glezer : Fair call. If they've gone and broken the law, that's not a cancellation of the actual flight; that's them being booted. Senator MULHOLLAND: Their flight would be cancelled, yes. It would be. You're not getting on the flight—it'd be cancelled for you. Mr Glezer : We're talking about very specific situations. If they have gone and broken the law or they are too intoxicated to board, that is the one situation where I do not believe that they should be entitled to a refund—them specifically. The others on the flight should be, but, for the ones that have caused it, absolutely not. The others have done nothing wrong. They're not getting the service they paid for. But I agree with you on that one. Senator MULHOLLAND: We might quickly come to JEC, because adding in the screening was in your submission. Ms Balakrishnan : We didn't name-check Border Force or air traffic control, but it was in terms of security screening and our understanding being that that's regulated by Department of Home Affairs at the top level. Our view is that, whilst security screening doesn't have that commercial element, so to speak, that would be introduced through this bill, there are other services that are going to come within the scope of the bill that don't require those kinds of direct payments from consumers. Airport accessibility services is one of those. Security screening, in our view, could be covered in the same way, notwithstanding the fact that there's no direct payment required by consumers. In terms of adding that extra level of consumer law to what is already a differently regulated space, security screening poses well documented issues for consumers. The types of obligations that we would be wanting to see are things like appropriate training by security screening, treating people with dignity and respect, ensuring that they are following—we've heard examples of people being separated from their disability aids. So they're just about treating people with dignity and respect. I don't think that those would be overly burdensome on top of the other regulatory frameworks that they've got to operate within. Senator DOLEGA: I might ask one follow-up question very quickly, if I may. CHAIR: Yes, of course. Senator DOLEGA: Mr Glezer, you mentioned in your evidence earlier that, as a champion of consumers, you have a no-win, no-fee system. Would you stand to financially benefit from a mandatory compensation scheme? Mr Glezer : No, I certainly wouldn't—mandatory? No, that's in the EU and the UK. They do that. Senator DOLEGA: Would you benefit from any types of compensation? If you were assisting a consumer with an issue, would you benefit in any way? Mr Glezer : I won't. I'm an advocate; I'm not a lawyer. They're helping the UK and the EU do that. That's not my caper. Senator DOLEGA: I just wanted to double-check your evidence. Mr Glezer : No, not at all, mate. Senator DOLEGA: Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you very much to the witnesses. Thank you, colleagues..