Competition policy has emerged as a significant theme in the 2026 New Zealand national election campaign, with the various political parties proposing markedly different approaches for supermarkets, electricity and banking. While there is broad agreement on the need for effective competition policy, the parties differ on the extent and form of intervention required.

Below, we outline each party’s proposals and set out what they could mean for competition, businesses, and consumers in these key sectors.

Pricing

The parties take different approaches to excessive pricing, ranging from a general prohibition on excessive prices to sector-specific regulation and reliance on competition to constrain prices:

• Labour proposes a general prohibition on excessive pricing by firms with significant market power. The proposed test is whether prices are “well above what it costs a company to supply, or well above what the same goods cost in a competitive market”. Firms found to have overcharged could face penalties and be required to repay the overcharge. The prohibition would also apply where powerful firms use their market position to pay suppliers unfairly low prices. This would represent New Zealand’s first general statutory prohibition directed specifically at excessive pricing.

• The Greens propose a sector-specific prohibition on excessive pricing. Their supermarket policy would prohibit Foodstuffs and Woolworths from charging prices that are excessive relative to the cost of supplying groceries plus a reasonable margin, with penalties of up to $10 million, three times the commercial gain or 10% of turnover. The Greens have also proposed extending excessive-pricing regulation to other sectors, including energy and fuel.

• Te Pāti Māori proposes stronger scrutiny and enforcement in the energy sector, rather than a general prohibition on excessive pricing. It would strengthen the powers of the Commerce Commission and Electricity Authority to investigate excessive energy prices and profits and address competition concerns.

• ACT opposes direct price controls. It prefers to lower barriers to entry and expansion, which will increase competition and put downward pressure on prices.

• National, New Zealand First and Opportunity have not proposed equivalent general prohibitions on excessive pricing. Their competition policies instead principally seek to address high prices through measures directed at entry, investment, enforcement or market structure.

Supermarkets

The supermarket sector has attracted the widest range of structural proposals, with parties seeking to increase competition through different mechanisms:

• National and New Zealand First advocate for horizontal separation of Foodstuffs, so that Pak’nSave would operate independently from New World and Four Square. The objective is to increase the number of major grocery retailers from two to three. National’s policy is conditional on a six-month Commerce Commission review concluding that separation would improve outcomes for consumers, whereas New Zealand First’s policy is not subject to an equivalent condition.

• Labour advocates for vertical separation, proposing to separate Foodstuffs’ and Woolworths’ wholesale businesses from their retail operations. The objective is to improve wholesale access for independent supermarkets and new entrants, reducing barriers to entry and expansion at the retail level.

• The Greens propose a more interventionist structural remedy. Woolworths and Foodstuffs would be required to divest at least 120 stores and two distribution-centres, to establish “KiwiMart” as a publicly owned supermarket competitor. Like the horizontal separation proposals, this is intended to increase the number of major grocery retailers from two to three.

• ACT opposes structural separation. Instead, it proposes measures intended to reduce barriers to entry and expansion, including streamlining consenting and alcohol licensing for new supermarkets, recognising food labels that comply with UK, EU or US requirements, and removing local requirements that add cost or delay to opening new supermarkets.

Alongside these structural and entry proposals, the parties propose measures to improve wholesale access and trading conditions, strengthen enforcement, and protect consumers:

• Labour proposes to prohibit price gouging (as discussed above), guarantee wholesale access for smaller supermarkets, and prevent major supermarket groups from withdrawing supply as those competitors grow. It would also remove contractual restrictions preventing individual stores from reducing prices, switching chains or becoming independent, and prohibit major supermarkets from imposing unfair fees on food producers that provide no corresponding value or obscure pricing, potentially including certain rebates, discounts and surcharges.

• New Zealand First proposes strengthening the powers of the Commerce Commission and Grocery Commissioner, including through higher penalties and faster investigations. It also proposes a framework allowing industry rules to be introduced more quickly to address competition issues in the grocery sector.

• Opportunity proposes giving the Commerce Commission additional powers to investigate, intervene, and force structural separation of anticompetitive businesses. These powers would apply across the economy, not just to supermarkets.

• The Greens would expand the Commerce Commission’s enforcement and regulatory powers. Their proposals include increased Commission funding and powers for the Commission to issue higher penalties and binding directions. They would also prohibit excessive supermarket pricing (as discussed above) and introduce a mandatory pricing accuracy code with automatic compensation for overcharged customers. The Commission will also be empowered to regulate loyalty schemes and store brands, strengthen rules on incorrect pricing, and give consumers control over their shopping data.

Energy

The parties’ electricity policies also seek to increase competition and supply through different mechanisms:

• New Zealand First advocates for vertical structural separation. It proposes separating electricity generation from retail by breaking up the major gentailers. It also seeks to increase domestic energy supply through a $1 billion national survey of oil and gas basins, geothermal resources and potential carbon-storage sites.

• The Greens propose public entry and increased generation capacity, rather than breaking up the existing gentailers. They would establish Kiwipower, a publicly owned generation company intended to invest in renewable generation and support independent market participants. Their wider competition policy would also prohibit excessive pricing in sectors including energy and fuel (as discussed above).

• National and ACT reject structural separation and instead propose measures intended to facilitate competition and entry within the existing market structure. Both would allow consumers with self-generated electricity to sell it to a buyer other than their existing retailer and seek to increase private-sector participation in transmission and connection infrastructure. National would also review regulation of lines charges and make affordability a statutory objective of the Electricity Authority. ACT would strengthen enforcement where electricity companies misuse market power to prevent competitors offering consumers a better deal.

• Labour’s and Opportunity’s packages are more focused on increasing generation and consumer investment than structural competition reform. Labour primarily aims to increase uptake of distributed renewable energy, while Opportunity aims to address structural incentives that give rise to underinvestment in generation. Opportunity expressly opposes structural separation of the gentailers.

Banking

Banking competition is another election issue. As with supermarkets and energy, the parties’ proposals seek to increase competitive pressure through different mechanisms:

• ACT and Labour principally focus on facilitating entry and expansion by smaller providers and fintechs.

  • ACT proposes reducing regulatory barriers to financial innovation, including a supervised financial innovation sandbox and a review of rules that restrict legitimate fintech and digital-finance businesses’ access to banking and payment infrastructure. These measures are intended to make it easier for new financial businesses to develop and compete with established providers. ACT also proposes clearer rules for stablecoins and tokenised assets, although these measures are more broadly directed at financial innovation than banking competition specifically.

  • Labour proposes a broader banking-specific package. This includes requiring major banks to give smaller competitors fair access to payment systems and banking information, introducing a digital banking licence providing a pathway for payment businesses to develop into digital banks, and requiring secure 24/7 real-time payments for fintechs by 2030. It would also make government-verified identification easier to use when switching providers.

• New Zealand First instead proposes to strengthen competition through a larger publicly owned challenger bank. It would seek to acquire BNZ from National Australia Bank and merge it with Kiwibank to establish the “National Bank of New Zealand”, a fully Crown-owned commercial bank intended to compete at greater scale with ANZ, ASB and Westpac.

• National has not proposed any banking-specific measures.

• Opportunity proposes additional Commerce Commission powers and funding, including the ability to seek structural separation through the High Court, rather than proposing solely banking-specific measures.

Please get in touch with one of our competition law experts to discuss your specific needs.  

Thanks to Lucy Reilly and Jenna Bernstein for their assistance writing this article.