This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Budget, tax & economy
Courts could force large supermarket and hardware chains to sell stores, shares or other assets if they misuse market power, creating a tougher penalty aimed at restoring competition.
Australia lacks a divestitureA forced sale of assets, stores or shares so a business has less market power. penalty for misuse of market powerThe conduct the bill targets, where a dominant business uses its market position in a way that hurts competition., which left the ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power. unable to tackle creeping store-by-store acquisitions and entrenched competition problems in supermarkets. This bill lets courts force proven lawbreaking supermarket and hardware chains to sell assets, with safeguards for jobs, services and shareholders.
Australia’s competition law had no divestitureA forced sale of assets, stores or shares so a business has less market power. penalty for misuse of market powerThe conduct the bill targets, where a dominant business uses its market position in a way that hurts competition., even as the ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power., the Productivity CommissionA government policy body whose work is cited here as part of the case that supermarket competition problems were long running. and the Harper reviewA major competition review that had already discussed supermarket concentration and why merger law was not stopping it. had recognised creeping supermarket acquisitions since 2008 and supermarket concentration remained high. With grocery bills under strain and recent ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power. allegations about supermarket discounting sharpening concern in late 2024, the bill proposed court-ordered break-ups for proven misconduct by large supermarket and hardware chains, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and no party represented in the debate material here argued that the breakup power itself would cause clear harm. The only evident caution is implicit: because the power is unusually strong, any real criticism would likely focus on how tightly courts apply the safeguards and last-resort test.
Angus Taylor MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
144 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Courts could force large supermarket and hardware chains to sell stores, shares or other assets if they misuse market power, creating a tougher penalty aimed at restoring competition.
The breakup power would only apply in supermarket and hardware sectors with entrenched competition problems, rather than across the whole economy.
Related companies in the same corporate groupThe parent company and its related subsidiaries counted together so a chain cannot hide control across separate entities. would be counted together, making it harder for large chains to avoid scrutiny by spreading control across subsidiaries.
A court could only order a forced sale if it would clearly improve competition and would not unfairly harm jobs, access to products and services, or shareholder value.
Companies could offer a court-approved voluntary asset sale instead of being forced to break up under a court order.
The amendments include the introduction of section 80B, which allows courts to order divestiture of assets in cases where large supermarket and hardware businesses are found to have contravened section 46 (misuse of market power) of the Competition and Consumer Act. The divestiture powers ensure that anti-competitive conduct by dominant players is addressed effectively, allowing courts to direct the disposal of certain assets to restore competition in the market.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) explanatory memorandum
Limiting its application to specific sector with established, structural competition challenges;Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) explanatory memorandum
Item 1 introduces a new definition of "group" under subsection 4(1), which allows for the inclusion of related corporate bodies in determining the extent of a company’s market control.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) explanatory memorandum
The divestiture is in the public interest, considering impacts on employment, access to products or services, and shareholders.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) explanatory memorandum
Alternative to Divestiture: The court may accept undertakings from corporations to dispose of assets voluntarily as an alternative to a divestiture order.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia’s competition law had no divestitureA forced sale of assets, stores or shares so a business has less market power. penalty for misuse of market powerThe conduct the bill targets, where a dominant business uses its market position in a way that hurts competition., even as the ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power., the Productivity CommissionA government policy body whose work is cited here as part of the case that supermarket competition problems were long running. and the Harper reviewA major competition review that had already discussed supermarket concentration and why merger law was not stopping it. had recognised creeping supermarket acquisitions since 2008 and supermarket concentration remained high. With grocery bills under strain and recent ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power. allegations about supermarket discounting sharpening concern in late 2024, the bill proposed court-ordered break-ups for proven misconduct by large supermarket and hardware chains, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025.
Competition reviews identify creeping supermarket acquisitions
The explanatory memorandum says the ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power., the Productivity CommissionA government policy body whose work is cited here as part of the case that supermarket competition problems were long running. and the Harper reviewA major competition review that had already discussed supermarket concentration and why merger law was not stopping it. had recognised creeping acquisitionsA series of small store purchases over time that slowly builds market power without one big takeover. in the supermarket sector since 2008, arguing existing merger law was not stopping store-by-store concentration.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Supermarket and Hardware Businesses) explanatory memorandum ↗Checkout pressure and ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power. supermarket allegations sharpen the case
In his second reading speech, Angus Taylor linked heavy grocery costs for families with recent ACCCThe consumer and competition regulator that would have asked the court to use the new breakup power. findings and discounting allegations against supermarkets as evidence that stronger penalties were needed.
Second reading speech ↗Bill introduced to create a supermarket and hardware break-up power
The bill was introduced to let courts order divestitureA forced sale of assets, stores or shares so a business has less market power. after proven misuse of market powerThe conduct the bill targets, where a dominant business uses its market position in a way that hurts competition. by large supermarket and hardware businesses, with safeguards for jobs, services and shareholders.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses when Parliament is dissolved
The proposal did not become law because it lapsed at dissolution, leaving the proposed sector-specific divestitureA forced sale of assets, stores or shares so a business has less market power. penalty unmade.
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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and no party represented in the debate material here argued that the breakup power itself would cause clear harm. The only evident caution is implicit: because the power is unusually strong, any real criticism would likely focus on how tightly courts apply the safeguards and last-resort test.
No substantial recorded opposition or detailed public criticism has been identified so far.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Taylor supports the bill and says it is needed to strengthen competition in supermarkets and hardware by adding a targeted divestitureA forced sale of assets, stores or shares so a business has less market power. penalty with safeguards.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“Our approach is all about getting the balance right—strengthening the food and grocery code and introducing a targeted divestiture penalty to put businesses and the sector on notice. The coalition's approach has been carefully designed with appropriate safeguards.”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 · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
