Keynote address at Carbon Market Institute Summit

Acknowledgements

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, and acknowledge the stewardship of First Nations communities in preserving and sustaining their lands throughout history to today, and their enduring contributions caring for country.

It’s a pleasure to join you all today at the Carbon Market Institute Summit, at a key time as our nation works to meet the required scale and speed of the net zero transition.

In today’s speech, I would like to explore the role competition can play in supporting this transition – and the role of the ACCC, as competition regulator, in contributing to achieve our nation’s legislated net zero target.

While the ACCC is not an environmental regulator, in the context of the transition, our role touches on everything from environmental collaborations to infrastructure monopolies, mergers, and new markets. And it is some of these important areas that I will discuss today.

Competition, climate and the ACCC’s role

The Financial Year Climate and Water Statement published by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology last week shows 2024–25 was Australia's warmest financial year on record –highlighting the imperative to urgently decarbonise our economy. ^[1]

Almost 20 years ago, in the 2006 Stern Review, author Nicholas Stern, then Head of the UK Government Economic Service, and now Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment argued climate change is the greatest market failure of our time.^[2]

Greenhouse gas emissions cause significant negative externalities – health impacts, environmental degradation, and long-term economic harm.

These costs are not reflected in market prices.

The cost of freight doesn’t reflect the impact of long-haul logistics on emissions. The price of fast fashion doesn’t reflect the environmental cost of the tonnes of clothing dumped in landfill each year. And the price of a flight to Europe doesn’t reflect the rising sea levels it contributes to.

This market failure, where the costs of emissions and environmental degradation are not reflected in prices, threatens our economy, our environment, and the wellbeing of future generations.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s purpose is to make markets work for all Australians – now and in the future. As we, as a nation, decarbonise our economy and pursue net zero, and work with our international partners to do the same, the role of the ACCC is not to stand in the way, but to stand guard. To carefully weigh the benefits and detriment and to protect the competitive process and consumers without compromising 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 exerts pressure on 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.

This is especially important as we confront the paradox of rapid transformation.

As a nation, we are faced with the task of building complex systems, fast: clean energy deployment, circular supply chains, resilient low-carbon infrastructure that supports our new and transitioning industries, including mining and transport sectors.

As we face this task, the allure of scale is powerful, and the call to collaborate is strong.

History shows how economies of scale and first-mover advantage can accelerate progress in the short term – but can also lead to long-term structural challenges.

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the United States experienced a surge in infrastructure and industrial coordination. Rail expansion, the rise of Standard Oil and the dominance of early telecom giants such as AT&T delivered efficiency, connectivity and national prosperity.

But these same ventures also became vehicles for market coordination. Over time, monopolies born of innovation and ambition hardened into structures that resisted competition, innovation and change. Progress slowed. Innovation stalled. And the US was left with the difficult and costly task of dismantling these entrenched monopolies to reinvigorate economic growth.

Today, as the global economy pivots toward low-emissions technologies and infrastructure, we must learn from the lessons of the past.

While there will be some need for government to intervene with support or regulation, or for collaboration to enable the creation of new, low carbon technology and industries, where possible we must ensure that we retain the conditions that enable workable competition.

Competition and consumer law enforcement: safeguarding competitive markets in the transition

In this context, I will now turn to the role of competition and consumer law enforcement.

By detecting and addressing cartel conduct, and anti-competitive agreements, enforcement agencies ensure that markets can adapt and respond to new policy settings, technologies and consumer demand.

The ACCC’s action against the Bingo Industries and Aussie Skips Bin Services and Aussie Skips Recycling cartel provides a recent example of anti-competitive conduct in the waste sector.

In this case, Bingo and Aussie Skips agreed to fix and increase prices for the supply of skip bins and processing services for building and demolition waste in Sydney. The price increases were agreed to take effect from 1 July 2019 when State Governments were introducing or increasing waste levies at landfills and collection depots  to create incentives to move away from traditional landfills to recycling and more innovative solutions. Both companies pled guilty, and Bingo was fined $30 million – the second largest criminal cartel penalty imposed under the competition law so far. Aussie Skips was fined $3.5 million. Two key managers also pled guilty and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, to be served as intensive corrections orders, and fined.^[3]

In delivering judgment on this case, Justice Wigney noted that:

“Cartels are widely condemned as the most egregious forms of anti-competitive behaviour. At its heart a cartel is an agreement between competitors not to compete. Cartel conduct harms consumers, businesses, and the economy, and is likely to increase prices, reduce choice and distort innovation processes”.

Cases from the EU and UK also highlight how competition law enforcement can deter anticompetitive conduct harming the green transition.

Earlier this year, the European Commission, and the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority, both issued fines on businesses that colluded in a way that stymied markets for end-of-life-vehicle recycling.

Given the serious nature of the collusion, which took place over several years, the European Commission and UKCMA achieved penalties in the order of 458 million euros,^[4] and 77 million pounds,^[5] respectively.

Cartel participants not only agreed to not pay dismantlers, but agreed not to market to consumers on the basis of the extent to which auto parts could be reused at the end of a vehicle’s life.

Complementing competition law enforcement, the ACCC is continuing to prioritise surveillance of green claims to ensure businesses aren't unfairly competing on unsubstantiated environmental claims, including in the context of emissions reductions and transition planning. The ACCC is committed to proportionate compliance and enforcement to protect consumers and competition where we consider the line has been crossed. Our recent institution of proceedings against Australian Gas Networks, for its 'Love Gas' campaign, is one example.^[6]  

We also support the good faith efforts of businesses to communicate genuine sustainability claims and consider these to be beneficial to consumers and to the effective functioning of markets, and to a green and just transition. [A well-functioning market requires transparency – both in accurate communication, and proactive disclosure of environmental performance.

To better support businesses to make clear, evidence-based environmental claims that consumers can understand and trust, we published our Guide on Making Environmental Claims for Business in 2023.^[7] And we continue to work on further specific guidance to assist businesses to make accurate claims to consumers about their efforts to address climate change.

Competition exemptions and guidance: enabling cooperation that benefits the transition

Robust enforcement is just one part of the overall competition regulation picture.

We recognise that achieving net zero in some cases may require new forms of collaboration between firms – particularly where there is a first mover disadvantage, in industries undergoing structural transformation, or where scale, coordination or shared infrastructure are essential.

Many sustainability collaborations will not raise competition concerns. And businesses across Australia are increasingly collaborating – to reduce pollution and emissions, manage food waste, improve recycling, or decarbonise technology and transport.

Where collaborations do raise competition concerns, Australia’s competition law includes provisions for exemptions, allowing firms to engage in conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the Act where it delivers a net public benefit. This has been a feature since 1974, and provides flexibility that distinguishes Australian competition law globally.

Public benefits are broadly defined and can include environmental benefits. And as action on environmental sustainability has become more urgent, we have more frequently applied our exemption power to enable collaborations that seek to bring about sustainability outcomes that would be much more difficult – if not impossible - to achieve by a single entity working alone.

In 2023, one in four authorisation applications considered environmental benefits. In 2024, that figure rose to one in three.

In 2025, we’ve authorised industry stewardship schemes to improve product recovery and recycling outcomes,^[8] joint renewable energy purchasing agreements to support low-carbon energy procurement,^[9],[10] and sustainable finance collaboration that supports investment in clean energy and sustainable agriculture^.[11],[12]

In December last year, we granted conditional authorisation to Pilbara ISOCO Limited to operate as a central body coordinating electricity transmission and system planning in the Pilbara. This region presents a unique case: multiple isolated energy users – including large industrial players – needing to coordinate investments in grid reliability and low-emissions generation. In this context, coordinated action, underpinned by transparency and fair access, can unlock efficiencies that support the energy transition.^[13]

To better inform proponents of sustainability collaboration and ward against competition law being erroneously held out as a barrier to important sustainability initiatives, in December 2024 the ACCC published the ‘Sustainability Collaborations: A Guide for Business’..^[14]

The guide is intended to help businesses understand when collaboration is less or more likely to raise competition concerns, what exemptions may be available to protect parties from private as well as public competition law enforcement, and how environmental benefits will be weighed.

In view of the fast-evolving nature of the transition, there may be further changes or updates to our guidance, and we maintain an open door to businesses seeking to discuss collaboration proposals with us. While we cannot provide legal advice, we can and do help businesses to understand the available exemption processes. 

Merger control: market structures that serve the transition

Customer demand, the reformed safeguard mechanism, and new mandatory climate-related financial disclosure are making emissions performance and transition planning central to corporate strategy. In this context, we may see more consolidation framed around climate objectives.

But while deal objectives may align with the transition, this doesn’t override the need for ACCC scrutiny of the competitive impacts.

I will now turn to our role in merger control.

The role of the ACCC in merger control is to assess whether a proposed acquisition is likely to substantially lessen competition. In certain types of merger reviews, public benefits such as environmental considerations can be taken into account in addition to the impact on competition in markets relevant to the acquisition.

Take the proposed acquisition of Origin Energy by Brookfield and MidOcean which the ACCC considered in 2023 following an application for merger authorisation.^[15] The Brookfield Global Transition Fund had been specifically established to focus on the transition to renewable energy. Brookfield stated that its decision to buy Origin, Australia’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, was driven by a strong imperative and commercial incentive to lower emissions quickly.

We found that the public benefits and detriments in this matter were finely balanced. Likely detriments, particularly anti-competitive effects from vertical integration, had to be weighed against likely benefits to Australia’s renewable energy transition. We also took into account undertakings offered by Brookfield, AusNet and MidOcean in this weighing process.

Our review, which included extensive industry consultation, ultimately concluded that the acquisition would likely result in an accelerated roll-out of renewable energy generation, leading to a more rapid reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. We determined that the likely gains for Australia’s renewable energy transition amounted to a public benefit sufficient to outweigh the likely public detriments.

Ultimately the deal did not secure shareholder support and so did not proceed.  While merger authorisation is no longer available as we transition to the new merger regime, the ACCC will be able to consider likely public benefits from proposed acquisitions following a competition assessment in the new regime, which came into operation on a voluntary basis on 1 July, and which will commence on a mandatory basis from 1 January 2026.

Natural monopoly infrastructure regulation

I will now turn to our role in infrastructure regulation.

Natural monopolies are seen in electricity transmission, rail, water, gas pipelines – where duplicating infrastructure would be inefficient and uneconomic.

In these settings, the role of regulation is not to prevent monopoly – but to help these markets deliver the best outcomes for consumers by ensuring transparent, cost-reflective efficient access terms; safeguards against preferential treatment; and flexibility to accommodate new entrants as the market evolves.

In the energy transition, this mandate becomes increasingly important as new forms of shared infrastructure emerge.

Take, for example, the proposed 60-megawatt hydrogen production facility to be established in the Hunter with a $432 million Hydrogen Headstart grant from the Australian government in July.^[16]

The facility will be situated near the Port of Newcastle’s planned Clean Energy Precinct and will present positive opportunities for shared pipelines, storage and export terminals that will allow benefits of scale and support the net zero transition.

It will be important to ensure such shared infrastructure supports, rather than constrains, the growth of competitive, contestable downstream markets for a cost-effective and competitive net zero transition.

Market studies and inquiries: market transparency in the transition to net zero

In addition to addressing specific competition issues through enforcement, merger control and infrastructure regulation, the ACCC also has the remit to conduct market studies and inquiries, following direction by the Government.

This work enables us to monitor and assess broader market trends, including how emerging business models, technologies and pricing strategies impact competition and consumer outcomes. This helps markets function by addressing imbalances in bargaining power and information. Our inquiries and market studies work helps consumers and investors make efficient decisions to get the best outcomes for consumers and across the economy. This is particularly important in markets for essential services or undergoing significant transition.

The ACCC’s Inquiry into the National Electricity Market is an example of how we assess the integration of new services and technologies into existing market structures, and whether competitive conditions are evolving in a manner that supports efficient investment and consumer outcomes.^[17]

One area of emerging interest in this inquiry is the rise of virtual power plants (VPPs) – aggregators managing rooftop solar, home batteries and electric vehicles. Seen as a potential source of grid flexibility and lower costs, our latest report highlights positive competitive developments. The inquiry has also drawn attention to the need for greater consumer protection in these fast emerging and complex markets, including for an overarching consumer duty that requires energy companies to act in the interests of consumers.^[18]

The uptake to the new Cheaper Home Batteries has been remarkable, and demonstrates Australia will continue to have a unique approach to electricity generation and storage, with our households being significant contributors. With the rapid take-up of subsidies, the ACCC has put the industry on notice that we will be watching carefully and actively monitoring consumer complaints. We will hold solar and battery installers, retailers and suppliers accountable to ensure they comply with Australia’s consumer laws. And so that consumers can experience the full benefit of these new subsidies.

The future of regulation: collaboration, transparency and the sustainable market

To conclude today, I would like to reflect on the need for bold thinking, long-term planning, and regulatory frameworks that balance accountability with innovation to support this transition.

The transition to net zero is a structural shift that is reshaping markets, altering the allocation of risk, and testing the capacity of our regulatory and economic systems to respond.

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

Across all that we do at the ACCC, we remain conscious of how competition regulation must serve as a deliberate and effective guardrail. We maintain a focus on right-sized regulation: balancing the interests of consumers, businesses of all sizes and the wider economy. And we place importance on the efficiency and agility of our agency.

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 civil society.

I look forward to the work ahead of us at the ACCC, applying regulation that supports the economic and overall societal benefits of the net zero transition.

Thank you.