Australia’s new mandatory merger control regime was meant to change the cadence of dealmaking: for certain transactions, it replaces the old, largely voluntary approach with a “notify and wait for approval” requirement that can push regulatory process and timing to the centre of execution risk. The regime formally began on January 1, 2026, with businesses required to notify qualifying deals and hold off completion until the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) gives the green light.
That was a core warning signal in some media reports and broker discussions around what the tougher rules could mean for insurance broking M&A - particularly for the biggest consolidators whose competitive advantage has often been speed, repetition and integration at scale. The suggestion was that mid-sized brokers might find new openings if mega-platforms face more friction, more disclosure and more timetable discipline.
But in a Steadfast investor presentation where the firm announced millions of dollars’ worth of recent and upcoming acquisitions, CEO Robert Kelly (pictured) offered a counterpoint: for his group, the ACCC’s tougher posture is unlikely to bite in the way some rivals suggest.
The CEO was asked how the ACCC was responding to Steadfast’s intention to undertake tens of millions of dollars’ worth of acquisitions in the months ahead. He said his firm has pressure-tested its acquisition program against the regulator - and the results, he suggested, are unequivocal.
“We did 20 transactions with the ACCC - step-ups and acquisitions - and they approved every one of them,” said Kelly.
This could suggest that buyers in the M&A space with an established record, clear data and a repeatable submission process will not necessarily be slowed by the watchdog’s new rules.
Kelly went further and said the regulatory pathway of recent acquisitions has not just been manageable - it has been getting faster. “They went from six weeks initially down to basically two weeks and three weeks to get them done,” he said.
His argument was that the new environment rewards preparation and familiarity, and that Steadfast’s acquisition engine - rather than being interrupted - may simply be forced into a more formalised version of what it has been doing anyway.
That contention appears to sit neatly alongside the ACCC’s own framing of the new model: a structured administrative regime with set phases and timeframes, where straightforward matters can be resolved in the earlier part of the process (including the possibility of waivers), while complex deals can be escalated.
Where critics of the new rules see heightened scrutiny, Kelly presented a simpler proposition: the ACCC’s underlying message to acquirers is clear and consistent, and Steadfast’s M&A strategy is designed to stay on the right side of it.
He framed the regulator’s merger test as very focused on consumer impact.
“If you are going to restrict access to the consumer for a product or a service, or you are going to increase the cost of that product or service by doing the merger or the acquisition, you will be in trouble with us,” he said.
Around that, Kelly’s broader message was that Steadfast has found the ACCC engaged and increasingly fluent in how the group operates. He said the group’s current signed term sheets have already been run through the regime and characterised the regulator as cooperative and more attuned to the sector than in earlier interactions.
Steadfast has long argued its network model preserves operational independence at the business level, rather than forcing a single monolithic brand and operating platform onto every acquisition. Kelly implied that this “independence” is not just a cultural preference - it is part of how the group positions its acquisitions as less likely to reduce competition in local markets.
However, what’s new for the market is not simply tougher competition analysis; it is the operational reality that transaction sequencing, disclosure strategy and regulatory readiness increasingly shape deal certainty.
And if the insurance distribution landscape is any guide, the appetite for consolidation is probably not going away.
M&A activity across Australia and New Zealand’s insurance sector has clearly shifted up a gear over the past year, with a cluster of deals of different sizes across the market. In August 2025, Steadfast’s Community Broker Network (CBN) extended into New Zealand by acquiring Folio’s broking network business and rebadging it as CBN NZ. In October 2025, Howden bought Auckland‑based Omni Insurance Brokers while 360 Underwriting Solutions completed its acquisition of a majority stake in Crop Risk Underwriting. In June 2025, United Risk completed its acquisition of Sydney‑headquartered facultative reinsurance MGA Pinnacle Underwriting (and its affiliate) and in April last year Envest, part of The Ardonagh Group, finalised the purchase of a significant stake in New Zealand MGA Ando Insurance, which manages over NZ$500 million in GWP.
That backdrop, and Kelly’s message, probably refutes the idea that the biggest consolidators are about to be boxed out. The tougher ACCC rules may still reset the playbook in Australia but the winners won’t necessarily be smaller; they’ll be the acquirers who can demonstrate, quickly and repeatedly, that their deals don’t shut out customers or push up prices.
