1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
2. Legal Principle

The primary justification for this Bill is the "user-pays" principle, a well-established Legal Principle in Australian regulatory policy. By shifting the financial burden of consumer protection from the general taxpayer to the aviation industry, the Bill ensures that those who profit from the sector contribute to the oversight necessary to maintain its integrity. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, this supports the "Australian Government Charging Framework by ensuring that those benefiting from the regulatory services contribute to their cost" [EM page 3].

From a Utilitarian perspective, this funding model provides a stable and dedicated revenue stream for the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority (ACPA). This financial independence is crucial for the ACPA to effectively enforce the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter and manage the Ombuds Scheme without being subject to the vagaries of general budgetary cycles. Furthermore, by tying the levy to metrics like passenger volume, the Bill creates an equitable system where larger market participants, who generate more regulatory work, bear a proportional share of the costs [Judgment]. This ensures that the new consumer rights framework is not just a set of "paper rights" but a well-resourced mechanism for genuine accountability.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Propertarianism

The most significant concern regarding this Bill is the inevitable "cost pass-through" to the end consumer. While the levy is technically imposed on airlines and airports, these entities are likely to treat the levy as a business expense to be recovered through higher ticket prices or airport fees. This creates an Epistemic Objection to the claim that the Bill "protects" consumers; in reality, passengers may end up paying for their own protection through increased travel costs [Judgment].

Additionally, from a Propertarian standpoint, the Bill grants significant "delegated authority" to the Minister and the Department to set levy amounts via regulation rather than through primary legislation. This lack of direct parliamentary oversight on the specific quantum of the levy could lead to "regulatory creep," where the industry is forced to fund an ever-expanding bureaucracy without sufficient checks on the "effective and efficient use of public resources" [EM page 7]. There is a risk that the ACPA could become an inefficient body whose costs are simply socialized across the traveling public, creating a "hidden tax" on aviation that stifles competition and reduces the affordability of air travel for ordinary Australians.