This document discusses the enhanced cooperation between the competition authorities of Australia and New Zealand, the ACCC and NZCC. It provides background on the long history of economic cooperation between the two countries dating back to 1983. In 2009, a single economic market framework was agreed to that proposed three outcomes, including cross-appointments of associate members between the ACCC and NZCC to further cooperation. This led to the inaugural cross-appointments in 2010 between the chairs of the two organizations. The cross-appointments have benefited merger reviews by deepening cooperation at staff levels and working to achieve greater alignment in analytical frameworks and effective remedies. An initial three year review found positive feedback and the authorities are committed to ongoing review and future arrangements

1. Australia-New Zealand Enhanced
Co-operation
ACCC-NZCC cross-appointments

2. Background: a long history of Trans-Tasman
Economic Co-operation
• Australia and New Zealand close geographic and economic
neighbours and many companies operate in and/or trade
between both countries
• 1983 Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade
Agreement (CER Agreement)
• 1988 MOU on the Harmonisation of Business Law between
Australia and New Zealand
• 1990 introduction of s.46A of the Competition and Consumer
Act (CCA) and s.36A of the Commerce Act (NZ)
– misuse of substantial market power in a trans-Tasman market
• Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010
– mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 2

3. Single Economic Market Outcomes Framework 2009
• Agreed between the Australian and New Zealand
Prime Ministers 20 August 2009
• Competition policy stream proposed three
outcomes:
– Firms operating in both markets face the same consequences
for the same anticompetitive conduct
– Competition and consumer law regulators in both jurisdictions
are able to share confidential information for enforcement
purposes
– Cross-appointment of associate members on the ACCC and
NZCC
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 3

4. Long history of co-operation between the
ACCC and the NZCC
• Many similarities in the structure of the CCA and the
Commerce Act (mergers and agreements that SLC, taking
advantage of SMP for an anti-competitive purpose,
authorisation on public benefit grounds)
• 2006 Cooperation Protocol - merger review
• 2007 Cooperation Agreement – general
• 2013 Cooperation Agreement – provision of compulsorily
acquired information and investigative assistance
• Tripartite arrangements with each of Canada, UK and Taiwan
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 4

5. ACCC-NZCC Cross-appointments
• Cross appointments intended to enhance co-operation and
increase alignment in the administration of competition law
• Inaugural cross-appointments commenced December 2010
• Mark Berry (Chair of the NZCC) and Jill Walker (Chair of the
ACCC Merger Review Committee) cross-appointed as
Associate Commissioners
• Initial focus on consideration of trans-Tasman mergers
• In the first three years we have considered 8 mergers under
these arrangements and one currently under consideration
• Also considered revised Merger Guidelines and Authorisation
Guidelines in New Zealand, revised Authorisation Guidelines
and Merger Process Guidelines in Australia
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 5

6. How it works in practice
• New Zealand has a Formal Merger Clearance regime
• Australia has both a Formal and an “Informal” Merger Clearance regime, but
only the latter has been used to date
• ACCC and NZCC staff have a long history of co-operation in merger reviews -
informal discussions and use of waivers
• When a merger clearance application is received on both sides of the Tasman,
we now routinely consider that merger under the cross-appointments
• ACCC Commissioner appointed to the NZCC Division considering the merger in
New Zealand with regular meetings
• NZCC Commissioner invited to MRC and Commission meetings in Australia for
agenda items relating to consideration of the merger
• Meetings generally occur by VCU
• Cross-appointed Commissioners have full access to confidential information
• In parallel, staff teams have regular discussions relating to markets, theories of
harm and development of potential remedies
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 6

7. Benefits of the Cross Appointments
• Deepens cooperation at Commissioner and staff level
• Greater alignment of analytical frameworks, theories of harm
and effective remedies – general and specific
• Pooling of knowledge, experience and expertise
• Consistent decisions – but may not be the same decision
• Markets may not always be the same (differences in product
and geographic substitution)
• Competition concerns may arise in one country but not the
other, e.g. differences in number of remaining players, or both
• Remedies may be required in one country or both
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 7

8. Going Forward
• Commitment to review after initial 3 years
• Review and discussions re future
arrangements ongoing
• Positive feedback from stakeholders
• Look forward to future announcements
17 June 2014 OECD Competition Committee – WP3 8
Thank You