1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
2. Non-Discrimination
3. Individual Autonomy

The "For" case rests on the demonstrable failure of industry self-regulation to protect the interests of the traveling public. For years, Australian aviation consumers have faced declining service standards, with domestic on-time performance averaging only 76.9% in 2025—well below long-term averages.^[1] The existing Airline Customer Advocate lacked the independence and enforcement teeth necessary to hold major carriers accountable [Judgment].

By establishing a statutory Charter and an independent Ombudsperson, this Bill shifts the power balance back toward the individual traveler. The requirement for the ACO to be a company limited by guarantee with balanced industry and consumer representation ensures that dispute resolution is both expert and impartial. Furthermore, the inclusion of specific protections for passengers with disabilities and children aligns the aviation sector with Australia’s international human rights obligations, ensuring that "persons with disabilities have access to transportation on an equal basis with others" [Explanatory Memo page 9].

Ultimately, a more reliable and accountable aviation sector supports broader economic activity and social cohesion. By imposing civil penalties for systemic breaches, the ACPA creates a genuine deterrent against the "cancellation-as-business-strategy" model, promoting a more efficient and fair market for all Australians [Judgment].

1. ^{^}

   BITRE Domestic Airline On Time Performance Annual Statistical Report 2025, as cited in the Explanatory Memo, page 2.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Propertarianism

The "Against" case argues that the Bill introduces an unnecessary and costly layer of bureaucracy that may ultimately harm the very consumers it intends to protect. The framework relies on a cost-recovery model through industry levies, which will inevitably be passed on to passengers in the form of higher ticket prices.^[1] In a market already struggling with affordability, adding regulatory overhead is an inefficient solution to service issues that are often driven by external factors like weather or global supply chain constraints [Judgment].

There is also a significant concern regarding the broad discretionary powers granted to the Minister. Under Clause 9, the Minister may exempt specific entities or classes of entities from the Charter or the requirement to join the Ombuds scheme. This "tailored treatment" risks creating an unlevel playing field, where smaller regional carriers or airports are held to different standards than major players, leading to inconsistent consumer outcomes [Explanatory Memo page 16].

Furthermore, the Bill may lead to "regulatory duplication." Existing protections under the Australian Consumer Law already cover many aspects of service delivery. Creating a bespoke aviation-specific regime adds complexity and may lead to jurisdictional confusion for consumers and businesses alike. Instead of more regulation, the government should focus on fostering greater competition, which is the most effective natural driver of improved service standards [Judgment].

1. ^{^}

   While the Bill specifies the ACPA will be funded by levies, it does not cap the potential increase in consumer fares resulting from these industry costs.