Richard Prebble
Columnist, former cabinet minister and ACT Party leader.
A National Party apologist writing in the Herald last week argued that being in favour of markets does not mean being in favour of big business.
When does National believe a successful company has become too big to enjoy property rights, freedom of contract and the protection of the rule of law?
Foodstuffs has about 55 per cent of the supermarket sector. It is far from being a monopoly.
If it is when a business is so big that it prevents competition, that is not what the Commerce Commission has found.
The commission has found the barriers to supermarket competition include planning restrictions and restrictive land and lease covenants. Those barriers are being removed.
The commission says new competitors are entering and expanding.
The commission has not recommended the breakup of Foodstuffs.
The National apologist cites the breakup of Telecom as a precedent.
It isn’t.
Telecom separated its network business, Chorus, so it could participate in the government’s rollout of fibre.
No previous National government has ordered the dismantling of a lawful business.
Christopher Luxon says National’s proposed breakup of a successful New Zealand owned co-op has been thoroughly investigated.
By whom?
The only evidence I know of in favour of the proposal is the polls.
Poll-driven parties do not have conservative principles.
They are populist.
This article was originally published by I’ve Been Thinking.
