Greens can't say how much cheaper groceries would be under KiwiMart plan
The Green Party has confirmed it cannot put a dollar figure on how much cheaper groceries would be under its proposed government-owned supermarket chain, KiwiMart.
Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick ruled out politicians setting prices directly, saying that task should sit with independent experts. "Politicians are not economists," she said, arguing that defining what counts as excess profit should be left to the Commerce Commission — the government's competition watchdog. She declined to say how much cheaper goods could be under a third, publicly backed operator set up to prioritise affordability.
The Greens announced KiwiMart as a state-owned alternative to the Foodstuffs and Woolworths duopoly that dominates Aotearoa's grocery sector. The plan involves buying 120 existing stores and two distribution centres at a cost of $2.8 billion. That would immediately introduce a third player with a 15 percent share of the market. The Parliamentary Library costed the policy at $2.8 billion, covering the purchase of those stores and distribution centres.
Swarbrick said KiwiMart would not run as a non-profit. After the upfront cost, it would be self-sustaining. The co-leaders of the Green Party as of September 2026 are Marama Davidson and Chlöe Swarbrick.
The KiwiMart plan sits alongside a separate but related Green Party policy: a member's bill and campaign pledge to ban price gouging by New Zealand supermarkets, unveiled in August. Part of that broader plan includes spending more than $100 million to strengthen the Commerce Commission's powers, plus a mandatory pricing accuracy code with automatic compensation when shoppers are overcharged.
The market context the Greens are responding to is well-established. In June, the supermarket duopoly was reported to hold 82 percent of the New Zealand market, and more than 90 percent in some regions. In 2022, the Commerce Commission found the duopoly was making $1 million in excess profit every day. A month before that report, the Commission took Foodstuffs South Island to court, alleging anti-competitive conduct that deprived customers of cheaper prices.
The decision not to commit to a specific price-reduction figure is notable for a policy whose central pitch is affordability. A $2.8 billion outlay to buy existing stores, rather than build new ones, means the Crown would be taking on the current infrastructure and supply relationships, with the expectation that a publicly owned operator run on commercial lines would still push prices down enough to deliver meaningful savings. Swarbrick's argument that independent regulators, not ministers, should determine what counts as excess profit fits with the Greens' broader plan to boost Commerce Commission resourcing and enforcement powers. But it also leaves the party unable to answer the most immediate question voters and analysts will ask: what does this cost, and what do I get back at the checkout?
The broader context here is that the proposal amounts to a two-track approach: structural competition through public ownership, and regulatory constraint on the remaining private operators. Whether either track delivers the price reductions the Greens are campaigning on would depend on factors outside their direct control, which is the point Swarbrick was making. The tension is that a policy sold on cheaper groceries cannot quantify the savings, and relies on a self-sustaining commercial entity to undercut two incumbents found to extract a million dollars a day in excess profit. The Commerce Commission's own enforcement history, including the Foodstuffs South Island court action, suggests the regulatory track alone has not been enough to shift that dynamic. Whether public ownership changes it is the proposition the Greens are putting to voters.
