RICHARD PREBBLE: Is breaking up Foodstuffs consistent with centre-right values?
A National Party apologist writing in the Herald this 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% 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.
Richard Prebble is a former Minister and ACT Party leader who writes at I've Been Thinking
Here's a scenario for you:
Labour get more seats and the GG asks them to form a Govt. The thought of going with the Greens and TPM is too abhorrent for Mr Hipkins so he gives the other Chris a call-
Chris: "Hello Christopher, the GG has asked me to form a Govt and I really can't work with either the Greens or Te Pati Maori, would you be interested in having a chat?"
Christopher: "Hi Chris, yes I'd definitely be up for a chat as I don't want to have to work with ACT or NZ First. I'm sure we could come to some arrangement. Our policies are so similar that it shouldn't be too hard to come to…
The worst part of this policy is it highlights the fact that all governments in NZ are going to end up Left of Centre. We are a socialist country.
The choice at election time is which coalition will do the least damage. The answer is clearly the one involving National - hopefully with National having less influence and without Luxon as PM. This is really because Labours partners are much worse than Nationals - not because National are better managers than Labour ( they are but only marginally).
All major NZ political parties are left of Centre except ACT.
NZF are populist. Their immigration and Maori policies make them look right wing. However they still believe in government intervention (…
Ironically, the best way to break up a monopoly is by not having govt policies that restrict competition.
The best way to break up a monopoly is to first break up and fire the govt departments that are restricting competition.
The Maori treaty gravy train trough is a monopoly, and best broken up by breaking up and firing the deep state employees running the gravy train.
You don't have to look very far, to see that everyone granting racist rights to Maori, Big Pharma, Big Tech, etc are all receiving back handers.
Govt interference in the free market created the monopolies in the first place. The answer is 100% dependent on getting rid of govt interference.
Bruce Cotterill doesn’t hold back either in today’s (Saturday’s) Herald. This move by National is short-sighted, populist and ineffective nonsense.
The only positive I can see is that this draws a much clearer distinction between sensible ACT and now socialist-tainted National. I hope it persuades a few more people to vote ACT!
In America they said, "You think health care is expensive now. Wait till the government gets involved."
They were right.
Just wait till the government "helps" us with groceries.