The government has been vocal about its free market orientation. It has used this, in part to justify the refusal to grant SPC/Coca Cola funds for restructuring.

The Government has every right to adopt such a policy, since governments are elected for their philosophies as much as their promised policies (leaving aside the influence of a rejection of the incumbent government issue.)

Let's, for the sake of this discussion, leave aside also the fact that SPC's performance or non-performance is really a matter for SPC, their parent Coca Cola and their directors and management. If they are travelling poorly, then that reflects significantly on either strategic or operational decision-making. If one argues that the world market is changing, then good management should have picked it and repositioned the company to address the changing world. The fact that they didn't, is to their account. That they bought SPC in the first place, should have indicated that they were confident that it would provide some level of sustainable benefit to shareholders. Clearly they have failed. So let's ignore this dimension of the issue.

If one accept that government has reinforced a "Free Market" approach to managing the economy, then one must accept the definition of a 'Free Market'. One definition is:

'A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.'  (Investopedia) On this basis alone, their decision to reject the SPC request is correct. However, the definition of free market refers to both supply and demand. More specifically, a free market means that the owners of capital are free to treat with the owners of labour and other supplies. That is not what happens in Australia at the moment or what is intended to happen with this government's policies. The government certainly wishes to free up corporations from unnecessary rules, regulations and constraints - and fair enough too if they are really pointless or a hindrance. However, the government is simultaneously interfering in labour's ability to bargain and contract their labour. It appears that for this government, it's all for making it easier to transact the business for its owners, but harder or more onerous for labour to transact in that business. The core issue for me is that this government has a misplaced sense of purpose. Let me explain. It appears to me that the Conservatives in this country have the view that the purpose of government is to create a strong (maximised) economy, among other objectives such as defence, research, etc. The problem with this is that to maximise the economy, one must eliminate non-productive parts of the economy and reallocate those resources to more productive parts of the economy. If that was all there was to government, then this government would be on-track. However, I am of the view that the purpose of a government is the optimisation of the entire society, and not merely the maximisation of the economy. In other words, the economy is 'merely' an enabler (yet very important one) in order to help a society deliver what is the responsibility of the government of the day to deliver. And the responsibility of a government, regardless of whether it's 'big' or 'small' government, is to grow, protect, support, motivate and nurture its people, capabilities and resources so as to enhance their quality of life. Period. Not everyone in Australia is an owner of a business yet everyone in Australia is a part of the Australian society. A government that merely pursues the maximisation of the economy on the assumption that if you have a strong economy all else will be taken care of, fails to understand the relationship between market performance and individual well-being. The reason that the US society is considered a 'sink or swim' society is because its social philosophy doesn't accommodate all its constituents in the way the Australian society does (or tries to do; or has tried to do in the past.) The US has many outliers from its mainstream economy - and that is a large problem and a large part of the explanation of their social dysfunction. There are a lot of people in the US who are sinking and not swimming. I believe that the Australian economy needs to be growing, robust and profitable, not for its own sake, but in order to improve the life of all Australians. Having a job is really important, but if you're hell-bent of maximisation, then you are prepared to make jobs redundant, without understanding or being prepared to support those marginalised people. So in this context, one can reasonably argue that maybe, just maybe, the government might have engineered some type of support for SPC to save jobs and protects its constituency. So far, this government has exhibited a black or white policy philosophy- they don't appear to understand that government, much like society, is all about emphasis, nuance and balance. Black and white works in simplistic contexts - and society and economy are anything but simple.