Integrity Briefing: Will NZ First make a populist pivot against corporate power in 2026?

Winston Peters has always known how to read a room. Right now, that room is full of angry New Zealanders who can’t afford their power bills, who watch oligopolies extract obscene profits from basic necessities, who see a political class captured by corporate interests. This should be New Zealand First’s moment. The party with the most overtly populist and anti-establishment history should be the natural champion against broken markets and crony capitalism.

Instead, they’re absent without leave. Or worse, they’ve switched sides.

This is the sixth column in a series examining broken New Zealand and its elites. Previous instalments have documented National’s corporate capture, despite having the mandate to bust oligopolies. We’ve exposed Act’s journey from market freedom to protecting cartels, despite being founded to smash monopolies. Now we turn to the party that claims to champion “the little guy” against establishment elites, and find perhaps the most cynical betrayal of all – which hopefully warrants this Integrity Briefing being a more extended version than usual.

The People’s champion?

If any political party in New Zealand ought to be the natural enemy of broken markets and crony capitalism, it is New Zealand First. Its entire history, its very DNA, is rooted in a populist revolt against the economic and political establishment. The party was forged in the fires of the 1990s, born directly from a backlash against the neoliberal “Rogernomics” and “Ruthanasia” reforms that both Labour and National governments pursued with near-religious fervour.

Winston Peters built his career on populist fury at New Zealand’s elites. In the 1990s, he made his name with the explosive Winebox Inquiry, hauling a literal wine box of documents into Parliament to expose alleged corporate tax evasion and crony deals. Peters accused merchant bankers and complicit politicians of engineering an “astonishing wealth transfer” of hundreds of millions from public coffers into private hands. He lambasted the “looting” of New Zealand by financial barons, a stance that earned him a reputation as an anti-establishment crusader.

Over the decades Peters routinely targeted what he painted as a corporate cabal undermining Kiwi sovereignty. He railed against the dominance of foreign-owned banks, likening the big Australian banks to “a hole in the hull of the NZ economy” draining over $4 billion in profits a year. He decried the sell-off of strategic assets and foreign ownership of land and businesses, warning that politicians had become “subservient and puppetized” to corporate interests.

This fiery anti-corporate rhetoric, whether about Aussie banks, land sales to overseas speculators, or companies profiteering off ordinary Kiwis, became core to NZ First’s brand. Peters’ early hits cemented his image as the people’s champion against corporate oligarchy.

This persona was amplified by his combative deputy, Shane Jones, who for years acted as the party’s corporate scourge. Jones possessed a flair for the theatrical insult that cut through the noise of political debate and resonated with a public that felt ripped off. A decade ago, he used the protection of parliamentary privilege to accuse the supermarket giant Countdown of “extortion” and “racketeering”, describing its corporate culture as “something that Tony Soprano would be proud of”. During the 2017-2020 coalition government, he became a one-man wrecking ball against corporate complacency. He famously labelled Air New Zealand (then led by Christopher Luxon) a “corporate taniwha” for cutting provincial routes and gouging prices.

His attacks on the supermarket duopoly were particularly memorable. He warned that the government must be a “guard dog on behalf of consumers rather than a poodle” and quipped that the supermarkets run their affairs “like a duck’s rear end — tightly shut to any new entrant”. This was the roar of the populist lion. It was the authentic voice of a party that understood the public’s anger at concentrated market power and seemed willing to fight it.

The 2017 Coalition: Big talk, small action

In 2017, Peters put this populist platform into practice by entering a coalition government with Labour. Announcing his decision, Peters delivered a thunderous indictment of the status quo: “Far too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism, not as their friend, but as their foe… Capitalism must regain its responsible – its human face”. It was a stirring call to arms, framing the new government’s mandate as nothing less than a mission to reform an economic system that had left too many behind.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be mostly hot air.

To their credit, NZ First did help initiate a series of Commerce Commission market studies into the fuel, grocery, and building supplies sectors. These studies were valuable, laying bare the structural problems of oligopoly and weak competition that plague New Zealand’s economy. Yet when it came to acting on the findings, the lion’s roar faded to a purr.

The grocery market study floated the radical, truly populist option of forcing the supermarket duopoly to divest some of their stores to create a third competitor. This was exactly the kind of bold intervention their rhetoric had always promised. Instead, the Labour-NZ First Cabinet opted for a much milder package of a mandatory code of conduct and a new regulator. Peters and Jones acquiesced to this half-measure, trading a genuine chance at structural reform for a comfortable seat at the table.

Similarly, their long-standing demand for a Royal Commission into the banking sector was quietly dropped, a compromise for being in government. Peters had campaigned on a sweeping banking inquiry to mirror Australia’s Royal Commission — an investigation to expose bank profiteering and overcharging. Once in government, however, that idea died a quiet death. Despite Peters’ pre-election insistence that a banking probe was “long overdue”, no New Zealand inquiry ever took place. Likewise, NZ First slammed property speculators and wealth inequality, but ultimately vetoed a Capital Gains Tax.

The party excelled at “anti-oligopoly” talk and got some inquiries rolling, but shied away from bruising confrontations with corporate power that would have required real political capital. They helped prevent certain structural changes. They balked at measures that would fundamentally challenge powerful industries, be it breaking up supermarkets, imposing windfall taxes on banks, or regulating the construction-supplies cartel.

By 2020, for all of NZ First’s bluster about “putting a human face on capitalism,” the status quo of corporate dominance remained largely intact. Their populism proved to be performative, not transformative.

The Culture war pivot

Fast forward to the current 2023-2025 coalition, and NZ First’s agenda has shifted dramatically. After returning to Parliament and joining a coalition with National and Act, Winston Peters has deprioritised economic populism in favour of waging what he proudly calls a “war on woke”. The battleground is no longer big banks or supermarkets, it’s culture and identity.

In his March 2025 State of the Nation speech, Peters devoted substantial time to declaring this war on woke, attacking diversity, equity and inclusion policies, promising to eliminate DEI programmes in the public service, taking a hard line against youth gender-affirming care. He called to “Make New Zealand First Again”, using Trumpian rhetoric about battling “woke ideology” and “leftist group-think”.

What was strikingly absent? Any meaningful mention of supermarket duopolies, banking oligopolies, or the cost of living crisis squeezing his voters. The party that should be channelling working-class rage against broken markets has redirected it toward culture-war skirmishes. At the party’s September 2025 AGM in Palmerston North, the word “woke” was said 21 times in speeches during the final day alone.

And what about their 2023 election promises? The party campaigned on radical structural reforms. At their July 2023 campaign launch in Lower Hutt, Peters promised to take on “those foreign banks and supermarkets, charging more here than they do elsewhere”. The manifesto was specific. On supermarkets: “Force the supermarket duopoly to divest themselves of their distribution centres and cool-stores”. On banks: “Put a regulated duty on the banks to deliver ‘fair value’ through UK-style consumer duties”. On power: “Form a Ministry of Energy and abolish the Electricity Authority. Generators will be required to divest themselves of retail”.

These weren’t vague promises. They were structural reforms that would genuinely challenge corporate power. New Zealand First won 6.08% of the vote and returned to government with eight MPs. Peters secured his familiar perch as Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister. Shane Jones got Resources, Regional Development, and Fisheries. They had power. They had leverage. They had ministerial portfolios.

What have they delivered?

On supermarkets: nothing. Not a single piece of legislation. Not even a press release. The Commerce Commission continues implementing the mild reforms initiated under Labour (a mandatory code of conduct, a toothless Grocery Commissioner) while Foodstuffs and Woolworths continue extracting excess profits at 12% return on capital, more than double competitive returns.

On banking: nothing substantive. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has taken the lead on the Commerce Commission’s banking report. Where is New Zealand First? Shane Jones has discovered that attacking “woke” banks for ESG policies is more politically convenient than tackling their oligopolistic profits.

On electricity: nothing. No Ministry of Energy. No divestment requirements. No challenge to gentailers posting record profits.

In effect, NZ First today provides a nationalist, reactionary outlet for public anger that leaves corporate power structures unthreatened. It is easier to inflame passions over language, ethnicity, and gender policies than to take on billionaire donors or tighten the screws on corporate monopolies. The culture war is not a separate front; it is the smokescreen that enables the real work of rewarding their allies to proceed with minimal scrutiny.

The Cronyism Problem

Beyond the rhetoric, several policy decisions involving NZ First in government have raised red flags about cronyism and corporate capture. Time and again, the party’s actions have appeared to benefit vested interests (including those with cosy ties or donations to NZ First) at the expense of principled, transparent governance.

Consider the heated tobacco tax break. In 2024, Associate Health Minister Casey Costello cut the excise tax on heated tobacco products by 50 percent. Health experts slammed it as a “$216 million gift” to the tobacco industry, with no public health rationale.

Then there’s the $24 million Gumboot Friday funding deal. The government announced it would fund comedian Mike King’s I Am Hope Foundation $6 million a year for four years to provide counselling services, as part of the NZ First coalition agreement. In October 2024, the Auditor-General found the procurement process was “unusual and inconsistent with good practice”. Ministry of Health officials had struggled to find a way to make the contract compliant with public procurement rules, and ended up invoking a special ‘opt-out’ clause designed for specialist health services. The Auditor-General noted there was “no opportunity for a fair, open, or competitive procurement process” and that the selection and funding amount were “decided without an open and transparent process”. Political patronage dressed up as mental health support.

Jones has enthusiastically backed mining interests through the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, which is a piece of legislation that gives three ministers, including Jones, final say on projects with minimal oversight. An RNZ analysis showed that companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates. Companies that donated to NZ First after the 2023 election are now seeking fast-track approval for controversial projects. The Auditor-General warned about the lack of statutory requirements to manage ministerial conflicts of interest.

In all these cases, NZ First’s actions have functioned as a pressure-release valve for powerful industries. They’ll stoke public anger about an issue, then channel it into a policy that enriches or pleases a connected few. The party that swore to crack down on crony capitalism has, in practice, often enabled it.

The Pressure valve

Looking at NZ First’s track record, one might conclude the party has served primarily as a pressure valve, a way to vent public discontent without actually altering the structures of power. Peters’ gift has been to capture voters’ frustrations with banks, with inequality, with political correctness, and give them a voice. But time and again, when NZ First has been in a position to force systemic change, it has baulked or been co-opted.

Here’s what happened: Winston Peters and Shane Jones discovered that populist rhetoric is electorally potent, but populist action is difficult and creates powerful enemies. It’s far easier to secure a regional development fund and culture war headlines than to force a wholesale restructuring of banking and energy sectors. You can rail against corporate greed from opposition, where rhetoric costs nothing. In government, actually challenging oligopolies means confronting your coalition partners’ business constituencies, risking donations, facing corporate lobbying pressure, and potentially destabilising the government.

So New Zealand First’s populism has become purely performative. The rhetoric remains, Jones still occasionally thunders about banks and monopolies, but it’s carefully channelled into safe targets. Attack banks for being “woke” on climate, not for extracting oligopolistic profits. Criticise “de-banking” of coal mines, transforming a fundamental economic problem into a culture war skirmish about “luxury beliefs” imposed by urban elites. This allows Jones to perform the role of economic populist without actually threatening the economic order.

Peters traded the lion’s roar for ministerial limousines and international travel. At 80, having spent 44 years in Parliament, he’s secured his legacy as New Zealand’s most durable political survivor, but survival has come at the cost of betraying the economic populist principles that built his career. His political genius was always in identifying what voters were angry about. His failure has been in never delivering solutions once in power.

The 2026 question

But here’s the thing about Winston Peters: he’s a survivor. And New Zealand First could still pivot back to economic populism for the 2026 election.

The political opportunity is obvious. New Zealand’s economy contracted through 2024. Unemployment is rising. Grocery prices remain among the highest in the developed world. The supermarket duopoly extracts $430 million a year in excess profits. Banking profits continue untouched. The Big Four banks made over $7 billion in after-tax profits last year, operating what Finance Minister Nicola Willis herself described as a “cosy pillow fight” rather than genuine competition. And the current Government has done almost nothing about it.

National, as we’ve documented, is too embedded with corporate interests to deliver genuine reform. Act’s David Seymour literally opposed breaking up the supermarket duopoly because it might “scare off overseas investors”, which is the ultimate proof of corporate capture. That leaves a massive political opening for a party willing to champion structural economic reform.

Shane Jones, who took over as party deputy leader in September and is positioning as Peters’ successor, could credibly pivot back to economic populism. He has the charisma, the track record of anti-corporate rhetoric, and the Harvard education to sound authoritative on market competition. In September 2025, Jones even drafted a 21-page memo to Peters about energy market reform, including considering re-nationalising the gentailers.

More importantly, New Zealand First could campaign in 2026 by blaming National for blocking their reform agenda. They would say something like: “We tried to break up the supermarket duopoly, but National protected their corporate donors. We pushed for banking reform, but they sided with ANZ and Westpac. Give us more seats and we’ll finish the job”.

This would be cynical. They’ve had eighteen months in government and done nothing. But it could be electorally effective. It would differentiate them from both coalition partners. It could justify switching sides to Labour after the election, especially if Labour adopts more aggressive anti-oligopoly positions in opposition. Most importantly, polling suggests it would resonate: economic issues consistently rank as top voter concerns, while appetite for culture war battles appears to be declining.

At their September 2025 AGM, Peters told delegates to prepare for “a massive sea change in New Zealand” heading into the 2026 campaign. Former Labour Cabinet Minister Stuart Nash spoke at the conference and is keeping options open about campaigning for the party at the next election. The signals are there. Peters is positioning for another pivot.

This potential transformation is more than just an electoral strategy; it could provide the perfect, high-minded justification for a dramatic political realignment. The fight against corporate power, which they have both abandoned and actively participated in, could ironically become their ticket to another term in government, perhaps even on the other side of the aisle. Winston Peters could reprise his 2017 “human face of capitalism” speech almost verbatim, arguing that the National-Act government proved incapable of standing up to vested interests and that only a new coalition, with Labour, can deliver real economic change.

This would allow him to blame his current partners for his own government’s inaction, deftly positioning himself once again as the kingmaker and the saviour of the common person. For a Labour Party potentially desperate to regain power, the promise of NZ First’s support in exchange for significant policy concessions on market reform might be an offer too good to refuse. The issue of “broken markets” is therefore not a deeply held principle for New Zealand First, but a political commodity and a powerful weapon to be stored away and deployed when its strategic value is highest.

Conclusion: The Chameleon’s next move

The zeitgeist they’re currently missing is right there in front of them. Public anger about oligopolies extracting excess profits while ordinary Kiwis struggle is reaching boiling point. This should be political gold for a populist party. And NZ First is nothing if not a chameleon. They could pivot.

At its core, New Zealand First is a deeply pragmatic and adaptable political entity whose primary ideology is its own survival and relevance. Its history is not one of rigid ideological commitment, but of transactional politics, shifting its positions to occupy whatever ground is necessary to hold the balance of power. This inherent flexibility means a pivot back towards its populist roots ahead of the 2026 election is not only possible, but strategically logical.

The party could campaign heavily on broken markets and corporate power in election year 2026. It’s an issue that could boost them significantly in the polls. Recent polls show them surging near their historical highs. It could distinguish them from their coalition partners, who seem hopelessly conflicted with corporate power. The party could suddenly reprise the type of speech about fixing capitalism that Peters gave when he decided to go into coalition with Labour in 2017.

Indeed, this issue could be the justification that Peters and Jones use for switching sides at the next election, agreeing to empower a Labour-led administration to fix broken markets. It wouldn’t be the first time Peters has executed such a manoeuvre. He thrives on keeping everyone guessing.

But that would require actual commitment to the policy substance, not just the rhetoric. It would mean taking on powerful vested interests who can make life difficult. It would require staying power when the lobbying pressure intensifies and the corporate PR machines start churning. Based on their track record, there’s little reason to believe NZ First would follow through.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

The previous columns in this series on corporate power and broken New Zealand are here:

1: New Zealand is off the rails

2: Are Business leaders to blame for the broken state of New Zealand?

3: How Crony capitalism is ruining New Zealand

4: National’s crony capitalism problem

5: The Act Party’s journey from market freedom to corporate capture