This bill became law on Dec 10th, 2024.
Budget, tax & economy
Big mergers that meet future thresholds will have to be reported to the Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. before they can go ahead.
Australia’s current merger control system left anti-competitive mergers too hard to stop and needed a faster, stronger and simpler process. The bill requires big deals to be notified before completion, lets the ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. decide them under set timelines, and allows Tribunal review.
Australia’s merger rules had largely relied on an older system that the government said was no longer strong enough to stop anti-competitive deals, especially as high market concentration, weak productivity and cost-of-living pressure made competition policy more urgent. The bill responded by shifting Australia to a mandatory, ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed.-led pre-merger clearance system with set timelines and review rights, and it completed that change when Parliament passed it in November 2024 and Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. followed in December.
The main criticism was that the new merger regime could impose a heavy compliance burden and slow deals, especially for small businesses and start-ups, if the ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. is under-resourced or the rules are implemented poorly. That concern was raised most clearly by the Coalition and echoed more narrowly by some crossbench supporters, who backed the bill overall but wanted the 12-month review, resourcing and safeguards taken seriously.
Jim Chalmers MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 10 Dec 2024
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
1 recorded amendment or procedural vote was found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
61 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Big mergers that meet future thresholds will have to be reported to the Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. before they can go ahead.
The Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. will become the main merger decision-maker, checking whether a deal would seriously weaken competition or whether public benefits outweigh the harm.
A merger cannot proceed while it is waiting for clearance, has not been notified, has been blocked, or has gone stale after 12 months.
A merger completed while it is barred from going ahead is legally void, so the deal is treated as if it never took effect.
Businesses will be able to challenge Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. merger decisions in the Australian Competition TribunalThe review body that businesses can ask to look at some ACCC merger decisions again. under a set review process.
The amendments introduce a mandatory obligation on parties to acquisitions that meet certain thresholds to notify the Commission of the proposed acquisition, unless the Commission has determined that the acquisition does not require notification, before putting it into effect. Thresholds will be determined by the Minister by legislative instrument.Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) explanatory memorandum
A corporation or person that is a party to an acquisition must provide a notification to the Commission if an acquisition is a notifiable transaction, unless the Commission has determined that the acquisition does not require notification. The Commission must undertake an assessment as to whether the acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition or result in a public benefit. In doing so the Commission must publish details of the acquisition on a public acquisitions register and engage with businesses, stakeholders and the community. The acquisition must not be put into effect unless the Commission has made a determination that it may be put into effect.Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) explanatory memorandum
An acquisition is stayed in each of the following circumstances:Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) explanatory memorandum
(2) The acquisition is, and is taken always to have been, void by force of this subsection.Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) as-passed bill text
New Divisions 1A and 1B of Part IX provide for review by the Tribunal of certain decisions made by the Commission and also sets out the process for applying for Tribunal review, the Tribunal’s functions and powers and procedural matters such as time limits, and information gathering. Minor consequential changes are made to headings to reflect the insertion of Divisions 1A and 1B.[Schedule 1, items 49 to 51 and 56, sections 100A to 100H, 100J to 100N, 100P to 100T, 111 to 113 and Part IX (heading) and Division 1 of Part IX (heading) of the CCA]Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s merger rules had largely relied on an older system that the government said was no longer strong enough to stop anti-competitive deals, especially as high market concentration, weak productivity and cost-of-living pressure made competition policy more urgent. The bill responded by shifting Australia to a mandatory, ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed.-led pre-merger clearance system with set timelines and review rights, and it completed that change when Parliament passed it in November 2024 and Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. followed in December.
Australia's merger system is judged too weak for a more concentrated economy
Government speakers said the existing framework was the biggest merger settings overhaul in almost 50 years and argued it was too hard to stop deals that could substantially lessen competitionThe legal test used to decide whether a merger is likely to reduce competition too much in a market..
Hansard ↗Government introduces mandatory ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. merger clearance bill
The Treasurer introduced the bill as the biggest change to merger settings in almost 50 years, proposing a faster and stronger system with compulsory notification for larger deals.
Hansard ↗Cost-of-living pressure and concentrated markets sharpen the case for merger reform
During debate, government members linked the reform to concentrated sectors such as supermarkets, airlines, banking and telecommunications and argued stronger competition rules mattered in a cost-of-living crisis.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the legislation in the same form, locking in the shift to an ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed.-led merger approval regime with Tribunal review pathways.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turns the merger reforms into law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. completed the legislative change from the older merger control model to the new statutory notification and clearance framework.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (10/10/2024): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (15/11/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the new merger regime could impose a heavy compliance burden and slow deals, especially for small businesses and start-ups, if the ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. is under-resourced or the rules are implemented poorly. That concern was raised most clearly by the Coalition and echoed more narrowly by some crossbench supporters, who backed the bill overall but wanted the 12-month review, resourcing and safeguards taken seriously.
No party represented in the debate opposed the bill, but some support was clearly conditional on implementation.
Compliance burden and implementation risk
Critics warned the regime could add a substantial economy-wide compliance burden and make mergers harder or slower than necessary, particularly for small businesses and start-ups, if the ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. and government do not implement it carefully and resource it properly.
Broad ministerial discretion over thresholds
A narrower drafting concern was that the bill leaves too much power with the minister to set market-concentration thresholds, creating a risk that key settings could be made without enough independent competition advice.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 57 to 77. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected the amendment, so the bill continued to second reading unchanged and later progressed through the House.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself. The bill passed both chambers on the voices.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Chalmers says the government strongly supports the bill and presents it as a major overhaul of Australia’s merger laws to make them faster, stronger and more transparent.
Read in Hansard ↗Kylea Tink supports the bill and says she largely welcomes it because it strengthens merger oversight and fast-tracks unproblematic deals, but she wants the government to do more to resource the ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. and tighten the thresholds so anticompetitive mergers do not slip through.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender supports the bill because she thinks stronger merger rules will improve competition and help Australia keep a robust, dynamic business market.
Read in Hansard ↗Andrew Leigh supports the bill and says it will modernise merger control by making the system faster, clearer and more transparent while helping the ACCCThe regulator that will check big mergers before they complete and decide whether they should be allowed. stop anticompetitive mergers before they harm consumers.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 3 support
“This bill responds to those issues, bringing our merger system into the 21st century. These reforms will ensure that future acquisitions that meet the notification threshold will be subject to scrutiny, empowering the ACCC to effectively and efficiently detect and prevent anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. The size of the benefit is substantial. Drawing on evidence from overseas, Treasury has estimated an effective merger regime may be worth between $340 million and $732 million a year to the Australian economy, while noting that the status quo settings already achieved some of this.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is another big step towards reforming Australia's merger rules and further boosting competition and productivity in our economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese government's reforms will bring Australia's merger framework into the 21st century. These changes will establish a mandatory notification system, providing the ACCC with full visibility of significant transactions. This ensures that the regulator can focus on the mergers that pose the greatest risks to competition, while businesses pursuing beneficial transactions are supported with a streamlined and efficient process. The reforms will strengthen the ACCC's ability to act decisively. Pro-competitive mergers will advance quickly, with a clear pathway for approvals within 30 working days where there are no concerns for consumers. Harmful or risky transactions, on the other hand, will be scrutinised and, if necessary, prevented. This balance of ensuring markets are both dynamic and protected is critical to the health of our economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“The coalition will not oppose this bill, but we do have grave concerns about the risks of its implementation if poorly handled.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“In this context, I largely welcome this bill and commend the government for taking steps towards a regime that more effectively targets anticompetitive mergers while fast-tracking mergers that are pro-competition.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, I support this bill because competition is a major concern, and I note that similar models are working effectively in other jurisdictions and have the ability to ensure that Australia continues to be a country with effective and robust business competition. I support this bill because I really want to support young, innovative and small businesses, and I think it's really important that we continue to let those businesses thrive. Part of that is making sure that they have and are able to compete with larger businesses.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These minor changes aside, the bill increases the transparency and scrutiny of private mergers and makes the regulation a mandatory reporting regime so that the ACCC can monitor how our business acquisitions are affecting competition. I recognise that we do need to reduce red tape so that businesses can get on with doing what they do best, particularly given our period of low productivity. I recognise that this will create a regulatory burden, particularly in the private equity sector. The coalition has pointed out some other concerns, such as ACCC resourcing and the compliance burden, and I respect that these need to be considered. But the benefits of this amendment could deliver for cost-of-living relief, and that's so important that I'm happy to support the passage of this bill, ideally with my amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (15/11/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (10 Oct 2024): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (15 Nov 2024)
APH bill page notes
