1. Competition Policy
2. Consumer Protection

The bill should be supported because it addresses significant competition issues in the supermarket and hardware sectors, which have been identified as oligopolistic. By introducing divestiture powers, the bill provides a structural remedy that can lead to a more competitive marketplace, benefiting consumers through increased choice and potentially lower prices. This intervention is aligned with global best practices, as similar measures have been effective in enhancing competition in other jurisdictions [Judgment]. Additionally, the bill includes a public interest test, ensuring that any divestiture orders consider employment impacts, access to services, and shareholder value, thereby balancing competition with broader societal and economic outcomes.

1. Propertarianism
2. Legal Principle

The bill should be opposed because it grants significant powers to the courts to enforce divestiture, which could be seen as an overreach into private enterprise and property rights. The possibility of forced asset sales might deter investment in the affected sectors, as companies may fear future divestiture actions. Moreover, there are concerns about the courts' capacity to make informed decisions on complex market dynamics, which are usually the domain of competition tribunals or specialized agencies [Judgment]. While the bill includes a public interest test, the subjective nature of these assessments could lead to inconsistent application and uncertainty in the market.