Sims said the overall effect on digital platforms would be significant:“I think it has a huge impact for digital platforms.”

However,the changes could also impact smaller companies. Muys said the proposed reforms could be costly for small and mid-cap firms in particular.

“It will increase the information requirements,and therefore the costs associated with merger clearance by potentially requiring parties to do a lot of work very early in the process,” he said.

“There is also an administrative filing fee of between $50,000 and $100,000 being introduced. That may not sound like a lot,but for small and mid-cap firms,that could be significant,although we are yet to see what exemptions are available.”

Muys said removing the Federal Court from the merger process would reduce transparency,and the watchdog’s accountability by limiting the scope of review available for parties who are unhappy with a decision.

“There’s some incremental improvements to transparency proposed in the reforms from the current ACCC process,but they’re a long way short of the robust transparency and testing that happens today in front of the Federal Court,” he said.

ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said the changes would better equip the regulator to identify and prevent anticompetitive mergers. She said if the ACCC couldn’t prevent anticompetitive deals,there was a risk of higher prices and less choice for customers.

“We will see more of the mergers that matter,” Cass-Gottlieb said. “We can assess them properly and act more quickly.”

Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black said the proposed reforms struck a balance between economic and regulatory needs,but the ACCC needed to be appropriately resourced.

“The average period for the ACCC to process merger authorisations has been 171 days,with the longest being 260 days – a long way from the existing 90-day statutory requirement,” he said,noting the need for adequate resourcing to avoid further bottlenecks.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said competition was a good thing but that it was important to get the balance right.

“For small businesses and consumers to get the best deal,we must be able to compete against global corporates and grow businesses in Australia that are at a global scale and competitive in taking on the global giants,” he said. “Mergers are healthy and have a significant benefit,so we have to be careful and about tying them in red tape.”

Clayton Utz competition partner Kirsten Webb said the threshold for parties needing to make a filing to the ACCC’s review process needed to be considered. “Most deals don’t raise competition issues,” she said. “The mandatory filing reform suggests a significant increase in the number of mergers the ACCC will review ... so the ACCC will need a certain and streamlined process to make sure it doesn’t bog down deals that don’t raise any issues.”

She also said it was disappointing that there was no recourse to the Federal Court when reviewing ACCC decisions. “It’s a significant departure from one of the fundamentals of our system,” she said. “That it is for courts to decide if the law has been breached,not an administrative body.”

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories,exclusive coverage and expert opinion.Sign up to get it every weekday morning.