I would say that, even if both measures work in the same general direction, "repeal previous antitrust legislation" and "actively promotes monopolies" should have two different terms, even if the general direction is the same.
For the "repeal previous antitrust legislation", it could be classified as a Laissez-faire1 approach to competition. Let the market sort it out, do not allow the government to take action against business getting stronger, anti-competitive practices, mergers and cartels.
I have also seen the removal (or reduction or limitation) of monopoly/competition controls expression being used sometimes.
For the "actively promotes monopolies", again two situations:
the government directly or indirectly2 establishes the monopoly. This is easy, establishment (or concession) of monopoly status.
the government desires a monopoly but does not directly establish it, and instead enacts legislation making it a logical consequence. To be honest, I do not recall a single instance of a government doing this. Which makes sense; monopolies have a tendency to become very powerful players and any state or leader that decides that they need/want a monopoly is more likely to directly decide who will become the monopolist. That way they win a leverage (for good or for bad) that they would not have otherwise.
Although the laissez-faire
doctrine can be applied to other parts of the economy, like relationships between employers and workers and many others. So the need to specify that we are talking about the competition between business
2Sometimes, especially in countries with less public control of the government, the government can make a corporation a de facto monopoly by strangling its competition, even if there is public support for competition. But I would still use the same term for that situation.