Can Nicola Willis achieve what Labour was too gutless to do?
Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis rules nothing out in supermarket reform
Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis has again called for more competition in the supermarket sector, saying a new player would be “really really welcome”.
Even if it means forcing the current duopoly to split or rolling out the red carpet to an international player with some tweaks to the law – though her preference would be for a local company to take on Foodstuffs and Progressive.
Willis revived the long-discussed problem at the opening of the two-day New Zealand Economics Forum in Hamilton on Thursday, saying Kiwis were paying among the highest prices in the OECD for kitchen staples.
But rectifying that would not be achieved overnight. The Finance Minister said she had not received advice on how many new stores would be required to provide real competition.
Labour were feckless, gutless and spineless when it came to real reform in the Supermarket Duopoly.
Despite the commerce Commission have thing power to force a separation, Labour were cowards.
What Labour SHOULD have done is use the Commerce Commission to seperate the duopoly, allow a 3rd player Iwi backed group step in with a focus of lower prices for customers, better conditions for workers and fairer prices for producers.
That would have finally beaten the power of the Duopoly.
Labour however were simply too cowardly to do anything meaningful against the Supermarket Duopoly, much like their last 6 years in power.
The question now is can Nicola Willis dow what the Labour Party were too cowardly to do.
While there is no way Willis will allow an Iwi backed 3rd player stepping in, she will try and do everything in her power to tempt a 3rd party player in from Australia.
If she can manage this, it could be the best thing National do and give them real ammunition for the election.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
Willis is all talk and no skirt, think Picton ferries.
Let’s hope so. Given the definition of “I have delivered” in the ferry shambles, I am not full of confidence
A third player would be great but at a loss why it should be Iwi backed.
Neither does Destiny church.
Then again you failed to mention the words “charitable trust” as in Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust.
In fact your ignorance meant you even got the Ngai part incorrect.
Why do people think that another major player would want a third share of 5 million customers .The billion dollar setup cost would be prohibitive for a start and the fact that those 5 million are wide spread around the Motu .This is not like setting up in a major city where they would only need a few stores compared to 30 plus here .
At least Ngai Tahu don’t export their profit.
They do reinvest a large portion of their return on investment into more enterprises for the benefit of their whanau and NZ.
AND WILLIS HAS NO CHANCE OF REDUCING FOOD PRICES UNLESS SHE TURNS Communist and puts price controls on everything from the paddock to the plate. AND THAT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.
No. Imo they are talking about supermarket competition because the The Warehouse is already talking about expanding its grocery aspect of its business. In other words, they are seeing an opportunity to potentially take credit for something they will have had no part in.
The govt could have built a chain of supermarkets with $billion Willis has burned so far on the ferry deal.
Labour didn’t sort the food duopoloy out of cowardice rather incompetence. When the tide comes in can they arrive Trump like and arrive with a plan and some implementing staff?
Instead of spending money/foregoing taxes to subsidise another large company to fight (or even join) the duopoly, the Government could charge a “windfall tax”, as has been done overseas. Any proceeds could be used, dollar for dollar, to help fund the shortfalls in Health Services. If supermarkets choose, for future years, to pay the farmers more and charge their customers less to keep their profits below the “windfall” threshold, that would hardly be a disaster.
So what would the playing field look like once it’s been levelled? Which companies would have gone, which would have been split up – into what? – and which companies would have arrived?
what is the level playing field is the question sounds like fiction to me.
Nothing will change until the current whole sale system is changed .How can their be competition while the big players are also the wholesalers .ALL retailers from the corner store to the large supermarkets should have equal access to all products at the same price .Till then nothing will change .How can the smaller guys compete when they have to buy stock directly from their big competition ?The government should take the whole sale arms away from the big players and either own it them selves or set up a company to run it .
You are right on target .We are a small country sparcly populated and spread out over a large area. Supermarkets need a large investment in builds distribution networks and equipment. A 3rd player would dilute the profitability are return on investment.
I not sure if it could be done but I wonder if the current 2 main players could be forced to sell a brand to another entity like a Maori fund manager .
The big Maori players know only too well that there is no future in making a play for 30% of the supermaket business .They only invest in growth industries like inland ports and renewable energy which are a benefit to all of NZ .
The same government said our power prices would come down with more companies creating more competition now has this happened. No! many have failed to reinvest in power production and us, the NZ consumer is paying higher and higher power prices. Why are some people so dumb to keep believing this bullshit.