This is Allens

The ACCC has been arguing for merger reform for a long time. They've had the sense that not enough mergers were being notified. The proposed mandatory and suspensory merger regime feels a little like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

We're not convinced the reforms are entirely necessary. In our experience, the current system works well, particularly given the size of the Australian economy and where it sits in the context of global deals. The ACCC currently sees more mergers per year than the European Commission, which is striking for a country with such a small population.

At the moment, parties essentially self-assess whether or not to engage with the ACCC. Under the new regime, all deals above certain thresholds would have to be notified and approval from the ACCC would need to be secured before any deal is implemented. While we're still waiting on most of the detail - including what the monetary and market share thresholds will be - these will be some of the most significant changes since Australia's competition laws were introduced.

Australia remains an attractive destination for global investors, particularly in the current geopolitical and economic landscape. That's not an advantage we want to lose.

One thing we can be sure of when the reforms are enacted is a considerably larger administrative burden. There'll be a new form and formal filing requirements. But also, under the new system, parties will only be able to appeal to the tribunal of the ACCC's decision on the papers that were before the ACCC, which means there'll be a greater onus on the parties to overproduce material so it's available to them if they need to appeal.

On the other hand, there is no question the reforms present an opportunity to modernise the regime. I recently presented at the ABA Antitrust Meeting in Washington DC and had a lot of interest from members of the international antitrust community about Australia's reforms. In an ideal world, we'll see greater levels of convergence with overseas regimes, which would provide greater certainty in time periods and thresholds for international investors.

The devil is in the detail, and my fear is that some of the benefits could be lost in the practical application. For example, the clear benefits of having a statutory time period for review will be watered down significantly if the statutory deadlines are coupled with very wide powers to stop the clock when the parties agree, or if the ACCC issues a request for information. Similarly, the idea of introducing more transparency to the decision making process is welcome, but that also has to be coupled with rights to access the file and oral hearing rights that exist in other jurisdictions.

A cooling effect on our market is a genuine concern. Already we know that FIRB can be seen as a difficulty for parties investing in Australia, and this adds another layer of agency interaction and approval that needs to be obtained. Australia remains an attractive destination for global investors, particularly in the current geopolitical and economic landscape. That's not an advantage we want to lose.