Dear readers in Australia, tell us about the Australian view of the Countdown Boycott in NZ.
Here’s our take on it from an international prospective https://e2nz.org/2014/02/14/begin-the-countdown/. Frankly we think it is ridiculous and is bringing NZ into disrepute with its international trading partners.
From where we’re sitting the boycott looks to be more damaging to Kiwis in New Zealand than the Australian/Kiwi company Nevan Lancaster is trying to undermine.
He tells the NZ press he is protecting NZ jobs http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11203049 but in reality he’s damaging the jobs of Kiwis who work at Countdown and Kiwis producers who supply the stores. His answer to ‘protecting Kiwi jobs’ is to help create a monopoly in NZ, yet he professes to be an advocate of free trade. How does that add up?
If it is true that NZ products are still on sale in Australian supermarkets what’s the real reason behind Mr Lancaster’s boycott and what does he personally stand to gain from it?
E2NZ.org has been entering the debate on Facebook, making the point that it is Countdown’s Kiwi employees and suppliers who will suffer most from the ill conceived boycott. Meanwhile, our readers continue to tell us that Australian supermarkets continue to stock NZ produce. So, why the boycott?
Is Nevan Lancaster’s boycott campaign really about xenophobia and self protectionism, instigated by a man who claims to be an advocate of the free market? How can effectively creating a supermarket monopoly in New Zealand support a free market? How does that add up?
Here’s a message that was sent to our Facebook account from Glen Keene of Hamilton, why does this always have to be the stock response to anyone who challenges fragile belief systems?
It doesn’t add up.