Willis rejects Foodstuffs criticism, points to vested interests
Nicola Willis has rejected criticism of National's plan to break up Foodstuffs, arguing opponents have vested interests in high supermarket profits.
The finance spokesperson was speaking after the joint announcement with leader Christopher Luxon. National proposes to split the Pak'nSave and New World brands into competing operations if a Commerce Commission review agrees that is the best course. The proposal is contingent on National being re-elected to government. RNZ
Supermarkets and business groups warned the plan could have a chilling effect on investment. Foodstuffs North Island chair Dean Waddell said the company was "gutted and concerned" about the proposal. He claimed a break-up would drive prices higher.
Willis did not accept that. She called the claim that breaking up Foodstuffs would drive prices higher "extraordinary". She said New Zealanders faced a choice between those with vested interests in high profits and independent economic experts who say more competition will lower prices.
She said opposition from BusinessNZ was not surprising because Foodstuffs is one of its major members. She also sought to reassure store owners. Store owners would continue to own their stores, keep their brands, and retain access to national distribution chains under the plan, she said.
Willis said the National caucus was "fully on board" with the policy. She declined to respond to an anonymous report that a senior MP had called it "bonkers".
The proposal builds on earlier grocery regulation. Willis has previously said increased competition requires strengthening the Grocery Supply Code and introducing a Wholesale Code. RNZ has reported shoppers are split over the break-up plan. RNZ
The broader context here is how National is trying to make a direct competition intervention electorally and institutionally manageable. Making the split conditional on a Commerce Commission finding gives ministers some distance from the final decision. It shifts the judgement to an independent review while keeping the political commitment on competition and prices. For practitioners, the detail to watch will be the terms of that review and the threshold for action.
Looking at what this means for party management, the language matters. "Fully on board" closes down public dissent without addressing the substance of the anonymous criticism. Refusing to engage with the "bonkers" comment avoids a second story. The exchange with BusinessNZ also bears watching. Dismissing the organisation as conflicted may resonate with shoppers, but it creates friction with an organised business voice during a campaign.
