In 2009, ANZ management flirted with the type of conduct the ACCC considers a more stringent law on price signalling would apply to, competition watchdog chair Graeme Samuel told the Senate's economics committee in Melbourne, on Tuesday.Samuel also outlined practices banks might follow - and have followed - that he termed a "softening up" of competitors.His colleague Brian Cassidy, chief executive of the ACCC, told the committee the ACCC considered signalling may have the same practical effect on competition as collusion.Samuel outlined scenarios to the committee in which senior bank executives mull over the significance of projected rises in the RBA cash rate and various trends in the cost of funds."It doesn't prevent a broad discussion of the economic context and where interest rates might go in the future. Where you get into difficulty is when bank executives say: 'We are not sure what the RBA will do next week'."To say [then], 'I intend to do the following' is to soften up the market... and to signal to competitors. "If your competitor says the same thing, you remove the competitive tension."Information in advance… can be seen as useful, but in the vast majority of cases its usefulness is to let your competitor know what you intend to do."Labor Senator Anne Hurley asked about one quote, sourced by committee staff, from ANZ managing director Mike Smith, to the effect that he did not "want to be stuck out on his own" over interest rates. He made the comment in 2009.Smith had made the comment in the context of questioning designed to clear up a confusing report in the Herald Sun newspaper earlier that particular week on the bank's approach to pricing of home loans.Samuel told the committee: "That kind of comment could not be dealt with under current laws as they stand."Samuel and Cassidy made it clear they felt the present law was hamstringing efforts to combat price signalling. They explained to the committee their disappointment with the Federal Court's judgement in the Atco petrol retailing case, in Geelong. The evidence demonstrated cooperation by local traders who exchanged pricing intentions in code. The High Court refused leave to appeal on this case.Sharon Henrick, a partner at Mallesons, told the committee that the current law was adequate to patrol price signalling and that the ACCC erred in its pleadings in the Atco case, failing to lead the judge to an alternative conclusion regarding how the present trade practices law applied to the facts of the case.