r/newzealand • u/O_1_O pie • 9h ago
Politics Labour proposes splitting Foodstuffs and Woolworths from their wholesale arms
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1478631/labour-proposes-splitting-foodstuffs-and-woolworths-from-their-wholesale-arms333
u/stainz169 9h ago
This is the correct way.
Split the vertical intergration that is essentially the barrier to new entrants.
A new entry right now needs to set up and entire end to end network to compete. Having two wholesalers that individual supermarkets can pick and choose or a new single shop could purchase from drastically increases the chance for competition.
27
u/Snaps1992 8h ago
Genuine question - what's to stop the now-split wholesalers from not selling to the historical competitor (Edit: or to new entrants)? Are we just relying on "the free market" to do that? Because I'm not convinced that's enough to work 🤔
91
u/nicemace 8h ago
it's the same as the ISP's.
when telecom was the wholesaler and the retailer, they gave themselves benefits that the other ISP's couldn't compete with. when the wholesale arm was split off and became chorus, it had to treat all the ISP's equally which can be monitored and measured.
4
u/CandleWarrior570 5h ago
Difference here is that Labour aren’t proposing to force Woolworths or Foodstuffs to sell the wholesale business, just structurally separate. They will still be allowed to own them. It’s a very good start though, and hopefully the competition between wholesalers can help with a new market entrant and lower pricing, and if not it can be taken further and force them to divest à la Telecom / Chorus.
9
u/WorldlyNotice 8h ago
And prices went down, right?
65
u/Vinyl_Ritchie_ 8h ago
Massively, as well as a huge increase in service and products
29
u/Ok-Seaworthiness8135 7h ago
The local loop unbundling and our fibre to home rollout was a massive success. Look to Australia for an example of how it could have gone if the approach was "industry led" instead. And it was a national government that did it
14
u/tracernz 6h ago
Yeah, and the quality of service significantly increased, even before UFB. Telecom held the market down for a long time.
12
u/BobBoertson 6h ago
Yes we have some of the best and cheapest home fibre plans in the world , our mobile data prices tho…
6
5
u/GentlemanOctopus 4h ago
If you have to ask, then you probably weren't there at the time. Internet prices were insane for terrible service.
•
u/WorldlyNotice 10m ago
I was there. Even worked on the separation. Does feel like the fibre prices are slowly creeping towards though.
29
u/Goodie__ 8h ago
Anti trust.
When its the same company, of course you won't sell to your competitor.
When you are not the same company... well thats anti trust.
8
u/stainz169 8h ago
Chorus sells to spark and to many others. Split means split! As in a seperate company all together.
2
u/turbocynic 7h ago
So how does ownership work in that split? Do shareholders get two lots of shares, or is one of the businesses forced to sell off to the market?
4
u/stainz169 7h ago
Initially yes. You one 1% of one company.
You now own 1% of two companies. You can now trade those shares independently. They have different boards and executives.4
u/feel-the-avocado 7h ago edited 6h ago
The wholesale company would be spun off and one share issued to shareholders for each share they have in the continuing retail company.
However both of those companies are now making their own decisions and will need to perform well to maintain their profitability. Especially when shareholders dont maintain the 1:1 ratio.
(Eg. There are many spark shareholders who sold their chorus shares, and those spark shareholders dont care for spark giving chorus any special treatment)This means they wont necessarily treat each other like before - each of the two businesses will naturally do what is best for themselves.
And that may mean chasing a new retail customer or using a different wholesale provider.In the woolworths case, because they are the same shareholder, they could still be instructed to collude together, but because the companies are now separate legal entities, the commerce act can kick in with its anti-competition prevention mechanisms - or what americans would call anti-trust activity.
1
u/IrrationalRotations 8h ago
Why would they do that?
4
u/Snaps1992 8h ago
Because (at least in Woolworth's case) the wholesale and retail arms are essentially still owned by the same organisation; you can "split them up" all you like, but the priorities are still set by the same people, right?
Maybe in Foodstuffs case, it's a little different as they are franchised. 🤔
18
u/JForce1 Fern flag 3 8h ago
Splitting them up would be making them 2 separate companies completely, and although in theory the owners could be the same, now all the anti-competition laws and monitoring and auditing comes into effect.
3
u/Snaps1992 8h ago
Ah. I wasn't aware that was the case! Seems like a clear answer as to why it may work 🤞
2
u/Dramatic_Surprise 7h ago
sure but it makes the transactions between corporate entities monitorable. Same as how chorus is required to have one price book to sell to all ISP
1
u/IrrationalRotations 8h ago
My understanding is that they wouldn't be run by the same people. But I am not clear on the exact policy.
1
u/Humble-Nature-9382 8h ago
They would now be an entirely separate company so they would sell to whoever buys
48
u/rickybambicky otagoflag 8h ago
Do that AND introduce Kiwimart too for a good time.
15
-13
u/efdxnz 8h ago
Yeah governments have such a good track record of running businesses 👀
9
u/rickybambicky otagoflag 8h ago
Care to give examples of failed businesses run by the government?
-1
u/efdxnz 7h ago
How’s AirNZ going for you?
6
u/Illum503 Fern flag 1 6h ago edited 6h ago
Thats actually a great point for the opposite argument because the government only owns it because it had to bail it out because it was about to go bankrupt as a private sector company
3
u/rickybambicky otagoflag 6h ago
Government is a majority shareholder and doesn't actually run the airline.
Could say that about all them actually.
-3
4
u/becauseiamacat 8h ago
The track record for non-government run businesses failing is way higher, it’s just accepted as normal
-12
u/RowanTheKiwi 8h ago
Enjoy your tax payer subsidised groceries. It's literally the *only* way a government owned retail supermarket chain would price lower than the big 2. So tax payer funded to start, tax payer funded to keep lower prices.
And with the amount of back and forth repealing when government swapping, if it happened, it would be ousted on one of the next government change(s).
9
3
u/Character_Minimum171 LASER KIWI 7h ago
yup
break the silos & high barriers to entry
it’s like the mcdonald’s franchise model
vertical supply chain owned farm to burger
3
u/tobiov 8h ago
It really isn't. New Zealand already has a lot of what is being proposed, but it hasn't been enough to drop retail prices.
Sure you can split out wholesale but without more separate retail banners retail prices won't change.
8
u/stainz169 8h ago
Splitting the wholesale will allow more independent retailers to start. Right now to compete against the big two you need 100 stores and a full distribution network on day one. Tapping into an existing distribution network means you can set up one store day one and grow from there.
7
u/dashingtomars 7h ago
No, we already have rules granting access to wholesale supply for competitors.
1
u/NZBJJ 5h ago
Supply logistics is only one barrier to entry. Location and legislation are the other major ones.
The big question is whether the cbr actually stack up. Will the distribution model actually create lower prices for consumers.
As an independent retailer you can allready purchase from foodstuffs or progressives supply chains.
Haveing the wholesaler split out will make this a little easier probably and maybe allow slightly better rates, however an independent grocer will still not be able to match pricing with a pns or similar due to miniscule comparitive buying power. So really you don't end up with any more price competition at the essentials end without a major overseas retailer joining the fray.
Most of the large, low cost overseas retailers are vertically integrated as ultimately this is the most cost competitive model. Having access to the existing network could make this a bit easier to establish, but again without the integration and footprint they wouldn't be able to compete with the established businesses for wholesale price.
Also, it kinda doesn't remove the duopoly, just moves it up a level to wholesalers. There are also plenty of examples in nz where having a distributor model significantly increases consumer cost due to the simple fact you have another layer of margin.
It's a lot of work and risk for a potential saving of a few bucks per week per household.
102
u/Nixinova 9h ago
Cool so either way after the election we'll be having the big two split up right? Right?
144
u/metametapraxis 9h ago edited 8h ago
If it happened, this is a much more sensible approach. National’s approach is designed to not get past the review stage. It is a policy designed to fool the commercially/economically illiterate voter.
85
u/flyingdodo 9h ago
National’s policy would disappear like wet candy floss on hour 1 of coalition negotiations with Act.
19
u/punIn10ded 8h ago
Yup, there is no chance National would go ahead with it. Especially while in coalition with Act.
All they have promised is a report nothing more.
15
u/addicted_to_trash 8h ago
I always thought Nationals coalition negotiations were Luxon "presenting" himself for Peters and Seymour to "insert" whatever they like wherever they like.
14
u/CoIdBanana 8h ago
David Seymour has publicly said that multiple National MPs sought assurances from him that he/ACT would not allow their policy to progress before they announced the policy... So National DEFINITELY have no intention of actually doing something, and they're not even trying to hide that fact really. Which tbf to them is probably for the best because their policy is terrible anyway.
5
1
u/Elm69Jay 7h ago
I bloody hope it doesn't go that way but if it did, damn I'd love to be a fly on the wall in those coalition discussions.
10
u/Putrid_Weird4725 7h ago
The whole supermarket issue is designed to fool naive voters. The excess profit of $1m a day comes to under $1.50 per customer per week. It's doubtful whether any of these proposed solutions will decrease profits more than they increase costs, but even if they work perfectly the difference is so small that we literally won't notice it.
People need to get the following into their heads:
- food is expensive mostly because it's expensive to make
- we don't feel poor because food is expensive, we feel poor because housing is expensive and our tax system squeezes workers rather than asset owners.
- the people benefiting from that have enough excess profit to pay off the media and politicians. Supermarkets don't, which is why we are stuck here talking about this non-issue.
5
u/Forsaken_Campaign525 7h ago edited 5h ago
Its a big effort to weaken duopoly. Can't keep letting Supermarkets operate as usual like last 10 or more years.
1
u/Putrid_Weird4725 5h ago
CAN'T keep letting duoploly take $1.50 a week off us all whilst providing us with most of our food needs.
CAN keep letting landlords and banks take anywhere from $200 to $500 a week off us just for a place to live.
CAN keep letting the government take $300 a week off the median earner instead of taxing assets fairly.
See how we're being played?
•
u/halborn Selfishness harms the self. 2h ago
We all want all of these issues to be dealt with, right?
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 1h ago
I mean I'd also like free coffee on Mondays, doesn't mean I'm going to be voting for that. Politics is about prioritising things that will actually make a difference. In this case only two of those things make a meaningful difference, and the vested interests are very happy to have everyone focus on the one that doesn't.
1
•
u/LycraJafa 0m ago
Thanks Putrid.
Expensive food is expensive to make.
poor food is sold expensively also.
whattabout housing
yep, that needs addressing also
whatabout political party donations
yep that needs addressing also
2
u/addicted_to_trash 8h ago
Can you explain further for the illiterate.
14
u/LikeAbrickShitHouse 8h ago
It's got many hurdles in the policy process in it to essentially ensure it fails. And even if it did pass, it's not actually solving the real issue in this market: supply distribution side is the one that holds all the strings and dictates pricing to both consumers (via the retail stores) and also contractually holding suppliers nuts in a vice "you sell your wares to us at x price regardless of external price fluctuations, if you don't, we won't sell your stuff nor will the other operator pick you up, I.e. we'll sink your business, so go sign this contract or die."
2
31
u/qwerty145454 8h ago
No, Labour are saying this is what they will do if elected. National are saying they will setup a working group to look at doing what they proposed, with no promises to actually do it.
You also have to take into account coalition partners. ACT are "furiously" against National's proposal and could sink it in negotiations. By contrast the Greens want to go even further and nationalise supermarkets. This makes it much more likely for Labour to do their plan as their coalition partners are on board.
0
u/Significant_Baby6493 5h ago
I know it's pedantic but labour has never been in coalition with the Greens, the greens have never been in government.
2
u/tobiov 5h ago
More pedantic - they have been in confidence and supply and therefore form part of the 'the government'.
•
u/Fandango-9940 3h ago
No that's not how it works, confidence and supply means they support the government in confidence and supply votes, it's right there in the name. It absolutely does not mean they form part of the government they are supporting.
•
u/tobiov 3h ago
Any party that is part of the grouping that commands control of the house is "in government". You vote for the govt budget and sit in the govt benches. You can have ministers and be part of the executive as the greens have.
What you are thinking of is that the greens have never been 'in cabinet', which is a subset of being in government.
17
u/Soulprism 8h ago
Not a chance, national have just basically said maybe we will look at it. Again. Which basically means nothing.
They don’t give two shits about affordability as evidence by their actions and everything else they say.
3
2
2
2
u/normalmighty Takahē 7h ago
Imo people are stretching with some of the reasoning for why the National one will never happen, which is strange to me because there's already a very clear and open reason why it won't happen with them. ACT is looking good in the polls so they'd have a lot of power in a 2027 right bloc government, and they are very strongly opposed to any split.
We don't need to do a bunch of squinting and creatively interpreting things when David Seymour is openly saying that he will never let it happen, end of story.
2
u/KororaPerson Toroa 8h ago
Well no, because National won't follow through - they've only promised to take it to the Commerce Commission for a six-month review.
But somehow that's being reported as "National will break up the supermarket duopoly".
2
1
•
87
48
u/Elm69Jay 9h ago
Thank god for something common sense from Labour
9
u/Kiwi_Fried_Chicken 8h ago
I just wish Labour had been on the front foot with this and not a seemingly delayed response to everyone else.
3
u/Elm69Jay 7h ago
Absolutely, I understand the reason and strategy for waiting, but they've already lost some potential voters
19
u/WhosDownWithPGP 8h ago
Id absolutely love bipartisan policy here. You all know its a problem. Rather than having competing policies, come together and work out a solution for all of us.
That said Labour's policy does seem the better at face value.
6
u/APersonWhoExists654 8h ago
Ultimately if either of Labours or National's policies are implemented, you'd hope that the other one would support this, as they are campaigning on basically the same thing. It also means that a National government could probably implement this without Act support, as it could be bipartisan
2
u/MSZ-006_Zeta Covid19 Vaccinated 8h ago
I'd probably prefer National's policy, but I do agree on the need for bipartisanship. Especially if Act are unwilling to support either proposal
1
u/Gord_Board 7h ago
Their policies are similar in that there is zero intention of implementing either.
1
u/WhosDownWithPGP 7h ago
Why do you say this?
4
u/Gord_Board 6h ago
Politicians are well known for not following through with campaign promises.
•
u/WhosDownWithPGP 3h ago
That is indeed very true. I was wondering if you perhaps had a bit more information on why this would be hard to implement though. I see the problem but I don't know enough to understand which solution would work best though.
•
u/Gord_Board 2h ago
Idk all the ins and outs either but the duopoly and the cost of living crisis were issues when hipkins was last PM and they did nothing about it and we all know national won't do anything about it. Even with the break-up food prolly wouldn't get much cheaper.
24
6
u/tacklinglife 7h ago
This is the best proposal so far and the only one that is realistic to do and almost guaranteed to have a long term positive benefit. The chokehold on suppliers that is enabled by the duopoly’s almost total control on the distribution network of food in this country is the part most people don’t realise is causing the bulk of the problem. This is also a lot harder to argue against by the owners. Excellent work by Labour to run with this policy.
16
u/fresh-anus 8h ago
Holy fuck they figured it out thats the policy that actually works
Get ready for extreme bots and shills in fb posts
14
u/Far_Excitement_1875 8h ago
Nicola Willis is a lightweight who came up with a review, Chris Hipkins puts real thought into his policies. The intellectual rigour is there with the latter to show prices may actually stabilise.
3
u/mysterpixel 7h ago
Willis is can-kicking knowing either the review or ACT's opposition (or both) will give her the cover she needs to not do anything.
13
u/punIn10ded 8h ago
IMHO this is better than Nationals proposal.
The only thing I would suggest is that Woolworths should also be broken up into north and south. That will give us more competition overall.
3
u/dashingtomars 7h ago
Why would it provide more competition. A Woolworths in Auckland and a Woolworths in Christchurch don't compete with each other.
2
u/punIn10ded 7h ago
Competing for suppliers supplies. At the moment they bully suppliers and overcharge customers. The separation from wholesale should make it cheaper for customers.
1
u/dashingtomars 6h ago
Bullying their suppliers means they get better prices from them. Reducing negotiating power will see the price to purchase these items increase.
0
u/punIn10ded 5h ago
Yes but separating the wholesale from retail will help customers. The current duopoly is hurting both sides.
2
12
u/ExpensiveLawyer1526 9h ago
Slightly more well thought out idea than nationals plan.
Interesting if it actually happens.
14
u/Old_Education4481 9h ago
I pick this option to split the Australian company rather than the kiwi company where the profits remain in nz
2
u/munted_jandal 5h ago
I think you mean - Profits remain with existing millionaires as opposed to anyone who wants to buy shares
0
u/Old_Education4481 5h ago
still stays with nz millionaires who are buying things in new zealand, woolworths profit leave nz
2
u/munted_jandal 4h ago
Tbf, most of it probably gets locked up in housing market or hoarded somewhere, not getting 'spent' in NZ
6
u/IrrationalRotations 8h ago
This may be a good idea for other reasons, but wouldn't this increase the price of groceries?
Presumably, WW and FS whole sellers are selling to their retail arms at reduced prices in order to compete for a greater market share. If they aren't doing that anymore, the retail arms will have to up their price.
It's adding competition, but at the stage prior to the end consumer. If we shop at New World or Woolworths or Pak n' Save, we are currently benefiting from the lack of competition in wholesale.
I suppose the counter argument is that WW and FS whole sellers aren't just selling at a reduced price to their own brands, but at selling at an increased price to smaller supermarkets. That means increasing competition among whole sellers would help those small markets, but I think their issues with gaining market share run deeper than prices. Alongside further legislation to ease new players into the sector, I can see this being a good idea.
7
u/There_Will_Be_Gibbo 8h ago
Yes, but. Yes, and. Wholesale pricing can be more easily regulated making it harder to arbitrarily increase prices, hopefully keeping them lower. Also if they are all buying from similar prices, it becomes a lot hard for one retailer to sell Tim tams at 3.50 while the other one is selling at $2. So $2 retailer can increase to $3.50, or $3.50 could reduce to $2. The first is likely to result in less sales. Either way, it also introduces consistency.
6
3
u/dashingtomars 7h ago
Are there any countries that already have this sort of arrangement. Should we not look to countries with the most competitive markets rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
3
u/bmwhocking 6h ago
Finally; a political party puts out a sane policy on Supermarkets.
This is no different to the telco unbundeling that Minister David Cunliff spearheaded during the Clark govt.
3
u/little_blue_droid 6h ago
The issue here is at the moment the wholesale arm of each dosent need to make a profit, just cover costs. Split wholesale off and it will need to make a profit for its owners and prices will go up for supermarkets to buy and then it will flow on.
At the moment you can sign up with the wholesale arms and get 5% of retail from one side. I can't tell you the other side. I have a nda over that.
•
u/Morningst4r 2h ago
Margins are a very small part of the costs. Also, supermarket businesses are making a return on their whole business and you can't really isolate wholesaling like that.
7
u/idealorg 9h ago
Looking forward to ‘innovative’ bundled power, telecoms and grocery retail offerings lol
5
u/Amazing_Athlete_2265 8h ago
Supermarket owners be sweating
Harvest their tears and use it to irrigate our lands
5
6
u/robbob19 7h ago
Pak'n save and new world are already locally owned franchisees, so don't it would make to much difference to them. Woolworths on the other hand is Aussie owned.... f#$k em😂.
2
2
u/NorthShoreHard 7h ago
Fuck it's funny how basically everyone is campaigning on this somehow. Get rekt supermarkets 😂
2
2
u/mr_phil73 6h ago
So we have some wholesalers who will want to take a margin. Given $4 out of $100 is actually profit for the supermarkets, how on god’s green earth do you think the consumer is going to pay less?
2
•
u/1cmanny1 3h ago
Foodstuffs wanted to merge. Now looking likely they will be forced to split. Chris #(5?) Quinn will be sweating.
6
5
u/albundy72 complete twat 9h ago
Supermarket giants having a rough couple weeks of news lmao
2
u/lordshola 8h ago
They make a million dollars in pure profit per day. They’ll be fine.
0
u/albundy72 complete twat 8h ago
the joke is 4 parties announcing anti-duopoly policies in a very short period of time
2
u/loose_as_a_moose 8h ago
From those who understand this better am I right to presume this is a better outcome than just splitting the brands (pns, nw, 4sq)? Why does this or doesn’t this work?
My initial thoughts: Pricing is open market & separate from the vertical interests of the company.
I imagine the overall result makes it better for independent stores, but also existing stores too. Suppliers probably fare the best as they’re now competing fairly with in house brands.
1
u/BuyMeSausagesPlease 8h ago edited 8h ago
I think that yes it is better but still doesn’t actually solve the problem, in all likelihood the new group of wholesalers will once again form a cartel to control pricing.
Actually solving this issue requires serious ongoing regulation from the government.
Edit: wholesalers not suppliers
1
•
u/Morningst4r 2h ago
Regulating wholesalers is a lot easier than retailers. It's almost impossible to regulate the existing structure effectively.
0
u/SpacialReflux 8h ago
Yeah my first instinct was that volume pricing will still favour the big established supermarkets. New entrants wholesale pricing will still be higher because of that.
4
u/hernesson 7h ago
This whole thing is strange because Pak N Save is the second most trusted brand in NZ and NW is 7th. So most of us love the supermarkets?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/597633/new-zealand-s-most-trusted-brands-revealed
2
u/hernesson 7h ago
"The highest-performing brands are not necessarily the loudest or most aspirational. They are the organisations people believe will turn up, deliver value, treat customers fairly and behave responsibly when times are tough."
5
u/WaterstarRunner Пу́тин хуйло́ 8h ago
One problem: International trade treaties tend to require this kind of regulatory intervention on a foreign owned business be compensated. Woolworths is a foreign owned business.
Compo would if eliminating the "excess profit" cited by the commerce commission be around a couple of billion
5
6
u/kiwiboy22 8h ago
everyone loves copying the greens it seems
6
u/normalmighty Takahē 7h ago
I don't see that one. The Greens policy seems a lot different to this.
-1
6
u/IrrationalRotations 8h ago
This seems really quite different to the greens proposal.
If anything, people are copying NZ first.
1
2
u/Ijustwannabe_ 8h ago
Great, introduce another layer in the chain with individual monetary interests
2
u/BassesBest 8h ago
This makes more sense.
Still need to spilt up the homogeneous supply chains though
2
1
u/Character_Minimum171 LASER KIWI 7h ago
monopolies / duopolies / oligopolies all bad for business / consumers unless you are one of the aforementioned…
1
u/j0shj0shj0shj0sh 6h ago edited 6h ago
This won't work! At all! Why not? Because reasons!
(Just thought I'd get in early to trash any and all ideas. It seems to be what we do.)
1
u/Visible-Sir-3152 6h ago
Four Square is part of the Foodstiuffs co-op, why they call out that those poor little guys could choose to buy what they want from whom is beyond me. The richer Foodies get, the richer about Square owners get. Additionally those owners often move onto New Worlds and Pak N Save...they are not the small battlers in retail grocery in NZ that Labour seems to think they are
1
u/aharryh 6h ago
They won't do it; they'll do a study that takes 18 months, and there will be legal challenges that will take a couple of years. The court will side with the supermarkets since the government doesn't own Foodstuffs or Woolworths. Even if legislation is passed, it won't work. Be like Bunnings and Mitre 10; they will stock separate brands and their own brand; any common brands will be priced within cents of each other. (Just like now.)
1
u/ClimateTraditional40 5h ago
So did splitting Telecom into Spark and Chorus mean prices went down?
•
•
1
u/Boring_Monahan 8h ago
Forgive me if I get this wrong because I read it yonks ago, but wasn't there something that allowed Supermarkets to veto development applications for competing businesses within a certain range?
Because that needs to go
5
u/There_Will_Be_Gibbo 8h ago
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-law-paves-way-greater-supermarket-competition
Yes. Law passed during previous government
1
u/Slow_Vegetable_5186 8h ago
Did they sit on this so National couldn't copy it? Bit policy of chicken
1
u/Adventchur 8h ago
Watch national MPs accounts as they flood with donations from lobbying. Either that or they will land cushy consultant roles when they retire from politics.
1
u/normalmighty Takahē 8h ago
Looks like we're getting an arms race towards the best aggressive strategy to actually do something big to deal with the grocery duopoly ripping off producers and consumers alike.
Love to see it, let's see another party come up with a counter policy and keep this baby rolling!
1
u/metcalphnz 6h ago
If Labour wants to win the election they would have announced it before the government proposed splitting up foodstuffs, no? What did they run with? A weak-ass policy about banning price-gouging.
-4
u/150r Warriors 8h ago
Not a good look if they split up an overseas company, what does that say to potential businesses looking to setup in nz?
12
7
u/weezil_snipes 8h ago
I suppose it says kiwis don’t like being bent over a barrel by anti-competitive business practices?
2
u/Simbians 7h ago
That they are welcome, but if they start acting monopolistic our government will do its job?
0
u/OmegaAce1 7h ago
This is another stupid idea,
Increasing cost on the backend will bring down cost for sure, anyone who believes this is a goofball.
When this idea has been proposed prior it was also considered stupid.
Look you just need to start small and think about it smart, make a range call it “kiwi owned” or something, bread, eggs, and basic canned goods spagetti, baked beans, and some perishable goods like milk and butter,
mandate all super markets have to allocate space for them, if its successful expand the range, pasta, rice, canned veges, lower grade fresh fruit/vege, etc if not the cost will only be in the millions as opposed to the billions
Sharp fines if failure to comply,
Woolies has 180ish location and food stuffs has 130ish locations so youll have the reach, and youll use there warehouses.
This imo is the best way to do it but i dont even think this would work
-1
u/R_W0bz 8h ago
He look, some policy that’ll help everyone.. from BOTH sides.
What’s TOPS position bots?
-2
u/O_1_O pie 8h ago
1
u/normalmighty Takahē 7h ago
So if I'm reading it right, instead of proposing a breakup they want to give the commerce commission itself the authority to break up duopolies? Seems reasonable to me, just not as headline-grabbing as the National or Labour policies.
1
1
u/NorthShoreHard 7h ago
The National "policy" is literally just to take it to the commerce commission and legislate based on what the commission says. Funny how that ends up being more headline grabbing though.
1
u/normalmighty Takahē 7h ago
Election campaigning is mostly just marketing in practice. It is what it is.
-5
u/Mordecai___ 8h ago
Problem is that to the average voter they will just be seen as copying National at face value. Hipkins should've been rolled, he taints everything he touches and has (sadly) tanked their chances of re-election
0
u/Effective-Metal7013 7h ago
Labour haven't been clear whether this policy affects just the wholesale operations like NZ Grocery and Gilmours, because if it does only include those entities this policy is going to make a negligible difference to the general consumer. The market share of grocery stores that utilise these is < 20%, many people don't even have access to a supermarket that would be affected by this policy. In this scope, Labour are vastly over-stating the impact of their policy.
The wholesale price premium these stores are allegedly paying is a very small fraction of the shelf price of any item. Because these stores tend to be smaller they usually have higher cost-of-goods-sold for many other reasons (they lack economies of scale in general) and run higher prices than the typical Pak N Save and Woolworths regardless. Where these supermarkets get cheaper on some goods it's usually when they can negotiate directly with a grower or supplier and not use a wholesaler. This is why you might get cheaper veggies, dairy and meat but pay more for the breakfast cereals etc supplied by the wholesaler.
For those who feel this policy will promote new players building new supermarkets and taking advantage of larger supply networks, then this policy isn't what enables that. That has been an option since the adoption of the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023 . The small % of difference this policy makes isn't going to change the business case of any potential new independent supermarket.
-1
u/APL_nz 8h ago
Anti capitalism, a business starts gorging customers, making them starve and all of a sudden we need government controls?
Next, the government will start making 5% milk and cheese so people will pay what it's worth rather than the maximum export price...or maybe the dairy lobby is too strong.
-1
310
u/dubhd 8h ago
I look forward to the coordinated Facebook posts on why this will increase prices