Posts

Coles Caught Out: A Win for Aussie Consumers!

,

I questioned ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb on how the regulator is standing up for everyday Australians against corporate giants.

I congratulated the ACCC on their major court win against Coles for misleading price discounts. While 14 products were selected by the judge as a sample set, the deceptive conduct ruling applies across more than 200 cases.

A decision on similar allegations against Woolworths is currently reserved in the courts.

Supermarkets are backed by massive global institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, with endless legal resources. The ACCC assured me they are not daunted and point to recent actions against Amazon and Microsoft.

The ACCC highlighted the urgent need for new Unfair Trading Practices laws to crack down on sneaky business tactics that current laws miss, such as subscription traps you can’t cancel and manipulative mobile interfaces.

I thanked Ms Cass-Gottlieb for her concise, upfront, and comprehensive answers.

We need strong, clear enforcement to protect Aussie families and small businesses from predatory corporate conduct.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. I’ll start with the ACCC and the court case against Coles for misleading conduct. Congratulations.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was a great result, and one which Coles richly deserved. I note you only listed 14 products in your prosecution when you identified over 200 cases of offering misleading discounts. What was the logic behind that choice?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We took action in relation to the 250. That choice of the 14 was by the judge in order to focus the proceedings on a sample set of products. But the conclusions the judge has reached—which is that 13 of that sample set are misleading and deceptive—and criteria will be applied across the full 250. It was a manner for the judge to more efficiently conduct the proceedings.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A similar case for Woolies is still before the courts. Is there a timeframe on that case?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The judgement is reserved, and we will await the judge’s decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: These supermarkets have corporations on their share register with trillions in funds invested: BlackRock, Vanguard, First State, State Street et cetera. They’re able to muster huge legal resources for Coles and Woolies. Are you appropriately resourced to conduct these cases for maximum benefit? I mean, you had a victory.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, we prioritise the matters that are most significant in terms of consumer harm—cost of living and aspects of that nature—and cost of doing business. We are well aware in the case of this sector that we need to look not only at consumers but at suppliers, including Australian farmers. So we do prioritise. In addition, in the last budget we received a $67 million uplift specifically to assist with enforcement in both competition matters and consumer protection matters, recognising the importance of setting clear standards and having clear guidance across the business community on the way in which the law applies.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there are many factors involved in which cases you take on. Ms  

Cass-Gottlieb: There are. We have to take account of a range of factors in order to determine where we can give most benefit to the public through our strong enforcement program.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re not daunted by the deep pockets of BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street? They own controlling interests in many Australian brands.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: No, we are not daunted. You will have seen other litigation that we commenced in the past year, including on allegations relating to Microsoft’s conduct with the rollout of integration of Copilot in the Microsoft 365 program, and only a week ago we commenced action against Amazon in relation to its online marketplace sales of products that we allege are unsafe. We are confident and dedicated to take action where it’s most important for the public benefit, and that includes against very major domestic and global companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: These fines being awarded go into consolidated revenue. You don’t get to keep the money in your budget. Is that correct?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you get to deduct your costs in the prosecution before handing over the proceeds?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Not—  

Senator ROBERTS: Would that incentivise you to—  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: If we win, we will recover our costs from the other side. But, if we don’t, we will also pay their costs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your February 2026 opening statement contained this passage: The ACCC continues to observe concerning business conduct that, while not necessarily breaching current consumer laws, nevertheless causes significant harm to consumers and small businesses … Can you expand on that comment, please.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This was particularly reflecting the importance of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill that has passed the lower house and is before a committee in the Senate currently. The importance of that bill is that there is some conduct for which at this time we consider there is not sufficient coverage under the Australian Consumer Law to protect consumers or to protect small businesses. It includes conduct that is not expressly misleading and deceptive or expressly unconscionable as that has been interpreted. It is important to introduce the amendment that this bill will bring, which is to create a general principle prohibition upon unfair trading practices. The sorts of ones we have considered, which are the ones we were thinking about there, are, say, when an interface on a mobile phone is nudging you to make a purchase or confusing you with a significant amount of information which means you can’t focus on what really matters to you or a subscription that you find practically impossible to cancel. These sorts of examples need amendment to be covered by our law. This bill which the government has introduced is very important, and we welcome it and are looking forward to its passage so that we can then conduct investigations and move through a compliance and enforcement program with it. 

Senator ROBERTS: That completes my questioning for the ACCC. I want to comment and put on the record that I appreciate Ms Cass-Gottlieb’s succinctness and comprehensiveness. It’s very clear; it’s wonderful.  

CHAIR: She’s always very helpful.

/0 Comments/by

Who’s Protecting the Consumer? Not Government.

,

Australians are being ripped off, while big corporations profits hit record highs. The reason? Excessive market concentration.

In sectors like banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance, four major players control over 70% of the market. In fact, 7% of Australian industries have market concentration over 80%, compared to just 1% in the US!

Take our four major banks for example. They offer identical products, use identical strategies and share the exact same major institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.

We don’t have four distinct banks in Australia; we have one massive monopoly hiding behind four different logos.

When crony capitalism replaces genuine free enterprise, it’s Australians that pay the price.

The bureaucrats and the Government can offer all the excuses and buzzwords they want.

One Nation will never stop fighting to break up these monopolies and put money back in your pocket.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my first attendance in this session with the National Competition Council. My question is inspired by a common theme in many calls to my electorate office noting that we have an apparatus of government that’s designed to ensure free enterprise competition sets market pricing rather than crony capitalism and yet prices seem to be out of control for many people and corporate profits are at record highs. The perfectly legitimate conclusion is that something is broken, and the attention must fall on the National Competition Council. It’s your task to ensure competition, isn’t it?  

Mr Bezzi: Thanks for the question. We have a range of responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act. They include the promotion of competition but within the context of national competition policy and within the context of specific research projects that we’re given. So, for example, we’re dealing with a research project at the moment which will help tradespeople and people in other occupations operate across state borders. That’s an important aspect of promoting labour mobility within the economy. We are also working to support states and territories that have identified a range of areas of regulatory reform which will help promote competition. I’ll see if my colleague Mr Biesaga wants to add anything to the answer.  

Mr Biesaga: I’d like to add that, with the intergovernmental agreement being put into place in November 2024 along with the respective federation funding agreement, we are at the early stages of getting national competition policy and standing that back up. Over the past number of years, the NCC was mainly responsible for the National Access Regime, and we are now in a phase of gearing up to be able to be more active in backing the National Competition Policy space.  

Senator ROBERTS: The internationally used measure of concentration of market power is called CR4. It simply shows how much market share the top four companies have within a specific market. A high—above 60 per cent—CR4 suggests the market could be classified as an oligopoly with limited competition. In an oligopoly, profits are high because the entrants work together to rip off their consumers, who all lose. Can we agree a CR4 is too high in any industry?  

Mr Bezzi: As I mentioned, our role is to promote competition. The Treasurer has identified that, in many areas of our economy, sectors are significantly concentrated and more concentrated than would be preferred. There are a number of reforms that the parliament and the government have engaged in in recent years that have sought to address this issue. One of them is the development of the National Competition Policy. Another is—and this is something that the Treasury worked closely with the ACCC on—the reformed merger control provisions. Those provisions were explicitly targeted at giving the ACCC the capacity to tackle market concentration in sectors where it had grown too strong. I hope that response assists you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go on to some specific examples. An example of what goes wrong in an oligopoly is in our supermarket sector right now, where the ACCC has prosecuted Coles and Woolies for false and misleading advertising, increasing retail prices—which is inflation—and increasing corporate profits. These facts were proven by the court judgement against Coles. Does this mean the National Competition Council has failed to ensure free market competition in the supermarket sector, or are you just winding up to do that?  

Mr Bezzi: We share responsibility for promoting competition with the ACCC. As you pointed out, the ACCC has done an excellent job prosecuting that particular case and has a mandate to enforce the competition law. That’s a very important task in concentrated markets like supermarkets. They’ve also been given specific power to deal with mergers in the supermarket context. Ms Cass-Gottlieb is probably best addressed to discuss how those powers are being used, but our mandate at the NCC is about promoting the National Competition Policy. Over time, we’re hoping that that will assist to create a more dynamic, more competitive economy. 

Senator ROBERTS: In Australia, many sectors of the economy have a CR4 concentration of market power above 70 per cent, including banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance. These are industries which directly affect the cost of living for millions of everyday Australians. How did Australia get to this position, and when are you going to target these inflation-critical industries to restore free enterprise and competition and shift market power back to consumers?  

Mr Bezzi: I’m not going to speak for the ACCC, but I can say that, over many years, the merger control provisions perhaps did not give the ACCC the capacity to deal with growing [inaudible] in the way that it should have been able to. That was certainly pointed out in the debate on merger reform, and I think that parliamentarians were convinced that that was the case. I’m not sure whether Ms Cass-Gottlieb wishes to comment further, but these things happen over a long period, and they’re largely a result of historical legislative and regulatory settings that enable developments such as concentrated markets to occur.  

Senator ROBERTS: What options are available to you, and what are you considering?  

Mr Bezzi: It’s not the role of the National Competition Council to engage in enforcement action. That’s the role of the ACCC, our responsibility—  

Senator ROBERTS: What options can you give the ACCC?  

Mr Bezzi: Well, they’ve got a range of options that they can speak to, including significant enforcement powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. They’ve also got significantly enhanced merger powers. That’s something that probably should be addressed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just checking, I thought you implied that we haven’t been doing our job in Australia in banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance and that you’re now looking at addressing that. What options can you address it with?  

Mr Bezzi: Parliament has sought to address the concentration problem through the merger reform process.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any others?  

Mr Bezzi: There’re stronger enforcement powers that the ACCC has in relation to misuse of market power. As I said, enforcement isn’t really territory for the National Competition Policy. We’re also looking at supporting the process of National Competition Policy. Where there are states and territories that have come together and agreed over packages for reform, we support those reforms by recommending to the government that payments be made to states and territories to incentivise that reform process. Those payments will be made from the $900 million productivity fund that the government has established, and over time that should help to make the economy more dynamic and more competitive. There are a range of things that are being done.  

CHAIR: I need to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I just ask two questions?  

CHAIR: If they’re very quick.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Australian industries are more concentrated than in the US, with seven per cent of Australian industries having a CR of more than 80 per cent, as against one per cent of industries in the US. Revenue of Australia’s top 100 listed companies as percentage of GDP rose from 27 per cent in 1993 to 47 per cent in 2015, almost 50 per cent. The source of that is the ACCC. This is not a new trend; it’s been going on for years. Minister, your government, your department and your National Competition Council are responsible. Seriously, the Liberals are paid by their donors to look the other way. What’s your excuse? You’re concentrating the market.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t think you’ll find a government who’s done more than we have to address competition across the economy. Seriously, go back and have a look. Yes, there’s always more work to be done, but a combination of the reforms that have already passed the parliament, the powers that we’ve given to the ACCC and their ability to enforce the laws that the parliament has played is making a real difference.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the four major retail banks have similar strategies, similar products, similar services? Their products are the same.  

Senator Gallagher: I think those issues have been well understood and well canvassed.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’ve each got a controlling interest in them by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State. We haven’t really got four major banks; we’ve got one major bank hiding behind four logos. The banks have got far too much power. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are you finished with your question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you want to make a comment?  

Senator Gallagher: My answer is that there is a continued focus in this area. We have assistant minister Dr Leigh working with the Treasurer in this area. There was a lot of effort going into it in our first time term, and it continues in this term.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

Australians Deserve a Regulator Beyond Reproach

,

I welcomed the ACCC’s decision to oppose the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group – and pushed hard on a bigger issue: the revolving door between regulators and major law firms.

I raised recent examples of senior ACCC figures moving straight into firms with competition clients, stressing that, even with separation deeds, the perception and potential for insider advantage remain.

Australians deserve a regulator beyond reproach, and senior officials shouldn’t be able to jump straight into the industries they once oversaw.

It’s time to restore integrity and end the cosy pipeline.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a pleasure.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was intriguing hearing some of your comments in answer to Senator Sharma—taking on Apple and mentioning Apple Pay and some of your other comments. I just use cash, because governments have been trying to get rid of cash, so we have to protect it. Anyway, it was very brave, so thank you for your refreshing comments. I’m going to start with a compliment, actually. In October, we discussed the growing concentration in the ownership of insurance companies. You mentioned you were reviewing the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group. I note that, on 11 December, the ACCC announced the takeover had been opposed on the basis of a reduction in competition. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to say on that. I hope this is the start of the end of market concentration in insurance.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It was based upon a careful analysis of the market conditions in Western Australia. It is possible that transaction will be brought back to us under the mandatory merger notification regime. The parties did foreshadow that when we announced the opposition under the informal regime. So it may be reassessed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Tonight’s line of questioning is about a potential revolving door of staff between the ACCC and private legal firms. Are there restrictions on someone who is on the ACCC payroll, especially the executive, leaving and immediately taking a position in the business they may have just been regulating at ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We require the entry into a separation deed that—  

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: They enter into an agreement with the ACCC, which is a binding, enforceable agreement, to firstly preserve the confidentiality of the information that has been received and also to continue to observe obligations that applied under the employment in relation to conflict of interest. We did, in one case, specify a period of required leave before employment could be taken up in a private law firm, but we look at that question—beyond the general obligations in relation to conflict of interest and preservation of confidential information—on a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is signing that deed a requirement that the prospective employee must agree to before signing up?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. Employees are obliged to do so, and commissioners enter into a code which, during the term, obliges us to comply with all statutory obligations and legal obligations and also to enter into that separation agreement upon leaving.  

Senator ROBERTS: That relies on trust. It would be very difficult to enforce it, because you don’t know what’s happening in the new employer’s offices.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have some observation because we see who comes before us. But, yes, we do not know what is being said.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Financial Review has reported on this topic, and I’m considering legislation to stop politicians and senior bureaucrats leaving and going to work for a company they were just regulating. This practice is too commonplace. ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver—is that how you pronounce her name?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: She left in May 2025, halfway through her term, and went to work for Herbert Smith Freehills. Is that correct?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you address this move at the time, in respect of the perception—and I’m sure this was a false perception—that HSF bought off an effective commissioner with a large job offer?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I think that is an incorrect perception, and Ms Carver did sign a separation agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner Carver was the enforcement committee chair for the 2023-24 ACCC prosecution of BINGO bins. BINGO bins were represented by Herbert Smith Freehills. Bingo lost and were fined $30 million. In the Sigma Healthcare and Chemist Warehouse merger—  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Sorry; just one moment. I should note that, to my knowledge, though it was resolved before I became chair, Ms McDonald would know Miss Carver was conflicted and did not participate in the consideration of BINGO matters when she came to the ACCC. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. In the Sigma Healthcare—Chemist Warehouse merger, Carver as deputy chair of the Mergers Review Committee participated in merger assessments in that period. The merger was approved in November 2024. Herbert Smith Freehills advised Chemist Warehouse—I’m not suggesting misconduct in any way by any party, but I am saying the capacity for corruption exists in these arrangements. I think you’re acknowledging that.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have a very clear and very strict conflict policy. Commissioners are required to disclose conflicts of all work that has been done, if they have been in private practice when they join the ACCC, that results, depending upon the extent of the seniority. If it’s a one-off transaction, it’s at one end of the spectrum; if it’s continued advising, it’s at another. If at the continued-advising level, that person will be conflicted and not have involvement in matters for that company for a number of years while at the ACCC. But, if a clear disclosure is given, the chair receives advice on it from our general counsel and our CEO, and I then take a recommendation to the commission, and we decide and record in a register the treatment of that conflict. So we take that very seriously. Frequently, for the initial period, when commissioners join, if they have been in private practice, they will be absented from a number of matters. They leave meetings, they don’t participate at all in the deliberations, they don’t receive papers, and they do not then participate in decision-making.  

Senator ROBERTS: Of course, I didn’t think of that, but there are potential conflicts entering ACCC as well as departing from ACCC.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There are. There is an objective to bring in highly skilled and experienced people. We have many highly skilled and experienced people who have worked in the public service throughout their career, and they are significant—they are the majority of contributors in the ACCC, there is no doubt—but we also bring in and are keen to attract appropriate people with skill levels, and that requires careful management.  

Senator ROBERTS: I suppose it’s small, but there may be some people who want to get into ACCC so they can get out again later and use their contacts. It’s always a possibility.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a possibility. We do seek through our legal arrangements in the separation deed to manage this, but it’s a possibility.  

Senator ROBERTS: Jennifer Barron was promoted to general counsel for merger reform in early 2025—this is my last question—with a major task on the books: preparation for merger law changes. In late April 2025, King & Wood Mallesons announced her appointment as a partner in their national competition team in Sydney, a team which does merger cases. The law says this person can’t use direct knowledge of an upcoming event at the new company, but they can use any other insider information to make themselves a valuable new employee. Is there anything being done about that?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Ms Barron also entered into an agreement undertaking ongoing obligations to preserve confidential information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: My pleasure.

/0 Comments/by

Flawed Laws, Greedy Giants

,

One Nation agrees with the sentiment behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolworths have morphed from trusted Australian grocery stores into greedy, shareholder-driven machines that have rightfully become the most disliked brands in the country.

While we support the goal of reining them in, we cannot support this specific bill for several reasons:

✔️ Free enterprise is doing what it does best — punishing greed. We see Amazon partnering with Harris Farm to deliver fresh food and independent retailers like IGA and Supabarn are treating customers like they matter.

✔️ We don’t need more poorly worded regulations. What we need is the ACCC and the Labor government to grow a spine and enforce the laws we already have. The supermarkets are already using deceptive “specials” to manipulate prices and the fines they receive are a pittance.

✔️ If we’re going to talk about price gouging, let’s talk about the government. Between $70 cigarette packets, fuel excise, and skyrocketing energy bills, the government is the biggest price gouger of all.

This bill won’t help the Aussie family at the checkout.

Instead, it will simply create a goldmine for lawyers. And with their deep pockets, Coles and Woolworths will be the ones who will walk away winning while the customers lose.

One Nation supports the “principle” of stopping corporate greed, however we completely oppose this flawed implementation.

STOP making new, ineffective laws and start enforcing the ones that actually hold these giant corporations to account.

Transcript

One Nation agrees with the motivation behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolies have far too much market power and they’re exercising that power in a way that benefits their shareholders, not their customers. With BlackRock Inc. holding influential positions in the share registers of these once fine companies, rapacious greed was always going to be the outcome. The accent here, though, is on the fundamental mistake Coles and Woolies are making, which is to exercise market power for the benefit of their shareholders, not their customers. Customers have been given notice. Coles and Woolies, once trusted and respected names, are now the two most disliked brand names in the Australian corporate scene. What a fall from grace!  

This abuse of market power has caused customers to migrate to new options, so the market’s coming to the rescue. In a stunning rebuke to Coles and Woolworths, Amazon has now paired with Harris Farm to add fresh food to Amazon. Amazon now offers same-day and next-day delivery of Harris Farm products—including meat, dairy, eggs and fresh produce—to over 80 suburbs in Sydney’s inner city, inner west and surrounds. This will use specialised insulated chilled packaging via Amazon Flex for freshness. Harris Farm already had its own online store and partnered with Uber Direct for quick store based same-day delivery prior to this happening. That’s the beauty of free enterprise competition. If one retailer turns a cynical and greedy operation, this creates an opportunity for someone else. And Coles and Woolies will be done.  

If you haven’t been into your local Harris Farm, IGA or Supabarn lately, I suggest you do that because Coles and Woolies have put their prices up much more than the inflation rate would justify, and the independent retailers have not. The price difference now is almost negligible, and you still get served by human beings. Fancy that—a human being serving! A retailer who values the customers wants to treat them as human—what a refreshing change! The 25c paper bags don’t fall apart, but the Coles and Woolies’ paper-thin rubbish bags faint with fright when confronted with an escalator or steps on the way back to your car. We’ve all had this happen.  

The existing regulations need to be policed before we add new ones, especially ones as poorly worded as this bill. Seriously, this bill could mean anything. The ACCC conducted an inquiry into deceptive price advertising by Coles and Woolies and found they’re using specials to put the price of a product up, then down and then up again in a way that leaves the public confused as to the real price. And the public is learning from this. They know that Coles and Woolies are not focused on customers; they’re focused on their BlackRock Inc. investors. They exploit the confusion to put the prices up further. They were fined a pittance and they’re still doing it. Surely we have laws already to bring these companies to heel. This Labor government needs to grow a bloody spine and just enforce the laws. You’re not enforcing the laws, and then you’re quite often wanting more. How much have Coles and Woolies donated to the ALP in recent years?  

While we are on the subject of price gouging, will this bill cover price gouging by the government? Seventy dollars for a packet of cigarettes is price gouging. Fuel excise, the fees on passports, energy bills, insurance, strata fees—these are price gouging One Nation supports the principle but completely opposes the implementation. This bill won’t do anything except create a lawyers’ picnic that Coles and Woolies will win. It will be a lawyers’ picnic, and the customers will lose. 

/1 Comment/by

Insurance Profits Soar While Australians Struggle

,

During Senate Estimates in October, I raised an issue that’s hurting Australians — insurance costs.

Health Insurance: Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from insurers, yet those same insurers are posting record profits — over $5 billion. Why are hospitals being starved while insurers rake in billions?

The ACCC Chair acknowledged the challenges but said they haven’t actively investigated this. She noted that private hospitals face rising costs and tough negotiations with a small number of insurers — a clear sign of limited competition.

Home and Car Insurance: On paper, there are 11 home insurers, many just brands under the same company. Suncorp owns AAMI and Apia; CGU and NRMA are both IAG. That means only eight real players. Car insurance is even worse — 12 brands, yet only six actual companies. When I asked the ACCC if this lack of competition worried them, they expressed their concern and said that they’re reviewing IAG’s proposed acquisition of RACWA because it could remove an important competitor.

Australians are furious about insurance premiums skyrocketing in areas that have never flooded, and never will, based on speculative climate change claims. Insurers argue that future flooding risk justifies massive hikes, even though extreme weather trends are flat. I asked if the ACCC has looked at how insurers justify these increases in a low-competition market. The answer? No.

All five publicly listed insurance companies share the same major shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank. These global asset managers hold significant stakes across insurers and banks. I asked if the ACCC considers the impact of these interlocked holdings. They said they’re aware of the investors yet will only act if they see evidence of coordinated conduct.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Insurance is the second most painful item on the consumer’s shopping list after groceries. There’s a lot of pain. I’ll go to the hospital aspect and then to the competition aspect. Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from the health insurers. We’ve been told this by many. Why are private hospitals being starved out of existence when the health insurers have recently recorded record profits of more than $5 billion?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There will be a number of factors there. They’re not questions, I believe, that we have actively looked at. Some relate to the level of competition among private hospitals, but they need to negotiate with a small number of private health insurers. That leads to difficulties for them in that bargaining situation. We’re also aware that the private hospital sector, from recent events, has been facing significantly increased costs at the same time as they are having to undertake complex negotiations in relation to coverage from private health insurers.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do is I’ll go to the lack of competition that you talked about with the insurance companies and come back to this and the hospitals. There are 11 companies in Australia offering home insurance. We’re going away from health to home. Of these, Suncorp, AAMI and Apia are the same entity and CGU and NRMA are the same entity, meaning there are only eight companies offering home insurance. Is that what you meant by limited competition in insurance?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There I was particularly talking about health insurance. But you are right that, partly as a result of prior acquisitions, a number of the groups have multiple brands, but it’s actually one insurance company behind it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Similarly, there are 12 insurance companies doing car insurance. IAG owns CGU and NRMA and has underwriting ties to RACV. Separately, Suncorp, AAMI, Apia, Bingle and GIO are all the same entity. This means there are only six companies in the car insurance market hiding behind several different logos. So it’s the same. Are you worried about the lack of competition in the retail insurance market?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are certainly very focused on this. We currently are assessing, under the informal merger assessment regime, a proposed acquisition by IAG of the RACWA, which is the Western Australian Royal Automobile Club. We have put out for public response a statement of issues concerned about the removal of the Royal Automobile Club. Our preliminary view set out in that statement of issues is that they provide a very important competitive constraint.  

Senator ROBERTS: We know that, in the home insurance market, insurance companies are putting up premiums on homes and businesses in areas that are supposedly affected by flooding despite never having flooded. In fact it will never flood. The argument is that, owing to climate change, which we’re told is coming sometime in the future, your property is now likely to flood, so premiums are going up, and they’re going up exponentially. I wonder if you use flags like these. Suncorp is making so much money out of insurance that it sold its bank in order to grow its insurance business. That tells you how profitable it is. Have you looked at the basis on which insurance companies are increasing premiums in a low-competition environment using specious claims of global warming when extreme weather events have not changed? There’s been no trend. It’s just flat.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We haven’t looked at that specific issue, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The answer for people is not to change insurance companies—they can’t, because they’re all the same. They’ve got similar policies, similar conditions and the same shareholders. Specifically, all five publicly listed insurance companies in Australia have the same shareholders. I’m not trying to verbal you, but I think I asked you if you had heard of BlackRock, and you said no. Was it you?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have heard of BlackRock.  

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe I misunderstood. That’s why I checked; I don’t want to verbal you. The most notable common shareholders across all five entities based on top 10 holdings are BlackRock, a global asset manager which owns five to eight per cent of insurance companies. With State Street, it’s the same deal. They’re a global adviser with six to 16 per cent. That’s even more. Vanguard Group is the same type of entity, with five to six per cent. Norges Bank Investment Management has only two per cent, but they have a combined controlling interest, and these funds apparently are interlocked. Are you aware of these significant holdings that basically control our insurance companies?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: What you are describing in terms of global funds managers and global funds does not surprise me in relation to who would look to invest in insurance companies. As to your comment that they’re interlocked, a number of those will be operated and will be advised and managed independently. It’s possible what you’re referring to is that they have either financing or shareholding agreements relating to the particular investment. Those elements are not ones that we would be aware of.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have many more questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: I can put some on notice.  

CHAIR: That would be great.  

Senator ROBERTS: I just have a couple more questions. Are you aware that the banks are similar to the insurance companies—Westpac, NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth? Basically we’ve got one bank, it seems, owned by the same controlling shareholders, the same entities that I just mentioned. We have four banks that hide behind four logos, but they have similar policies, similar conditions, similar products and similar strategies. They’re effectively controlled by BlackRock, Vanguard et cetera.  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: In relation to the four banks, I’m also aware that there are both individual Australian shareholders and Australian super fund investors in them as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to investigating BlackRock’s behaviour, for example, or State Street’s, Vanguard’s or Norges’s and their connections with each other?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Where there are situations where the ACCC sees both common shareholdings and interlocking directorships, we take that into account if we see conduct that we think indicates concerted action, but we would need to see conduct that we considered indicated concerted action between the relevant companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put five questions on notice.

/1 Comment/by

Remote Control Over Your Home

,

 I raised with the ACCC a disturbing new “emergency backstop” that allows energy providers to remotely control our homes and car batteries.

The government and energy giants call it “grid stability.” Let’s call it what it is: remote control over your private property. You paid for the battery, you generated the power, yet they want to flip a switch and stop you from exporting electricity whenever it suits them.

I asked the ACCC Chair if she’s worried about this overreach. While they claim “conditions and regulations” will protect competition, we’ve heard that story before. Australians shouldn’t have to ask for permission to use the energy they produce in their own homes.

We need answers, not just “monitoring.”

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to ask this question about the 19 May media release, ‘ACCC proposes to allow collaboration between energy providers’. I have many questions here, but I’ll probably keep these over till next time. Are you aware that this public key infrastructure service—I’m talking about batteries and access to home batteries and car batteries—which consumers pay for, will enable distribution network service providers to remotely limit or prevent electricity export into the grid by consumer energy resources in times of significant excess production known as an emergency backstop mechanism? Are you worried about this remote control that will affect householders?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are aware of that purpose. It was put to us, particularly by the Australian Energy Market Operator, in terms of powers that are needed to ensure the stability of the grid. We also imposed conditions in terms of diversity of governance and other aspects to ensure that the ability to use that infrastructure would enable continued competition and continued access for the management, for example, of virtual power plants and home batteries so that it wouldn’t be restricted to only the distribution networks themselves.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have confidence in those restrictions or regulations?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We carefully consulted on them. We put them in place because we were satisfied with them, but we will also monitor that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

Developers Locking Up Land

,

In the middle of a housing crisis, developers are locking up land, waiting for it to get worse so they can sell it at higher prices.

While cutting immigration is the number one solution to the housing crisis, we also need to look at foreign-owned companies that seem to be waiting for house prices to get even more expensive before they build more.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: A car is the third-biggest investment cost of a person’s life, usually. Housing would be No. 2. Government is far and away the biggest cost during a person’s life. Let’s move on to housing. Are you doing any work in the property market in terms of land development? Some developers are acting like a cartel and keeping land locked away in the middle of a housing crisis, waiting for the demand get even bigger to raise their price. What are you doing in this space?

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Our exposure will arise in mergers, and we reviewed what was voluntarily notified to us— a merger in terms of the function of masterplanned communities. It was an acquisition that brought together assets; Lendlease was selling some assets which went to Supalai. In relation to the Illawarra area, where we considered there would be too much concentration post the transaction, we required a divestiture in order to retain continuing competition. One exposure we have to this, and an important role we have, is merger control. With the reforms, if passed by the House, we will have much more visibility in relation to the transactions we need to look at. If we were to become aware of cartel conduct or reports of anticompetitive conduct, that would absolutely be within our enforcement remit against anticompetitive conduct. We do not have an overall supervisory function in relation to housing. It arises in relation to maintaining and promoting competition.

CHAIR: The committee advises that it is releasing the Productivity Commission; you go with our thanks.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of any developers withholding land from the market to bump up prices?

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I don’t believe we are aware of that, no.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Lemon Car Dealers Let Off the Hook

,

There’s nothing worse than spending tens of thousands of dollars on a car for it to breakdown after its driven out of the dealership. Unfortunately, lots of Australians are left without any help when this happens.

I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about what they’re doing to protect Australians who end up in this situation.

The protections in place aren’t good enough. One Nation believes every Australian should be able to get an easy refund if their new car breaks down.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’m pleased to hear you say in your opening statement that the cost of living is important and that competition impacts the cost of living. I’d like to understand a little bit about the motor vehicle industry and your involvement in it. There seems to be some systematic level of ‘lemon’ cars being sold by some manufacturers. If they feel there are no consequences for selling dodgy products, won’t that have a significant impact on competition in the motor vehicle industry?

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This is an important issue that the ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators are very engaged in. In terms of a range of new vehicles, they are each subject to consumer guarantees so that there is an underpinning of fitness for purpose and that they meet the qualities and specifications on which they’ve been sold. The ACCC is seeking, and the government has announced, reforms to the law such that if there are contraventions of a guarantee, including on a motor vehicle, the ACCC can take action not solely to require giving a consumer the remedy, which currently is an action that can be taken—

Senator ROBERTS: ACCC can do that?

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We can. However, consumers find it very difficult to do so. We find it is a poor way to get actual compliance. The law reform proposes that that will actually be a breach of our act. Where you see repeated indications of this, that we can seek significant penalties as well as consumer remediation—it is reported to us and to state and territory regulators that this is a problem particularly a problem for low-income families and consumers, and it is a problem we seek to take action on with the states and territories. Being able to take action for a serious and systemic breach and to get significant penalties will be the best deterrence.

Senator ROBERTS: In other words, you will strengthen your provisions and add provisions to it.

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. That is what we are seeking.

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically because you’re aware there are systemic quality issues among some manufacturers.

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly.

Mr Greiss: We’ve also taken, over the years, quite a number of actions for those types of systemic issues against a number of car manufacturers—Ford and Mazda, just to name two. They are very intensive exercises,
very resource intensive. As the chair just pointed out, the ability to penalise for failure to abide by the consumer guarantees will be a very important reform.

Senator ROBERTS: That was a comprehensive answer; thank you very much.

/1 Comment/by

Tracking the Data of Lithium Battery Fires

,

Lithium battery fires have featured far too often in news headlines. These fires often ignite without warning, they’re difficult to extinguish and are not confined to #EVs. Everything from eScooters to electric toothbrushes carries the risk for #thermal runaway and considered hazardous materials.

I asked about the ACCC’s report on Lithium-Ion Batteries and Consumer Product Safety during the recent senate estimates. The report advocates for a national product safety incident database to capture lithium ion battery fires.

Senator Gallagher responded positively and I look forward to quick action on this problem from the Government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to refer to the ACCC’s Lithium-ion batteries and consumer product safety report that you issued this month. On page 6 it says: 

… there is currently no national product safety incident database to capture data and support national identification and analysis of consumer product safety hazards. Instead, product safety incident data is fragmented across a range of government and non-government organisations. With appropriate funding, the ACCC considers it is best placed to administer a national product safety incident database— 

which would include capturing lithium ion battery fires— 

and recommends the ACCC is funded to develop and administer this. 

Minister, electric products catching on fire seems to be a frequent and very serious problem. Tracking the data accurately would help inform the debate, assist customers to make good decisions and probably save lives. When will you implement this recommendation? 

Senator Gallagher: Sorry, I don’t have the recommendation you’re referring to. 

Senator ROBERTS: The ACCC recommends that it be the one to monitor and capture the data on lithium ion battery fires. 

Senator Gallagher: I imagine this is something that will need the attention of governments. I’ve been watching it myself, with more and more reporting of these matters. I think it’s probably something that the federation is going to have to deal with, as it crosses over a number of responsibilities that would be state and Commonwealth. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/3 Comments/by

ACCC Needs More Power Against Foreign Predatory Billionaires

,

I’m concerned about the increasing influence of large, predatory merchant banks on the Australian economy. You’ve heard the names mentioned — Blackrock, First State, State Street, Vanguard and Norges. While their shareholdings may be small, typically 5 – 8% each, when they act together these shareholdings amount to a controlling interest over targeted industries.

These include our retailing duopoly, Coles and Woolworths and our Big-4 banks: Commonwealth, ANZ, NAB and Westpac/St George.

I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about the way that our banking sector behave like a monopoly — one set of owners with multiple logos. The answers were encouraging but the ACCC needs more power to control these predatory merchant banks.

I also asked about de-banking, which is the process that the Big-4 use their market power to harm or close businesses that compete with them, including cryto exchanges and bullion dealers. The biggest competitor of all though, is actually cash. Physical money competes with more traceable and profitable electronic banking. Banks are closing branches, pulling out ATMs and generally trying to engineer a cash-free society for their profit and control.

These questions were my first to ACCC in quite some time. The answers were sharp and well informed and I look forward to developing these lines of inquiry next estimates.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t call the ACCC very often because it seems you do a very good job. To improve banking competition—and that’s needed—do we need more regulation or more independent banks providing competition? Which is it? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We want both. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay! The ACCC refused permission for ANZ to acquire Suncorp bank on competition grounds? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We did. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was a very good decision. Would it improve competition in Australian banking if Suncorp was now purchased by a third party not currently involved in banking? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, I should note that ANZ and Suncorp have taken an action for review in the tribunal and that decision will come down next week, and so we await that decision. It may or may not be the same decision as the ACCC’s. However, our decision reflected that we were not satisfied that there would not be a substantial lessening of competition and either Suncorp continuing independent, as it is now, or being acquired by another party—one of the possible alternative transactions that was identified was, for instance, merger with an alternative regional bank or smaller bank—or by a party that is not currently a participant in the banking sector, would each retain the independent, competitive constraint. 

Senator ROBERTS: In your progress report on the digital platform services inquiry, you made the point that the ACCC continues to recommend the introduction of new and expanded industry-wide consumer measures, including prohibition on unfair trading practices. What industries or perhaps what context informed that request for more power? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The ACCC is looking for that reform across the economy. We do see that, in terms of digital platforms—for instance, in online trading, subscription traps are a good example—there is a significant capacity to have unfair practices and processes that deprive consumers of the ability to make informed choices. But we do see these problems across the economy. The government is proceeding through a consultation process, which will conclude in November of this year, and we hope this will result in the introduction of an unfair trading practices prohibition across the economy. 

Senator ROBERTS: As to PEXA—I think they’re the conveyancing people? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would PEXA’s near-monopoly in electronic conveyancing be an area where you would like more power to keep an eye on their use of market power? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are hopeful that ARNECC, which is the current regulator, will be in a position to require compliance with the steps towards interoperability, which had been hoped for and planned, so that there will be a capacity to result in meaningful competition. 

Senator ROBERTS: You approved the merger of the Armaguard and Prosegur cash handling businesses—against opposition from the free market, which fears losing the ability to negotiate on price—with the justification of keeping these businesses going. Are you confident the merged entity is viable and capable of holding 90 per cent of the Australian market long-term—let’s say, up to 2030? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct that we did approve that merger on condition of an undertaking. We were particularly conscious of the matters that were put before us relating to the loss of viability for two competing providers of cash-in-transit services, as there was such a significant decrease in the use of cash, particularly brought on during the period of COVID. Under that undertaking, which is effective for three years, the merged entity is required to continue to offer the services to all locations that are currently serviced. It also limits the ability to reduce service levels and raise prices. We do monitor compliance with all undertakings we accept. We do know that the merged entity states that there have been further changes that call into question its continued viability. We have granted an interim authorisation that was sought by 20 members of the Australian Banking Association, the Reserve Bank of Australia, Treasury, Australia Post and suppliers of cash-in-transit services—a whole set—that were seeking to be able to negotiate to try to reach a resolution for continued cash-in-transit services on acceptable terms. As a condition of that interim authorisation, we required that there be public reports monthly in relation to the discussions, because it was quite a significant authorisation that we enabled for those negotiations. We have just this week received the first report, and it’s available on our register. 

Senator ROBERTS: Banks are refusing to accept or issue cash to profitable small players like Commander Security. This company has been de-banked by the big four and now even a customer owned bank. Banks are closing branches, pulling out ATMs and refusing to give cash to their own customers in a situation where identity and use of cash has been established. Cash is, in effect, a competitor to the bank’s dream and the customer’s nightmare of making a fee on every transaction and service every person makes. Are banks misusing their market power to eliminate cash as a competitor to their own electronic payment systems and drive customers to fee-paying services? That’s what it appears to be. 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We do currently have a misuse of market power action relating to financial services in the court against MasterCard. We certainly look closely at misuse of market power questions in relation to financial services. There are a series of complex questions in there, including on the closure of branches, which APRA does monitor and report on. We have also reported on our concerns in relation to the manner in which there is muted competition between the banks—for instance, in relation to retail deposit products—and sought recommended regulation that will better inform customers so they can better exercise choice in the products that they acquire. It is difficult to separate what changes are occurring commercially because of the changes in the economy— 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is difficult to know who’s the horse and who’s the cart. 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly—what the boundaries are. But we do look at all these questions very carefully, both in terms of enforcement and in terms of monitoring, and we are hoping to continue financial services monitoring because we think they are essential services for Australian families. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the Senate inquiry into the closure of rural bank branches? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes, we are. 

Senator ROBERTS: It seems quite clear from the one that I’ve taken part in that it’s the banks driving the reduction in cash. It seems very clear to us, but, anyway, that’s a matter for you. Banks are refusing to provide banking services to their customers. It’s not just private cash handling companies; it’s bullion dealers and legitimate cryptocurrencies being de-banked. Last week, Bankwest limited how much their customers could spend on buying crypto. Is this another case of the banks misusing their market power to harm the operation of a competitor, and is it worthy of your scrutiny? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The ACCC participated in a working group and taskforce, together with APRA, the Reserve Bank, AUSTRAC and Treasury, with a concern about de-banking. One of the recommendations from that was that there needs to be better data collection, to be able to better measure and monitor the pattern of and conduct in de-banking, and also that there needs to be more clarity in terms of the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing requirements, which are bases upon which banks say that they need to make risk assessments and, at times, de-bank. So there was a desire to try to reduce that conduct. 

CHAIR: This is your last question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Something that few people seem to be aware of—I’m guessing you are aware of that—is that the major banks, the big four banks, would seem to be one bank with four logos. I say that because their services are similar, their strategies are similar and their modes of operating are similar. They’re largely owned, as I said, by super funds who don’t take an active interest and by mums and dads who don’t take an active interest. That leaves a controlling interest in the hands of four or five major, predatory global companies: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State and one other. They control, it seems, the big four banks. The banks have enormous power here. They have enormous legal power. They’ve got deep pockets to hire the best lawyers. They’ve got complex regulations that they can hide behind and with which they can really beat up on an individual. They’ve got enormous market power. I think they have 90 per cent of the cash deposits. They have enormous financial power, and, as I said, they hide behind regulations. 

CHAIR: This is a very long last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any thought of giving scrutiny or understanding to the companies that I mentioned—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State—and their influence over each of the big four banks that they control? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We’ve certainly been contemplating the benefits of continued monitoring, particularly in relation to key services that the banks provide. Also, a part of the Suncorp-ANZ decision looked at concerns in terms of the capacity of the major banks with very similar business models to engage in a problem of what is called ‘concerted effects’. In effect, their responses to competitive signals are similar because of their similar structures. So we are conscious of those risks, and we do seek, both through monitoring and through powers that we have in relation to concerted practices, to watch carefully for these sorts of concerns. 

Senator ROBERTS: We do know that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street control a lot of major companies around the world and control a lot of companies and a lot of industries. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by