Kerre Woodham: I am perplexed by National's supermarket plan

Well, I don't know. I've listened to all the commentary; I've listened to Nicola Willis. I'm absolutely perplexed. Stumped. I thought after all this time and having taken a lifelong interest in politics that I understood a wee bit about it. Turns out I know absolutely nothing, because if I was a National Party advisor, and let's face it, a lot of you think I am, but if I was a National Party advisor, I would not be saying to National, "look, you're languishing in the polls. You might have done some good work, you're not selling it well. We need a little something, something, something, something. I know! Let's take a big pet project of the last Labour Government and interfere with private property and manipulate the market and sell off supermarkets. And let's not sell off all supermarkets, not the Australian ones. Let's take the supermarkets owned by New Zealanders, good hard working young couples who go and live in small communities that Woolworths won't touch, and make them less profitable and make them charge less for the goods that they sell. How about that?"  

I am stumped that they thought this was a good idea and then even more stumped that whoever came up with the idea managed to sell it to the rest of them. Because I assume it's not a brain fart of Nicola Willis'. She's been on one ever since she came into government. She's been on the backs of the supermarkets. But for the love of all that's holy, this is an idea that goes against National's entire DNA. They're having the biggest identity crisis since Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner. It's an absolute head scratcher. However, Nicola Willis is adamant. This is what she told Mike Hosking this morning: 

"We believe in competitive enterprise and what the study after study has said about our supermarket sector is that it is a complete outlier internationally and that it is so consolidated it isn't operating like a normally competitive market. I want competitive, strong businesses innovating, offering variety, competing on price and the evidence I have received says that's not going to happen for so long as you have an effective duopoly. So this is not a normal market, there is evidence of market failure. Yes, this is an unusual step, but man oh man, we've got a problem here." 

Really? You know, it's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world in which we live. There are few things upon which you can rely. One of them is that National is the party of small government, minimal interference, a champion of small business owners. Now they're not. And the thing is it might all be for naught. They might be confusing and infuriating what voter base they have left for nothing. Dependent on the Commerce Commission, dependent on coalition partners, might be a Trojan horse. Okay, we'll leave the supermarkets, but we'll raise the age of Super to 68 – I don't know. As I say, I'm absolutely perplexed.  

We might be a percentage point higher in terms of grocery prices than other countries —to be fair, we have been a lot higher in recent times— but ask anyone in London or Sydney or Stockholm if they're paying too much for their groceries and they'll say, by crikey, yes we are. And although Australia and Canada and the UK among other countries have looked long and hard at their supermarket chains, none of them has taken the highly unusual step of breaking up privately owned supermarkets. It used to be that if you wanted the government to step in and try and fix things to make things a bit fairer, to protect and insulate you from the cruel vagaries of day to day life, you'd vote Labour or the Greens, you had a choice. If you wanted supermarkets broken up to create an artificial competition in the marketplace, you'd vote Labour or the Greens. And now look, you lucky, lucky things. What a choice. Labour, Greens or National. Who'd have thought.