New Zealanders are badly ripped off by profit-gouging companies in some of the country’s most important sectors. The Big Four banking oligopolies make super profits totalling about 3% of GDP. The supermarket duopoly makes excess profits of $1 million a day. The lack of competition in energy, building materials, and other sectors is also gouging consumers.
These are all “broken markets” contributing to the “broken New Zealand” we are currently experiencing. There’s rising public discontent about this oversized corporate power and how it is exacerbating the cost-of-living crisis. But can we do anything about it? Will politicians do anything to fix these uncompetitive markets?
There’s a glimmer of hope in the Government’s current proposed reform of the Commerce Act 1986. It might sound boring, but the “Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” is the most significant competition law reform in nearly two decades, and could potentially make a real difference in reining in the monopolistic behaviour that characterises the New Zealand economy, reducing growth and productivity.
Yet, the proposed reforms have already been watered down, and there’s a real chance they might be further neutered by the lobbying of vested interests, who are currently complaining that even these very moderate government proposals would be too hard on big business.
This fight over business oligopoly practices is flying under the radar at the moment, but needs more attention. The issue is urgent, because submissions to the Select Committee on the Government’s proposals close tomorrow at midnight (11:59pm, Wednesday 4 February). And unfortunately, the process is likely to be dominated by big businesses, business associations, and corporate law firms, who are pushing to retain as much of the status quo as possible.
Why This Reform Has Come About
New Zealand has been grappling with unusually concentrated markets in key sectors, leading to higher prices and fewer choices for consumers. A series of Commerce Commission market studies in recent years underscored these problems: Groceries (2022), Fuel (2019), Building Supplies (2023), and Banking (2023). These studies signalled that current laws and tools were not sufficient to ensure healthy competition. The public’s cost-of-living pain — and knowledge that a handful of big companies were reaping fat profits — created a strong political imperative to “do something” about entrenched monopolies and duopolies.
Awareness that “the system is rigged” in favour of greedy business has led to a surge of advocacy for market reforms from almost across the political spectrum. This was crystallised further by a damning OECD report (“Revamping Competition in New Zealand”) published in August 2024 that showed New Zealand’s competition settings have contributed to productivity “markedly below the OECD frontier.”
The last Labour Government had already initiated a reform agenda in this area, and this was picked up in 2024 by then Commerce Minister Andrew Bayly. He’s been strongly supported by Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who has emerged as an outspoken advocate for tackling “dysfunctional markets.” Her strong support for the bill is in line with her stance that National must stand up to corporate giants on behalf of consumers. National sees a political upside in being tough on monopolies, shaking off their “friends of big business” image.
However, not all in the coalition see the fight against oversized corporate power so positively. NZ First is solid in its support for reform in this area. Some in National are less enthusiastic, and further to the right, the Act Party worry the reforms go too far in regulating business and interfering with the free market.
Therefore, the legislation proposed represents the minimum viable reform that improves competition enforcement without fundamentally threatening incumbent interests too overtly. Hence, the bill is likely to get almost total support from all parties in Parliament, including Labour and the Greens. The problem is that it has already been significantly watered down, and business lobbyists are currently pushing for this to go further.
What’s Good About the Government’s Bill
The most important elements of the bill are its crackdown on monopolistic tactics. New provisions explicitly target “creeping acquisitions” (serial buy-ups of smaller rivals) and so-called “killer acquisitions” (dominant firms buying startups just to eliminate them). In general, it lowers the threshold for the ability of the Commerce Commission to prevent mergers and acquisitions that might lead to a “substantial lessening of competition.”
The bill also expands the test to include conduct that “creates, strengthens, or entrenches a substantial degree of power in the market,” bringing New Zealand closer to Australia’s 2025 reforms. This is crucial for catching acquisitions that don’t immediately lessen competition but build dominant market positions over time — exactly the strategy used by private equity firms rolling up veterinary clinics, funeral homes, and regional healthcare providers.
Other positive provisions include strengthened market study powers (the Commission could recommend pro-competition regulation to Ministers), class exemptions for low-risk conduct, a notification regime for small business collective bargaining, corrective action orders allowing the High Court to restore competition after breaches, and new whistleblower protections.
For these reasons, consumer advocates such as Consumer NZ and Monopoly Watch NZ have been supportive. Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy has been among the most prominent voices commenting on the bill, saying it improves the current situation.
Problems with the Government’s Bill
However, critics from the public-interest side argue the reforms, while positive, don’t go far enough. They worry the Government might tout this bill as “job done” on competition, whereas real market change — like actually fostering new competitors or breaking up monopolies — could stall.
There are also significant missing elements from the proposals. First, when major mergers are occurring, it will only be voluntary to inform the Commerce Commission. In other countries, such as Australia, such notifications are mandatory above certain thresholds. This means the Commission must rely on its new “call-in” powers rather than having automatic visibility of potentially problematic deals.
Second, the Government decided not to give the Commerce Commission the power to create sector-specific pro-competition industry codes, despite MBIE and the Commerce Commission both supporting this. Industry codes (used in Australia for dairy, energy, and grocery sectors) allow targeted intervention without requiring full legislation. Industry codes would have given the Commerce Commission real teeth to break down barriers without waiting for Parliament. Their absence means the Commission must conduct lengthy market studies and then wait for government to legislate, which is a process that can take years.
Third, the bill includes problematic predatory pricing provisions that Labour MP Arena Williams rightly criticised as “the only pricing intervention where it’ll be illegal under National to put prices down.” The provisions use cost-based tests that could actually protect incumbent duopolies from genuine price competition when a third player enters the market. As Williams noted, consumers benefit when new entrants force prices down, making that illegal seems perverse.
Fourth, the bill includes a 10-year Official Information Act exemption for confidential information supplied to the Commerce Commission. While some protection for commercial sensitivity is reasonable, 10 years is excessive, and creates an accountability gap.
Finally, the Government has cut the Commerce Commission’s budget by $3.4 million while simultaneously expanding its powers. Commission chair John Small told a Select Committee in December 2025 that the Commission has already scaled back headcount and market studies. Expanding powers while reducing resources is a recipe for ineffective enforcement.
Big Business Fights Back
The two big omissions from the legislation (mandatory notifications and industry codes) were successfully lobbied against by business interests. And now, as the legislation goes through the select committee process, big businesses and their representatives are actively pushing for further changes that will protect profits and market dominance. The narratives they are deploying to shape the debate revolve around “investor confidence,” “regulatory uncertainty,” and “process concerns.”
Major law firms including Chapman Tripp, MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Russell McVeagh, and others have signalled they will submit detailed concerns on behalf of their corporate clients.
RNZ is reporting the concerns of law firm Chapman Tripp, with two articles published in the last few days featuring Chapman Tripp’s competition and antitrust partner Lucy Cooper. According to an article by Nona Pelletier yesterday, the legislation “could disadvantage consumers, deter investors and increase the cost of doing business.”
Chapman Tripp’s Lucy Cooper is quoted saying her first reservation is that the reforms “will add unnecessary uncertainty, time and cost to the Commerce Commission processes.” Her second concern is that “the Commerce Commission will get a lot more discretion or power without solid process protections, or the ability to really scrutinise its work.”
Of course, these criticisms should be contextualised by the fact that Chapman Tripp specialises in helping major corporates with mergers and acquisitions. Their concern about “investor confidence” is code for: this will make it harder for our clients to consolidate markets through serial acquisitions. Cooper’s objection to “retrospective” application of creeping acquisitions provisions is also misleading — the Commission isn’t unwinding past deals, just considering their cumulative effect on current market conditions.
Similarly, MinterEllisonRuddWatts has publicly stated that the expansion of the test for a “substantial lessening of competition” “could chill pro-competitive commercial behaviour.” And Russell McVeagh complains that existing tools to deal with anti-competitive behaviour are already sufficient, citing the Wilson Parking case as evidence. But that case actually proves the opposite — it took years of enforcement action, demonstrating that the Commission needs more tools, not fewer.
On the new provisions to deal with “creeping acquisitions,” Russell McVeagh claims there is “not a clear evidential basis that this reform is required in New Zealand.” This ignores the supermarket duopoly making $1 million a day in excess profits, the banking oligopoly, building supplies concentration exposed in the 2023 market study, and the OECD’s finding that New Zealand lags international peers on competition metrics.
The NZ Initiative and BusinessNZ are also expected to submit strong opposition to the reforms, representing their corporate clients and members.
The “Rip-Off New Zealand” Problem Remains
The Government claims it is tackling broken markets with the introduction of the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There’s some truth in this. But there’s also truth in the complaint from consumer advocates that aspects of this bill may protect incumbents while claiming to promote competition.
The proposed legislative reform brings New Zealand closer to international standards but leaves significant gaps. For example, when compared to the more thorough commerce reforms in Australia, it looks like New Zealand is adopting the weaker parts of those reforms and skipping the stronger provisions.
The bill is definitely a step forward, but its limitations are revealing. In particular, the choices to omit strong regulatory options — industry codes, mandatory merger notifications, price gouging prohibitions — probably reflect a reform process that has been shaped by the interests it purports to regulate. And the danger is that corporate lobbyists will weaken the legislation further over the coming months as it progresses through the Select Committee.
If the bill’s limitations persist and enforcement remains under-resourced, the “Rip-Off New Zealand” problem — concentrated markets, excessive profits, captured regulators, and political unwillingness to confront incumbent power — will remain fundamentally unaddressed.
As Labour MP Arena Williams noted in the first reading debate, this matters for democracy itself: “When people go to the checkout and they are paying more and more every week... it’s not only those large companies that they start to lose faith in; it’s the people who are elected who set the rules which govern them. It’s their democracies and it’s their institutions.” Broken markets breed broken trust in democratic institutions.
What You Can Do
If you want to bolster the proposed competition reforms by making a submission to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, you can do so here:
Submissions close at 11:59pm, Wednesday 4 February 2026.
Key points you might consider including:
Support for creeping acquisitions and killer acquisitions provisions (resist corporate lobbying to weaken these)
Request for mandatory merger notifications above certain thresholds
Request for industry codes power to be added back into the bill
Concern about predatory pricing provisions potentially protecting incumbents
Request to reduce the 10-year OIA exemption to 3-5 years
Request for increased Commerce Commission funding to match expanded powers
Support for stronger provisions similar to Australia’s recent reforms
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of the Democracy Project