RICHARD PREBBLE: Supermarket Policy at Warp Speed
On 19 April, New Zealand First announced that it was campaigning to separate PAK’nSAVE from New World.
National was unenthusiastic, but commissioned consultants to report on the proposal.
The report arrived in June. The consultants found there could be a price advantage but conceded their calculations could be wrong.
Foodstuffs disputed the findings, saying there was no evidence that breaking up its business would lead to lower grocery prices and warning that it would reduce efficiencies, duplicate infrastructure and increase costs.
At 2.37pm on 15 September National’s supermarket policy was as described by Commerce Minister Cameron Brewer in answer to Question 12: “making it easier to consent and build supermarkets, improving overseas investment pathways, strengthening competition settings and supplier protections, and backing Commerce Commission enforcement.”
16 September 2026 was a very busy day.
The June cost-benefit analysis was released by MBIE.
Nineteen hours and 46 minutes after Minister Brewer’s answer in Parliament, at 10.23am on 16 September, National issued a media advisory saying Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis would make a “significant” announcement in the National caucus room at 10.30am — just seven minutes later.
When I was in Parliament, you always gave the media plenty of notice of a press conference. There is a simple reason: television crews must be able to get there.
At 10.30am the finance minister announced that National’s supermarket policy was now to break up Foodstuffs.
What happened to transform the policy?
It wasn’t new official information. When releasing the cost-benefit analysis that day, MBIE said: “The Government will not be advancing any of the policy options contained within this analysis.”
What did happen?
On 15 September, Curia’s average polling had National on 29 percent.
On the morning of 16 September, Labour issued its own media advisory saying it would announce its supermarket policy later that day.
If the intention was to gazump Labour and swamp its announcement, it worked.
We will have to wait to see whether voters think a supermarket policy developed at warp speed works.
Richard Prebble is a former Minister and ACT Party leader now writing at his substack I've been thinking.
Modern politicians, led by the greatest American politician in the past 12 millenia don't expect to actually follow through on the groundbait promises they are expected to scatter around pre-election.
Separating this, combining that.
It would not greatly surprise me if Luxon and Hipkins end up holding hands when the dust settles after our election. If the numbers come in such that National fears its present partners more than such an action, it will be considered.
They seem fearful to me, the Nats. The supermarket thing looks either that, or dumb.
Probably not as fearful of New Zealanders as they should be, but others.
The pressure from EU to knuckle under to their rules, align with that apparats wishes, will have been exerted. Then, there’s China.
The Nationals did not tackle the Australian supermarket chain, you will notice.
Imagine cleaning up health and education ( thanks, but that’s your JOB)…
I'm not sure that breaking up a business is going to instill confidence in anyone thinking of investing here! People complaining about the prices here should go and look in other western countries. The US for a start and then the UK. On balance we have it pretty good.
This is all about cheap electioneering - it is a hollow drum that they are banging as hard as they can.
“National -“backing Commerce Commission enforcement”
Yeah right.
I signed a contract with one of the two supermarket operators, a contract for me to receive 80% of the pre-GST retail selling price i.e. a 25% markup by the retailer.
The reality is that the markup is now 40% , and If I raise the issue with the Commerce Commision, I will be delisted in a flash, or have the number of listings halved ,shelf space reduced, and then deleted for falling outside of their “guardrails”.
Enforcement my rs .
I am clearly an outlier but, to me, all the discussion I read on Brash & Mitchell indicates that we no longer have a form of democratic government that is fit for purpose (if we ever did have one). How can we possibly be satisfied with a form of government which:
1. Encourages MPs to make wild, vote-catching promises that they know are unlikely to see the light of day (or, if they do, will be reversed out at great cost following a change of government 3 years later)?
2. Results in massive upheaval, both socially and economically, every 3 years?
3. Is clearly unsuited to making and implementing long term plans that a majority of Kiwis will support?