Three months into Australia’s new merger clearance regime, the ACCC says the system is “balanced and targeted”. The early data suggests a more complicated picture for dealmakers.
Two trends stand out. First, the regime is capturing more transactions than many in the business community may have expected, making ACCC engagement a routine feature of deals. Second, the waiver process, which was designed to streamline and fast-track low-risk transactions, is emerging as a source of timing risk when used incorrectly.
Waiver volumes suggest the regime is broader than intended
From January to March 2026, 71 waiver applications and 47 Phase 1 notifications were filed. That is a significant level of waiver activity so early in the regime, particularly following the rush of around 500 “section 189” filings in 2025 to avoid it altogether. The graph at Figure 1 illustrates the numbers to 25 March 2026.
Figure 1: Number of clearance requests and notifications lodged with ACCC during the 6-month soft launch of the new regime, and notifications and waivers lodged with ACCC from January to 25 March 2026 as set out on the Acquisitions Register
The practical reality is that far more deals are now interacting with the ACCC than under the previous system. This was the policy intent of course but for deal teams, this shifts the baseline. Regulatory process is no longer the exception. It is part of the standard deal timeline, even for transactions that would previously have proceeded without regulatory scrutiny.
It is also symptomatic of deal teams taking a more cautious approach. This is driven by the structure of the regime itself. A transaction that is not notified when required, risks being void, meaning it has no legal effect from the outset. That is a significant shift from the previous position, where transactions were voidable and remained effective unless successfully challenged by the ACCC. The consequence is a clear incentive to notify, or at least seek a waiver, even in borderline cases. While this aspect of the regime is already under review and should be fixed in the winter session of Federal Parliament, it is contributing to higher waiver filing volumes in the meantime.
Rejected waivers are creating avoidable timing risk
Around 8% of waiver applications have been rejected in the first three months of the regime. That is not a large proportion, but it is significant because of the consequences.
A rejected waiver does not simply delay a deal. It resets the ACCC process. Parties must move into a formal notification pathway and start again, after already having investing time and effort into the waiver application process and paid the waiver application fee.
This points to a disconnect between how parties are using the waiver process and how the ACCC expects it to be used. Waivers are not a fallback option or a quick first step. They are intended for genuinely low-risk transactions that can be assessed on the information provided, without further investigation necessary by the ACCC.
Where there is any real complexity, including overlap, concentration, vertical relationships or the need for explanation, it may be more efficient to proceed directly to Phase 1. Attempting a waiver first can ultimately extend timelines rather than shorten them.
Beyond waivers: what else does the early data show?
Clearance rates are high, but process is the real change
The ACCC is broadly delivering on its commitment not to block more deals. Around 92% of waivers have been granted, and most Phase 1 applications are being cleared. Only two matters, Ampol/EG and Coles, have progressed to Phase 2 review, both in sectors under close scrutiny by the ACCC in any case.
High clearance rates, however, do not mean the regime is low impact. The key shift is procedural. More deals are needing to be reviewed, more formally, and more often.
Timing targets are being met for now
The ACCC is currently meeting its target of resolving most matters within 20 business days. Average timeframes are around 11 business days for waivers and 18 for Phase 1 reviews.
This is a positive start, but it remains to be seen whether these timelines hold as volumes increase and more complex matters enter the system.
Pre-notification is becoming a core part of deal planning
For transactions that are not suitable for a waiver, pre-notification engagement with the ACCC is critical as the ACCC will not start the timeline running until it is satisfied it has all material it considers necessary to make a decision on a notification. While the ACCC is talking about a two to four week period being appropriate for deal teams to factor into their timelines, there is no transparency at this stage as to whether this is sufficient. It’s best to err on the side of caution and leave four to six weeks for this engagement.
Final thoughts
The ACCC is right that the system is functioning as intended at a technical level. Deals are being processed, most are being cleared, and timing targets are being met.
From a dealmaking perspective, however, the impact is more significant. The regime is drawing in more transactions, increasing regulatory touchpoints, and introducing new execution risks, particularly through the waiver process.
The early lesson is that the system is more interventionist in practice than it appears on paper.
For deal teams, this requires an adjustment in approach. Waivers need to be used selectively and supported properly. ACCC engagement should be factored into timelines from the outset. Regulatory process is now a core part of transaction planning, not something that can be addressed late in the deal.
Contact the Addisons Competition/Antitrust & Consumer team if you have any other merger questions.
You can also download our current Addisons Merger Control Guide by visiting this link.