National puts Foodstuffs break-up to Commerce Commission test
National would investigate splitting Pak'nSave and New World into separate companies in a bid to lower grocery prices.
The proposal, detailed on 16 September 2026, is conditional. A six-month Commerce Commission review would test whether shoppers would be better off, and National says it would legislate to force the separation if the review gave the green light. RNZ
Under the plan, the split would leave New Zealand with three nationwide supermarket chains, including Pak'nSave and New World/Four Square. National has made the break-up part of its 2026 election pitch, and says the separation of Pak'nSave from New World is aimed at increasing supermarket competition. Farmers Weekly
Labour is unconvinced. It dismissed the policy as little more than another taxpayer-funded review. Foodstuffs is pushing back. It said the proposal would have significant implications for its more than 500 locally owned stores. Support has come from smaller operators. Night 'n Day general manager Matthew Lane said the break-up idea was long overdue.
Shoppers are divided. RNZ interviewed shoppers at the Pak'nSave in Royal Oak for their reaction to the proposal. Some supported action to lower prices. Others doubted it would make a difference.
The policy sits inside a longer grocery debate. Woolworths and Foodstuffs dominate New Zealand's supermarket sector. No new national supermarket chain has entered the market. In November 2024, the Commerce Commission declined Foodstuffs' merger clearance application over concerns about its effect on competition in the grocery industry.
National has previously combined regulatory change with the threat of structural action. In August 2025 it published a release titled 'Express lane for new supermarkets'. In it, the party said it had removed barriers to help new supermarkets launch, while also referencing breaking up Foodstuffs and/or Woolworths due to their entrenched market positions. National Party
The broader context here is process as much as policy. For readers who work with the House and the commission, the design does two things. It puts the Commerce Commission between National and a legislated break-up, which manages legal and commercial risk while keeping pressure on the incumbents through the election period. It also shifts the argument from whether entry barriers have been lowered to whether the existing ownership structure still prevents effective competition. That is a narrower test, and one the commission has already traversed in part through the merger clearance process. The political calculation will turn on whether voters read a conditional review as diligence or delay, and whether the industry treats the threat of legislation as credible.
