This bill is currently before Parliament.
Budget, tax & economy
The bill would add a divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. remedy to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for corporations found to have misused substantial market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. under section 46The misuse-of-market-power provision in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill’s main court power would turn on a corporation contravening this section, unless all parties consented to an order..
Senator Nick McKim introduced the bill because the Greens argued that Australia’s competition law lacked a strong enough remedy for corporations that misuse substantial market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power.. His second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. speech linked that gap to high market concentration, price gouging claims and the supermarket debate, especially Coles and Woolworths. The bill’s answer was to let the ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. ask a court for orders, including asset sales or undertakings, to reduce a corporation’s market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. after misuse of market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. is found or where all parties consent.
The bill sits in a wider argument about whether Australia needs stronger structural remedies when large firms misuse market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power.. The public debate was driven by concerns about supermarket concentration and grocery prices, but the bill itself was economy-wide: it would apply to corporations with substantial market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. that contravene section 46The misuse-of-market-power provision in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill’s main court power would turn on a corporation contravening this section, unless all parties consented to an order. of the Competition and Consumer Act. Supporters saw divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. as a necessary “big stick”; critics and cautious supporters warned that forced sales could take years, fail to lower prices, or harm regional services if not tightly designed.
The main criticism was not that supermarket concentration was harmless. Critics and cautious supporters argued that the bill used a blunt economy-wide power without enough design detail, and that forced divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. might not lower grocery prices quickly or reliably. Concerns focused on unintended regional impacts, legal delay, investment effects, and whether reforms such as a mandatory Food and Grocery Code, merger reform and stronger ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. enforcement would be more practical first steps.
Senator Nick McKim introduced this bill. Support so far has come from Greens, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposition has come from Labor, Liberal Party, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
1 recorded vote on the bill was found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Days since introduction
812 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would add a divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. remedy to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for corporations found to have misused substantial market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. under section 46The misuse-of-market-power provision in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill’s main court power would turn on a corporation contravening this section, unless all parties consented to an order..
If the ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. applied, the Court could order directions to reduce the corporation’s power in a market, or its market share, within two years.
The explanatory memorandum says those directions could include selling assets, as well as other directions needed to reduce market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power..
The ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. would have to apply within three years of the contravention, but the Court could also make an order by consent of all parties even without a section 46The misuse-of-market-power provision in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill’s main court power would turn on a corporation contravening this section, unless all parties consented to an order. finding.
Instead of making a divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. order, the Court could accept a corporation’s undertakingA formal promise by a corporation to take particular action. Under the bill, the Court could accept an undertaking instead of making a divestiture order. to take action to reduce its market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. or market share, on conditions the Court thinks fit.
If passed, the bill would start the day after Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into an Act. This bill had not received Royal Assent in the collected APH record., and the new remedy would not limit the Court’s other powers under the competition law.
This section applies if the Court finds, or has in another proceeding instituted under this Part found, that a corporation that has, or is taken to have, a substantial degree of power in a market has contravened subsection 46(1).Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) introduced bill text
The Court may, on the application of the Commission, by order, give directions for the purpose of securing, within 2 years of the order being made, a reduction in the corporation’s power in, or share of, the market.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) introduced bill text
Item 1 inserts 80AD as a new judicial remedy into Part VI – Enforcement and remedies, of the Act. The power is broad, allowing the Court to make directions to sell assets, alongside other kinds of directions necessary to reduce a corporation’s market power.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) explanatory memorandum
An application under subsection (2) may be made at any time within 3 years after the date on which the contravention occurred. ... the Court may ... make an order by consent of all the parties to the proceedings, whether or not the Court has made the findings referred to in subsection (1).Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) introduced bill text
The Court may, instead of making the order, accept, upon such conditions (if any) as the Court thinks fit, an undertaking by the corporation to take particular action to reduce the corporation’s power in, or share of, the market.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) introduced bill text
The whole of this Act — The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. ... This section does not limit the Court’s powers under any other provision of this Act.Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) introduced bill text
Context
The bill sits in a wider argument about whether Australia needs stronger structural remedies when large firms misuse market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power.. The public debate was driven by concerns about supermarket concentration and grocery prices, but the bill itself was economy-wide: it would apply to corporations with substantial market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. that contravene section 46The misuse-of-market-power provision in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill’s main court power would turn on a corporation contravening this section, unless all parties consented to an order. of the Competition and Consumer Act. Supporters saw divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. as a necessary “big stick”; critics and cautious supporters warned that forced sales could take years, fail to lower prices, or harm regional services if not tightly designed.
Allan Fels calls for break-up powers
The Australian Financial Review reported former ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. chair Allan Fels arguing that Australia should let courts break up firms that abuse market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power., noting that Australian competition law did not provide a broad forced-divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. remedy.
Australian Financial Review ↗Greens introduce economy-wide divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. bill
Senator Nick McKim introduced the bill in the Senate and said it would let courts and competition regulators require firms to reduce market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. where misuse of market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. had occurred.
Second reading speech ↗Bill sent to supermarket prices inquiry
The Senate referred the bill to the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, tying the legal proposal to the broader inquiry into grocery prices and supermarket market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power..
APH bill page notes ↗ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. chair says powers could be useful
Public reporting said ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb would welcome break-up powers, while identifying merger-law reform and unfair-practices powers as her immediate priorities.
Australian Financial Review ↗Woolworths warns forced sales may backfire
Woolworths argued that forced divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. of stores would not necessarily reduce shelf prices and could dampen investment or have unintended consequences.
Australian Financial Review ↗Supermarket inquiry backs divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. recommendation
Reporting on the Senate supermarket inquiry said it recommended new forced-divestmentA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. powers for supermarkets found to be abusing market share or engaging in unconscionable conduct, while MPs remained split over the proposal.
Australian Financial Review ↗Senate rejects the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle.
After a closure motion brought the debate to a vote, the Senate negatived the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. 33 votes to 15, so the bill did not proceed at that point.
Senate division record ↗Bill restored to the Senate Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate.
The APH timeline records the bill as restored to the Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate. in the 48th Parliament, leaving it again before the Senate in the collected record.
Parliament of Australia ↗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
Senator Nick McKim moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. and tabled the explanatory memorandum, opening debate on the bill’s purpose.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. moved
Senators debated the bill in the context of supermarket prices, supplier treatment and market concentration.
The committee referral linked the divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. proposal to the Senate’s broader inquiry into supermarket prices and market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power..
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe Senate resumed debate before a closure motion brought the question to a vote.
The Senate voted against reading the bill a second time, so the bill did not proceed at that stage.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. negatived
The Senate restored the bill to the Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate., placing it back before the chamber in the collected record.
Restored to Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate.
Key criticism
The main criticism was not that supermarket concentration was harmless. Critics and cautious supporters argued that the bill used a blunt economy-wide power without enough design detail, and that forced divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. might not lower grocery prices quickly or reliably. Concerns focused on unintended regional impacts, legal delay, investment effects, and whether reforms such as a mandatory Food and Grocery Code, merger reform and stronger ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. enforcement would be more practical first steps.
Several speakers supported divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. powers in principle while opposing or questioning this bill’s design.
Blunt tool for grocery prices
Critics said forced divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. would not automatically create more competition, could take years to enforce, and might raise costs if legal and restructuring costs flowed through to consumers.
Risk to regional stores and jobs
Some senators warned that without clear safeguards, forced store sales could lead to closures or reduced services in remote and regional communities if buyers were not available.
Not enough safeguards or design detail
The Nationals supported divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. in principle but said the Greens bill did not get the model right and should not be rushed through as a kneejerk response.
Business concern about investment and prices
Woolworths argued that forced divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. would not reduce shelf prices and could dampen investment, even if used only as a regulatory backstop.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 15 to 33. Support came from Greens, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Passed 34 to 24. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This procedural vote let supporters bring the bill to an immediate second-reading vote.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Nick McKim introduced the bill and argued that courts and the ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. should be able to break up firms that misuse market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power., including but not limited to Coles and Woolworths.
Read in Hansard ↗Maria Kovacic opposed this bill’s design, warning that divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. could be blunt, slow and harmful without targeted safeguards, regional protections and a clear public benefit test.
Read in Hansard ↗Matthew Canavan supported the bill, arguing that Australia lacked a divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. remedy for companies that misuse market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. and that the bill would fill that gap.
Read in Hansard ↗Tammy Tyrrell supported the bill, arguing that major supermarkets and other large businesses had too much power over consumers and suppliers.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“I might not agree with everything he's just said, but it has opened up avenues to the public”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I don't think the work's been done on divestiture powers and whether they would indeed make a difference in our nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 5 contributions · 2 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 comes in with a big answer that can be a big stick to these people when they do it wrong.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“they should be targeted to sectors of concern with appropriate safeguards for regional jobs and services, and they must meet a clear public benefit test. That is the big problem.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Perin Davey on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Perin Davey supported divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. powers in principle but said they needed to be designed carefully and not rushed.
“it is also very important that we get it right, that we don't rush divestiture powers through and that we take the time to ensure they are fit for purpose.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Perin Davey again supported divestmentA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. powers in principle but said the Greens bill was not the right model.
“the Nationals absolutely support divestment powers, but I have always said ... that we need to get it right. We can't rush. We can't have a kneejerk reaction.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Nick McKim on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Nick McKim introduced the bill and argued that courts and the ACCCThe Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the national competition and consumer regulator. The bill would let the ACCC apply to the Court for the new remedy. should be able to break up firms that misuse market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power., including but not limited to Coles and Woolworths.
“In effect, this Bill gives the Courts and competition regulators the power—where misuse of market power has occurred—to break up firms right across the economy, including, but not limited to the supermarket duopoly: Coles and Woolworths.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Nick McKim argued that corporations with high market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power. were price gouging and keeping out competition, and said the bill would create a framework for requiring divestitureA legal remedy that requires a company to sell assets or otherwise reduce its ownership or control in a market. after misuse of market powerA level of market strength that can let a corporation act with less competitive constraint. The bill targets corporations that have, or are taken to have, this level of power..
“If passed, this bill would establish a framework whereby a company that is found to have misused its market power to inflate prices, to exploit supply chains or to keep out competition could be required to reduce their market power or share of the market by divesting assets.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill that we are talking about today is part of the solution to address this problem, to improve life for ordinary Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“This divestiture bill is to pull into line those corporations who use dodgy tactics to exploit others to their own gain.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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 readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. opened
Senator Nick McKim moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. and tabled the explanatory memorandum, opening debate on the bill’s purpose.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. debate
Senators debated the bill in the context of supermarket prices, supplier treatment and market concentration.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. debate
The Senate resumed debate before a closure motion brought the question to a vote.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a chamber debates and votes on the bill’s main purpose and principle. defeated
The Senate voted against reading the bill a second time, so the bill did not proceed at that stage.
Senate · Restored to Notice Paper
Restored
The Senate restored the bill to the Notice PaperThe official list of business before a house of Parliament. Restoring the bill to the Notice Paper put it back before the Senate., placing it back before the chamber in the collected record.
Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices
Referred to committee
The committee referral linked the divestiture proposal to the Senate’s broader inquiry into supermarket prices and market power.
The bill was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, with the APH notes recording a committee report date of 7 May 2024.
APH bill page notes
