Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.
Australia has no compensation law, so nothing is owed
high likelihoodThe airline correctly says there is no EU261 in Australia and treats that as the end of the discussion.
What answers it
The absence of a fixed scheme is not the absence of a right. The consumer guarantees in ss 60 to 62 of the Australian Consumer Law apply to air travel, cannot be excluded by the conditions of carriage, and carry the remedies in s 267 — including damages for reasonably foreseeable loss under s 267(4), which has no cap. Put the claim in guarantee-and-remedy language, not in EU261 language, and it stops being answerable that way.
Australian Consumer Law, s 267 (action against suppliers of services) — s 267 (action against suppliers of services)
It was weather, so section 267(1)(c) applies
high likelihoodThe airline invokes the carve-out for a cause independent of human control and refuses any remedy.
What answers it
Read the whole of s 267(1)(c): the carve-out applies "unless the guarantee is the guarantee under section 60". Due care and skill survives the weather. The question is not whether there was a storm but what the airline did about it — how long it took to rebook you, whether it had a recovery plan, whether it kept you informed, whether it prioritised other passengers. Ask those questions in writing.
Australian Consumer Law, s 267 (action against suppliers of services) — s 267 (action against suppliers of services)
Our conditions of carriage exclude this
high likelihoodThe airline points to a clause disclaiming liability for schedule changes, consequential loss, or limiting remedies to a re-fly or a credit.
What answers it
Sections 64 and 64A make such terms void or ineffective against a consumer. A term purporting to exclude, restrict or modify the guarantees is void; and the s 64A option of limiting liability to re-supply is not available for services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, which leisure air travel is. Ask the airline to identify the statutory basis on which it says the clause survives s 64.
Australian Consumer Law, s 64A (limitation of liability for failures to comply with guarantees) — s 64A (limitation of liability for failures to comply with guarantees)
Here is a travel credit
high likelihoodThe airline issues a credit with an expiry date and treats it as satisfying the claim.
What answers it
Where the failure is major, s 267(3) gives the election to the consumer, not the supplier: you may terminate, which means a refund of money. A credit is an offer. Accepting it will usually settle the claim, so decline it in writing if you want the cash, and say you are exercising the s 267(3)(a) election.
Australian Consumer Law, s 267 (action against suppliers of services) — s 267 (action against suppliers of services)