1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
2. Non-Discrimination
3. Egalitarianism

The case for this Bill is grounded in the empirical failure of industry self-regulation to protect the interests of the travelling public. For over a decade, the voluntary Airline Customer Advocate model has lacked the authority and independence necessary to provide meaningful redress for consumers. This Bill replaces that ineffective system with a statutory framework that prioritises reliable and fair outcomes, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency and reputation of the Australian aviation sector [Judgment].

Furthermore, the Bill significantly advances the rights of vulnerable passengers. By explicitly incorporating standards for accessibility and the care of children, the framework ensures that airlines and airports meet their obligations under international human rights instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The creation of an independent Ombudsperson provides a low-cost, accessible pathway for dispute resolution that helps to correct the profound power imbalance between individual consumers and large corporate entities [Judgment]. This systemic oversight is essential for maintaining public confidence in a critical piece of national infrastructure.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Propertarianism

While the objective of improving consumer outcomes is desirable, this Bill risks creating a costly and redundant bureaucratic layer that may ultimately harm the very passengers it seeks to protect. The framework is funded through a cost-recovery levy, which airlines and airports will inevitably pass on to consumers in the form of higher ticket prices [Judgment]. In a market already facing significant inflationary pressures and high operational costs, this additional regulatory burden could stifle competition, particularly for smaller regional carriers that operate on thin margins.

There is also an epistemic concern regarding whether a government-mandated Ombudsperson is the most effective tool for addressing service failures. Many issues, such as delays and cancellations, are often driven by external factors like weather, global supply chain constraints, or infrastructure limitations that a complaint-handling body cannot resolve ^[1]. By imposing rigid statutory standards and mandatory conciliation processes, the Bill may reduce the industry's flexibility to innovate and respond to market demands, potentially leading to a 'tick-the-box' culture rather than genuine service improvement [Judgment].

1. ^{^}

   The Explanatory Memo acknowledges that performance has improved recently but argues for the framework based on long-term expectations, without fully addressing the structural causes of aviation delays.