2025 Competition and Consumer Workshop: ACCC keynote address

Introduction

Good morning, all. I begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of lands, waterways and skies across Australia. I pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung and Bunurong people, on whose country we meet today, and honour their culture and Elders, past and present. I also extend my respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander colleagues who are here today.

It's a pleasure to join you all today at this competition and consumer workshop. We meet at a time of profound disruption across our economy. Disruption that is reshaping markets, straining households and testing the resilience of businesses.

But this disruption is also creating opportunities for driving innovation and more competition and productivity. With the right guardrails in place, these forces of disruption can drive stronger competition, more choice, and better outcomes for consumers.

In today's speech, I would like to explore how we are shaping those guardrails through the lens of right-sized regulation. That is, rules that are rigorous where harm is greatest, proportionate where burdens risk stifling progress, and always directed to the same end - protecting consumers, promoting competition, and enabling innovation and productivity.

First, the reforms underway to ensure our regulatory frameworks are fit for purpose.

Second, how we enforce competition law using the tools at our disposal to achieve the best outcomes for consumers.

Third, how we protect consumer trust and wellbeing through robust consumer law enforcement.

Finally, how we steward essential and emerging markets for the future, including the energy transition.

Taken together, these roles - reform, enforcement, protection and stewardship - reflect the ACCC's impact. Our purpose is clear: to protect consumers, to promote competition, and to make markets work for all Australians.

Enduring principles for an uncertain future

To begin, I will briefly set the stage of our current economic context and the principles that guide our work.

The challenges we face today are often described as unprecedented. Unprecedented is shorthand to describe digital disruption, the impact of climate change, geopolitical uncertainty and cost-of-living pressures.

But while these forces may be new in scale and speed, the path through them is not necessarily unknowable. And Australia has faced profound economic change before.

History tells us that well-designed competition and consumer policy can be transformative in moments like this.

The 1995 National Competition Policy reforms, inspired by the Hilmer Report, are often described as critical components of the significant microeconomic reforms of that decade. They embedded nationally consistent competition rules, initiated removal of legislative barriers to competition across the federation, extended the Act's reach across public and private enterprise, and enshrined the welfare objective clause that still guides our work.

With the benefits of a series of amendments the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - with its simple, powerful objective of enhancing the welfare of Australians - remains our compass. And when I think about how best to apply this landmark legislation, I often return to the work of the late Professor Maureen Brunt.

Professor Brunt was ahead of her time. She recognised that competition law is not just about markets, it's about people, and about ensuring the competitive process works for their greater benefit. In her writings she urges regulators to "keep our eyes on the ultimate objective, namely the protection of the consumer by means of an efficient competitive process".

This insight is as relevant now as it was when she first wrote it. Because as our economy transitions - through decarbonisation, technological change, and global uncertainty - the process of competition is more important than ever. It is what drives investment, spurs innovation, and builds economic resilience.

Reform: right-sized regulation for today's challenges

Now, to the first of my points today: reform to ensure our regulatory settings remain fit for purpose.

The ACCC is committed to a right-size, risk-based regulatory approach. One that protects consumer wellbeing and competition, while fostering economic dynamism and productivity.

Merger reform

We see this principle in action with merger reform. When the Treasurer introduced the merger reforms into Australian Parliament late last year, he described them as a big step towards boosting competition and productivity.

These reforms seek to strike the right balance between seeing and preventing anti-competitive acquisitions, while allowing those that are unlikely to raise competition issues to proceed promptly and with certainty. And importantly, the design of the new regime and the ACCC's committed approach to delivery of the new regime, has focused on regulatory timeliness, predictability and proportionality - with clear processes for engaging with businesses and consumers.

The journey started here, at this very LCA workshop 4 years ago, when Rod Sims sparked a debate about whether our merger control regime in Australia was fit for purpose. A lot has happened in the short period since.

The last 18 months have been fast-moving. Treasury's decision to allow for voluntary notifications from 1 July this year prompted significant preparatory work within a compressed timeframe. Suffice it to say, our teams have been working hard, not only to ready the agency, but to help business and advisers prepare. It is obvious that an enormous amount of work is also being done by many of you here today to ready your clients for this change.

Already we are seeing the regime take shape. Our consultation on merger process and assessment guidelines has led to updated guidance and more will follow. Our email alerts, now with more than 700 subscribers, have provided timely, rolling updates to questions and issues as they arise. And later this month, we will begin regular two-way engagement sessions to understand the lived experiences of businesses, advisers and the ACCC of interacting with the new regime.

While the voluntary period has started quietly, with just two notifications received so far, we expect this to change as we move closer to 1 January. And we're pleased to note that the first voluntary notification we received was completed and approved in the earliest timeframe possible on business day 15.

Our focus is on administering the regime transparently and efficiently - calibrating our processes so the burden on business is proportionate to risk while ensuring that we are able to do the important job of preventing anti-competitive mergers.

The ACCC shares a common interest with business that the process is flexible and efficient. A critical feature here is the pre-notification engagement.

We understand that parties may want to discuss a transaction before they are ready to provide a draft notification and our team is available for these discussions. However, in most cases, we will need to receive a draft notification for our team to have a meaningful pre-engagement discussion.

A draft notification allows our team to better identify whether any additional information should be provided when you notify, or which questions answered, based on the circumstances relating to that particular acquisition.

I would like to reinforce the importance of this engagement with our team. Simply not answering a question on the form, or saying it's not relevant, will slow the process down and potentially expose the notification to later being found to be materially incomplete.

Done well, prenotification helps businesses and the ACCC clarify what information is needed upfront, reduces delays, and minimises the risk of notifications being found incomplete. And we are pleased to see business and advisers taking up this option.

Similarly, the waiver process will allow non-contentious acquisitions to proceed with minimal regulatory burden, while ensuring our scrutiny remains rigorous where it matters most.

We are committed to learning and refining as we go. Transparency is built into the system through regular reporting and scheduled reviews at 12 months and three years.

The voluntary transition period we are in now allows the ACCC, business and advisers to test and refine approaches before mandatory notification and the other features come into full effect. We expect it will take some time for the new regime to feel 'routine'. However, we know that mandatory merger regimes based on notification thresholds operate successfully in many other jurisdictions, and we are confident in replicating that success here. What matters is that Australia now has a merger regime that is fit for the challenges ahead, one that protects competition while enabling investment, innovation and growth.

The same principle of risk based proportionality extends to digital platforms and other concentrated markets.

Digital platforms

At a time of profound and unprecedented digital transformation and disruption, where the vast majority of economic activity now occurs in the digital sphere, right sized, effective regulatory frameworks are essential to maintain vibrant competition and protect consumers from harm.

In the ACCC's tenth and final report for the Digital Platform Services Inquiry, we found that without sufficient laws in place, Australian consumers and businesses are continuing to encounter a significant number of harmful practices across a range of digital platform services. It is our view that a proactive approach to the regulation of digital platforms is needed and the ACCC continues to advocate for a new digital competition regime, targeted to the few platforms and critical intermediary services that exhibit market power and impede competition and diversified innovation.

The proposed digital competition regime is based on service-specific codes of conduct. These codes would be tailored to account for the particular characteristics and competitive dynamics of each service, and updated in response to changes in technology and business models, in ways that promote pro-competitive and consumer-friendly innovation.

Scams prevention

We are also seeing strong, proportionate and proactive regulation more broadly. The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025 -world-first legislation to enhance scam protections across the economy - was legislated this year. This reform sets consistent obligations that build on positive progress by the National Anti-Scam Centre, government and industry to disrupt scams: scam losses in Australia fell by more than 25 per cent to $2 billion in 2024.

Supermarket and retail

And in the supermarket and retail sector, the now mandatory Food and Grocery Code came into effect in April 2025, imposing civil penalties on large grocery businesses for noncompliance. And the Government has also provided $30 million in dedicated funding to support the ACCC's enforcement and investigations.

Across mergers, digital platforms, scams and supermarkets, the principle is the same: regulation that is fit for purpose, proportionate in design and implementation, and directed at the greatest harms to business, the economy and consumers.

Regulatory reform and advocacy are critical to ensuring our frameworks remain fit for purpose. But equally important is what we do here and now - using the laws and tools already at our disposal to protect competition and consumers.

Competition enforcement for the benefit of consumers and the economy

Which leads me to my second point for today: how we enforce competition law using the tools at our disposal to achieve the best outcomes for consumers.

When businesses compete to meet consumer needs, they are incentivised to innovate and improve - to offer greater choice, lower prices and better-quality products and services.

Workably competitive markets ensure consumers are better off and the economy grows efficiently. When competition works, Australians benefit twice through lower prices and better services today and innovation that drives prosperity into the future.

This is the very basis of the ACCC's mandate as the Commonwealth's competition and consumer protection regulator: improving economic efficiency and productivity. By promoting competition in markets, we promote the production of the most highly valued goods and services at the optimum quality and the lowest possible price for the benefit of Australian consumers.

And we use every tool available - from compliance engagement and education to enforceable undertakings and of course, our sharpest tool, litigation - to address conduct that harms consumers or the competitive process.

Our recent action against Google demonstrates in practice our ability to combine enforcement tools to achieve an outcome that most benefits competition and consumers in a timely way.

Google admitted to breaching Australia's competition laws in relation to understandings it reached in the past with each of Telstra and Optus for pre-installation and placement of Google Search on Android devices and agreed to jointly submit to the court that it should pay a penalty of $55 million. Importantly, this outcome is coupled with a court-enforceable undertaking containing forward-looking commitments to modify the way it distributes Google Search in Australia. It also builds on previous undertakings provided by each of Telstra, Optus and TPG.

Google's commitments - including removing certain pre-installation and default search engine restrictions on Android devices and providing for the untying of Google Play from Search and Chrome - will deliver meaningful benefits. They will provide for immediate and meaningful change for millions of Australian consumers and allow competitors of Google to be able to compete on their merits.

The timing here matters. AI search tools are revolutionising how we search for information. It is vital that competitors in this space can gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers.

I am pleased that Google has cooperated with us in putting forward a resolution to the Court and offering an undertaking, avoiding the need for what would have undoubtedly been protracted and costly contested litigation. Of course, it will be a matter for the court to determine appropriate orders, including penalty, and we hope the matter will be heard before the end of the year.

Protecting competition is also at the heart of our action against cartel conduct. Last week, the Full Federal Court dismissed appeals in two major cartel cases. The court upheld penalties of $1.5 million against Delta Building Automation and $120,000 against its director for trying to rig a taxpayer-funded tender. It also confirmed record penalties of $57.5 million against BlueScope Steel and $500,000 against its former executive for attempts to fix the prices of flat steel products. The message from the court is clear: even the attempt to form a cartel is illegal, and the consequences are severe.

Following these outcomes, this week we announced two new cartel proceedings: one alleging price fixing in the supply of fresh produce to ALDI. Another involving major suppliers of mobile crane services in Sydney. These cases cut to the core of markets that matter to Australians - our food supply chains and the construction and infrastructure sectors that underpin our economy.

Beyond these cases, we continue to pursue other major matters before the courts, including our misuse of power case against Mastercard and our cartel case against Spotless and Ventia.

Taken together, these proceedings illustrate the complexity and longevity of contested competition litigation. But they also show our resolve to take action where it is warranted. With the cases the ACCC has before the Court spanning allegations of misuse of market power, anti-competitive conduct and cartel conduct, it is proving to be a notable time for competition enforcement in Australia.

Consumer enforcement: protecting wellbeing and trust

Workably competitive markets are vital - but competition alone is not enough. Consumers also need trust and confidence: trust in the businesses they engage with and confidence that strong protections are in place if things go wrong.

And I will now move to the third theme of this speech: how we protect consumer trust and wellbeing through robust consumer law enforcement.

Consumer law provides the critical foundations. In an era where disruption is constant, trust has never mattered more. When trust collapses, so too does the confidence to engage in markets, to spend, and to trial new services and new technologies.

Trust underpins the social contract that ensures markets function and economies flourish. It matters to all of us in this room, as regulators, advisers, and stewards of the systems and institutions that influence people's lives.

Our consumer protection role is complementary to our competition role. Together they promote confidence and ensure consumer dollars are not devalued by misleading conduct and that fair dealing businesses do not suffer disadvantage from deceptive business practices. Just as with our competition enforcement, we use all the tools available to us to protect Australians from unsafe products, misleading conduct and harmful business practices.

Our focus is on conduct that results in significant harm. And our priority is always to manage risk proportionately and achieve the best possible outcome for the community.

This year, for example, we instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Bupa. The company admitted to engaging in misleading conduct and making false or misleading representations, by advising members they were not entitled to private health insurance benefits for their entire claim. It also admitted to engaging in unconscionable conduct. The ACCC and Bupa will jointly ask the Federal Court to impose a total penalty of $35 million. And it will be a matter for the Court to determine whether the penalty and other orders sought are appropriate.

Another example of enforcement action we have taken to address consumer harm is the proceedings we instituted last year against Optus Mobile for engaging in unconscionable conduct when selling telecommunications goods and services to hundreds of consumers, many of whom were vulnerable or experiencing disadvantage. Optus admitted to engaging in unconscionable conduct, and the ACCC and Optus will jointly ask the Federal Court to impose a total penalty of $100 million. Again, it is a matter for the Court to determine whether the penalty and other orders sought are appropriate.

However, litigation is not the only means by which we achieve compliance. For example, last year our sweep of Black Friday and post-Christmas sales revealed widespread misrepresentations - such as 'site wide' discounts that were not, in fact, site wide. We publicised our findings, issued infringement notices, and engaged with businesses to improve their practices. The full range of tools enables the ACCC to choose enforcement actions proportionate to harm, risk and the seriousness of the conduct.

Each of these actions - whether through litigation, compliance sweeps, infringement notices, or direct engagement - serves the same purpose: to protect consumers, to build trust, and to strengthen the proper functioning of markets. Together with our competition mandate, our fair trading and consumer protection and product safety work ensures Australians can participate in commercial life with confidence, knowing the guardrails are in place to deter harm.

Stewardship: making markets work

Consumer trust also depends on the way our markets work over time. Which brings me to my final point for today, the role of the ACCC in infrastructure regulation and market monitoring to deliver lasting change that improves the everyday lives of Australians.

Over the past year, we have worked to improve transparency in national telecommunications infrastructure. A significant step in this direction was the introduction of a new NBN Co record-keeping rule, giving the public clear information about network performance and service quality.

We also monitor sectors of critical national infrastructure where competition is limited, or services are essential. Through regular reports, we shine a light on market dynamics, promote efficiency, and inform investment and consumption choices.

Our stewardship is forward-looking. The ACCC's purpose is to make markets work for all Australians - now and in the future.

That future is being shaped by the energy transition. And while the ACCC is not an environmental regulator, our work touches on critical parts of the net zero transition - from environmental collaborations to infrastructure monopolies, mergers, and new markets. Our role as regulator is not to stand in the way, but to stand guard: to weigh benefits and detriments carefully, protecting consumers and the competitive process without stifling innovation.

As economies transition to net zero, competitive markets are vital to ensure that resources are allocated efficiently, innovation is incentivised, and the costs of change are mitigated. Competition pressures companies to differentiate, to reduce waste and cut costs, and to deliver better value. It is the engine of dynamism and productivity - features that, when paired with effective and proportionate regulation, can support a strong economy and a successful transition to net zero.

We also recognise the paradox of rapid transformation. At times, government support, regulation and collaboration will be needed to enable the creation of new, low carbon technology and industries. But wherever possible, we must preserve the conditions that enable workable competition to be present and be maintained.

Many sustainability collaborations will not harm competition. Where there is the potential for harm, there may also be public benefits outweighing that harm. Competition law can accommodate these collaborations through authorisations.

The long-term vision that underpins the ACCC's approach to sustainability are markets governed by truth, substantiation and transparency which enable competition on the merits for businesses investing in genuine sustainability.

Conclusion

Across everything we do at the ACCC, we remain conscious that competition regulation and consumer protection must serve as a deliberate and effective guardrail. To this end, our focus is on right-sized regulation: balancing the interests of consumers, businesses and the wider economy.

We approach this work with transparency and proportionality, including through deep engagement with regulatory peers at home and abroad, all levels of government, the business community, and consumer representatives.

And we will continue, as always, to remain committed to our purpose to enhance competition across our economy, to promote the welfare of consumers and small businesses, and to make markets work for all Australians. As Professor Maureen Brunt urged, we keep our eyes on the ultimate objective: consumers better off through an efficient competitive process.

Thank you.