National to seek mandate to split Pak'nSave from Foodstuffs

National will ask voters for a mandate to separate Pak'nSave from New World in a bid to cut grocery prices.

The proposal is conditional. National said a six-month Commerce Commission review would test whether shoppers would be better off, and it would legislate to force the separation only if the Commission gave the green light, according to RNZ.

Foodstuffs is made up of two co-operatives. It currently manages all New World, Pak'nSave and Four Square stores.

Under National's plan, New Zealand would have three nationwide supermarket chains. They would be Pak'nSave, New World/Four Square, and Woolworths. The party published the announcement as "National to pursue separation of Foodstuffs" on national.org.nz.

National will not take a proposal back to Cabinet this term. It will instead seek an explicit electoral mandate for the break-up.

Finance spokesperson Nicola Willis said the proposal followed a Sense Partners cost-benefit analysis and two peer reviews she commissioned as finance minister. That is the evidentiary basis National is claiming for intervention.

The numbers National is using come from that modelling. The party claimed the shake-up could save households up to $1320 a year by making grocery prices about 5 percent lower than otherwise. Sense Partners estimated prices would be about 3.5 percent lower in the first year of separation, according to RNZ.

The modelling puts the annual household benefit by 2035 at $200 to $1320 depending on income and family type. National cited $12.6 billion in consumer benefits over 20 years. The underlying analysis put the net economy-wide gain at $2.9 billion after counting lost supermarket profits. The Sense Partners economists warned their analysis was indicative rather than definitive.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins dismissed the policy as another review. "New Zealanders can't eat a review," he said.

New Zealand First announced its own plan to break up Foodstuffs in April. National has now staked out its position ahead of the election.

Looking at what this means for the next phase of the debate, the mandate strategy does two things. It removes the need for a Cabinet decision now. It also shifts the argument from design to permission. Voters are being asked to authorise compulsion in principle, with the detail and the economic test left to the Commerce Commission process after the election.

That structure puts weight on the review. A six-month inquiry with a binary legislative trigger is tight. It will need clear terms of reference, a defined counterfactual for prices, and a way to handle separation costs and supply arrangements. The gap between the $12.6 billion consumer figure and the $2.9 billion net figure will be central. Opponents will focus on the second. Supporters will focus on the first.