When the review into business competition last week found our misuse of market power rules were deficient and should be tightened, the backlash from our business leaders wasn't entirely unexpected, writes Ian Verrender.

It's not easy straddling a great divide, a yawning chasm of divergent attitudes and opposing philosophies, all the while exuding an air of total consistency.

But it can be done.

Normally the embodiment of unfailing uniformity when it comes to logical argument, in recent weeks our business leaders have found themselves at sixes and sevens when it comes to the thorny issue of competition.

On the one hand they've been up in arms, railing about the difficulties of getting a decent latte on Easter Monday, as a result of those dastardly restrictive labour agreements that artificially force wages higher.

At the same time, they've been equally fired up about the latest report on improving competitiveness in their own world, damning Professor Ian Harper's review and warning that consumers may end up suffering as a result.

The debate hasn't been entirely without humour.

It didn't take long for a couple of online guerrillas to ring our business peak bodies at uncomfortable hours, only to be told via the magic of the recorded message that the office was manned "nine to five, Monday to Friday". No weekend working here!

That's not an entirely unreasonable position. After all, who would be available to drink the lattes on Sundays and public holidays if everyone was in the office?

Even before Harper's long awaited competition review last week, corporate Australia's attitude on how best to cope with a hostile competitive environment attracted global headlines, courtesy of West Australian trailblazer Andrew Forrest.

According to the Twiggster, what Australia needs now is a cartel, an agreement between the big iron ore miners to withhold production, to force prices back to reasonable levels; a kind of iron ore owners union, if you like.

OK, merely uttering such sentiments may be illegal. And sure, our stunned competition watchdog has opened an urgent investigation.

Given the legal sensitivities, there wasn't a great deal of support from those he would like to dragoon into the service. Rio boss Sam Walsh called it "hare brained", BHP's official silence was deafening and even Gina Rinehart dismissed his calls.

But Twiggy refused to flinch. Conveniently ignoring that most of the iron ore oversupply is a result of Fortescue's massive expansion and that the company's Achilles heel - its huge debt - has left it vulnerable, Forrest instead went for the heartstrings.

He's concerned about BHP and Rio Tinto shareholders, worried they may be suffering from reduced earnings. Plus, in something of a personal turnaround, he frets our governments, state and federal, aren't receiving their fair share of tax.

What he forgot to mention was the recent plunge in prices - due to intense competition - has threatened Fortescue's very existence.

To a large extent, modern economic theory has it that competition is driven by the selfish actions of those attempting to enrich themselves, actions that ultimately provide benefits to society as a whole as goods and services become cheaper.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, first referred to this phenomenon as "the invisible hand" in his 1759 work The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and later in The Wealth of Nations.

One of the underlying assumptions, or pre-conditions, for markets to operate efficiently, is for there to be many buyers and many sellers.

But as modern corporations have evolved into global juggernauts, they have directly challenged that precondition, in the process casting aside one of the foundations of the very free market theory the chiefs of these organisations publicly espouse.

The self interest, however, remains firmly entrenched.

A well managed multi-national firm can source materials and labour at much lower costs than smaller operations and put them out of business. And in the past half century, waves of mergers and acquisitions have resulted in some industries hosting barely a handful of global operators.

In some cases, this can benefit consumers as greater economies of scale lower costs and prices.

But in many instances, multi-jurisdictional corporations are better resourced than the governments of countries in which they operate, and have no qualms about using their muscle to subvert the political process.

The extent to which multi-nationals exploit anomalies in tax systems is just one example of this and will be on full display in Canberra this week when a parliamentary inquiry into tax avoidance gets under way.

When it comes to industry concentration, Australia leads the world.

In a development that would have made Noah proud, we have become a nation of duopolies; two airlines, two grocers and two brewers. The only reason we have four banks is because they've been banned from further mergers. Not that they ever give up trying.

Instead of a free market ensuring competition, we now rely on legislation and government appointed bureaucrats to police those laws.

The potential for dominant companies to abuse their power requires constant vigilance and regular review.

And so it was that Harper's review last week found that our misuse of market power rules were deficient and out of step with global practices and he proposed tightening them.

That didn't please Richard Goyder, managing director of Wesfarmers - the company that owns supermarket chain Coles, which for years has been under fire from its own suppliers, including farmers.

Lashing the report, Goyder - backed up by arch rival Woolworths - suggested consumers could end up being worse off as a result; an odd concern given a corporation's responsibility is to maximise benefits to shareholders.

That same misplaced concern for consumers was on display among our banks last week as well.

When Tony Abbott suggested a levy on banks to pay for the taxpayer funded deposit insurance scheme, the nation's biggest bank - the Commonwealth - immediately suggested customers could be worse off.

Such a levy, it argued, "would impose an ongoing cost on industry, which may be passed on to consumers through higher fees or lower interest rates for deposit accounts".

Hang on a second. Was that a threat? If so, it suggests our banks are price makers - not price takers. And that is the very definition of an organisation with monopoly powers, not one that operates in a competitive environment.

Far be for your diarist to suggest collusion, but as each of the big four banks fired off its final submission to the Financial Services Inquiry last week, the uniformity of language and argument in each was uncanny.

That's modern competition for you.

Ian Verrender is the ABC's business editor.