Although the latest calls, by Bob Katter and Nationals leader David Littleproud, have been made in response to price gouging allegations against Coles and Woolworths, groceries are not the only market sector in which a lack of competition has led to higher prices. According to the Productivity Commission the largest four firms (each) account for more than 40 per cent of total industry output in the mining, utilities, media, manufacturing and transport sectors.

Or, as former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chief Alan Fels told a House of Representatives economics committee inquiry into "dynamism" last July, high levels of market power are inevitable in industries with high entry costs and concentrated ownership.

Professor Fels, who recently conducted a damning review of the supermarket sector for the ACTU, called on Labor to create laws giving government the power to break up firms that misused their market power. He told the "dynamism" inquiry divestiture legislation was on the books in many other advanced economies. "The divestiture power has been used very successfully in the US for example with respect to oil, tobacco and chemicals 100 years ago, and with respect to AT&T in more recent times" he said.

According to Professor Fels the mere existence of clearly defined anti-monopoly or divestment laws can have a salutary effect on the way in which large corporations go about their business. The threat of being forced to sell assets or subsidiaries forces them to take existing fair competition laws more seriously. Given this, and the unprecedented level of community concern over alleged price gouging by supermarkets which have made record profits in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, there is an argument that both Andrew Leigh and Anthony Albanese have been a tad hasty in labelling divestiture powers as "Soviet style" and rejecting them out of hand. America's Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 was hardly the product of a Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Assistant Competition Minister Andrew Leigh's assertion the government is "not looking at divestment powers at the moment" and that it is "focusing on things that are going to make a direct difference" seems self-contradictory. That's because legislation that would give the ACCC some real teeth would have a much more immediate effect than the six inquiries into or including the price of groceries that are currently under way. The question is of course whether Mr Littleproud, Mr Katter and other conservative politicians calling for legislation that could be used to break up the big retail chains are for real or simply indulging in some cheap political opportunism.

Would they, for example, support the invocation of such powers against large mining and energy companies? If, as is possible, the Inquiry into promoting economic dynamism, competition and business formation does recommend divestment legislation it is hardly likely to restrict it to a single sector of commerce and industry.