On my coffee table sits a board game. Designed by Ralph Anspach, it is called Anti‑Monopoly. In the original version of the game, play starts with 3 kinds of ‘cartels’ – trusts, oligopolies and monopolies – dominating the board. Players represent competition authorities, bringing legal cases against the monopolised businesses. While Monopoly’s goal is unfairness, Anti‑Monopoly’s goal is fairness. You win when the board becomes a proper free market system.
Getting a fairer deal for families is at the heart of Labor’s competition agenda. Already, we’ve raised the penalties for anti‑competitive conduct and banned unfair contract terms. We’ve given more resources to the competition watchdog to monitor unit pricing and address shrinkflation.
Crucially, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has introduced to parliament the biggest shake‑up in Australian merger laws in half a century.
One of the ways that monopolies can dominate a market is by buying up competitors. But right now, three‑quarters of mergers aren’t reported to the competition watchdog. If mergers are not reported, it becomes significantly harder for the watchdog to evaluate and potentially block them. Under the new system, low‑risk mergers will be dealt with more speedily, so the focus can move to high‑risk mergers.
Another major reform is a collaboration with states and territories to revitalise National Competition Policy. In the 1990s, this approach boosted average incomes by thousands of dollars. Today, the Australian Treasury estimates that the benefits could be between $2,500 and $7,500 for every Australian household.
At the end of the last century, National Competition Policy became part of the reform conversation. As Paul Keating noted, ‘I guarantee if you walk into any pet shop in Australia, what the resident galah will be talking about is microeconomic policy’. Today, with even the parrots discussing prices, competition reform is more urgent than ever.
Competitive markets are the first line of defence in preventing Australians from paying more than they need to for goods and services. The post‑pandemic surge in global inflation has refocused policymakers on how competition policy and regulatory action can alleviate cost‑of‑living pressures for households.
Competition isn’t just about better prices. Competition sustains and promotes dynamism and productivity. It promotes choice and freedom. Competition also helps Australia maximise opportunities in artificial intelligence, the net‑zero transformation and the care economy.
Under existing laws, the competition watchdog has taken strong enforcement actions. Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission secured the highest ever penalty for cartel conduct in Australia against BlueScope steel. Litigation against Bingo and Aussie Skips for cartel conduct not only saw one of the largest financial penalties, they also resulted in significant criminal sanctions against senior executives. Future enforcement will benefit from our government’s reforms to competition laws, particularly those affecting mergers in Australia.
We are at an historic moment in competition. Around the world, competition reform is moving towards centre stage. Consider the emergence of big data and sophisticated algorithms. Large in scale yet capable of being very small in focus, honing in on the browsing and purchase history of individual consumers and shaping their wants and decisions. These algorithms and the platforms that run them pose a competition challenge quite different to those that were contemplated back when our laws were written.
Policymakers also need to consider ways that a lack of competition hurts workers. Non‑compete clauses, which make it harder for workers to move to a better job, show up in the employment agreements of one in 5 employees. Research from the e61 Institute finds that workers at firms heavily using non‑competes earn 4 per cent less on average. Extrapolating across the workforce, and accounting for the fact that one in 5 workers are subject to a non‑compete clause, this implies that non‑competes are driving down average wages by more than $500 every year – equivalent to $7 billion annually.
I’ve never liked the Monopoly board game, so the competitive spirit of Anti‑Monopoly greatly appeals to me. But there’s a further story about Anti‑Monopoly that I love. In 1974, the year after Ralph Anspach released his game, Parker Brothers sued him for using the ‘Monopoly’ name. In his defence, Anspach dug into the roots of Monopoly. He found that its origins lay in The Landlord’s Game, designed in 1903 by social campaigner Lizze Magie as a critique of corporate power. After a decade‑long legal battle, Anspach successfully retained the right to distribute his game under the title ‘Anti‑Monopoly’.
Having Anti‑Monopoly displayed in my office brings a smile to my face and reminds me of our reform goal. For parents looking for a board game that will teach your children the value of competition and economic dynamism, I recommend Anti‑Monopoly over its more famous counterpart.