ACT vows one-stop shop for supermarket competition

David Seymour has promised a "one-stop shop" that he says will boost competition in New Zealand's supermarket sector, arguing that what he calls "draconian" regulations can actually make competition worse rather than better.

The claim goes against the grain of recent policy. New Zealand's grocery sector has been under sustained scrutiny for years because it is dominated by two major players, and successive governments have responded by adding rules, not removing them. Seymour's pitch is that some of those rules are part of the problem.

Why it matters is simple. Grocery prices remain a live political issue for households, and any credible plan to increase competition would be widely welcomed. But the article gives almost no detail on what this one-stop shop would actually do, which makes it hard to judge whether the promise is a genuine fix or a slogan.

The record

New Zealand's supermarket market has long been described as a duopoly, with two large grocery groups controlling most retail sales. The Commerce Commission carried out a market study into the sector, reporting in 2022 that competition was not working well for consumers and that high barriers, including land access and planning issues, made it hard for new entrants to establish a real presence.

Off the back of that study, Parliament passed the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023, which introduced a mandatory grocery supply code and created a Grocery Commissioner to oversee the sector. That was a regulatory response, built on the idea that clearer rules, not fewer of them, would help improve competition.

Seymour's comments sit against that backdrop. He leads ACT, which is part of the current coalition government, and his party has long argued for lighter regulation across the economy. The one-stop shop promise appears to extend that broader philosophy to supermarkets specifically, though the article does not say whether it would replace, sit alongside, or wind back the existing grocery code and Commissioner role.

What doesn't add up

The central gap is basic: what is the one-stop shop, and which regulations does Seymour consider "draconian"? The article does not name a single specific rule, consent process or agency that would be affected, so it is not possible to test the claim against the actual barriers the Commerce Commission identified, such as land covenants and planning restrictions.

There is also a timing question. If regulation is the problem, why has the response to poor supermarket competition in recent years been more regulation, including a dedicated Act and a Commissioner, not less? Seymour does not explain in the article whether he thinks that 2023 framework was itself a mistake, or whether his target is a different, unnamed set of rules such as resource consent or planning law.

No timeframe, costing or legislative pathway is given. Without that, it is unclear whether this is an imminent policy with a bill attached, or an early statement of intent ahead of next year's election. The article does not say when, or how, the one-stop shop would be delivered.

Finally, the claim that fewer rules would produce more competition is an assertion, not evidence. The article offers no data, case study or example to show how removing regulation has increased grocery competition elsewhere, or how it would specifically make it easier for a third player to enter the New Zealand market.

The other side

The article does not include a response from the Commerce Commission, the Grocery Commissioner, either of the major grocery operators, or any other political party. That means there is no independent assessment on the record of whether easing regulation would help or hinder new entrants, and no account of what the existing grocery code has or has not achieved so far.

In fairness to Seymour, his underlying argument, that regulation can sometimes entrench incumbents rather than challenge them, is a recognised position in competition economics. Simplifying overlapping consent processes could, in principle, lower the cost of opening a new supermarket. But without specifics, that remains a general principle rather than a tested plan for New Zealand's grocery market.

What happens next

Watch for ACT to release further detail on what the one-stop shop would actually cover, including whether it touches planning law, the Grocery Industry Competition Act, or council-level consenting. Any concrete proposal would likely need to go through Cabinet and Parliament before it became law.

With the general election set for 7 November 2026, policy announcements from all parties on cost-of-living issues, including groceries, are likely to keep coming. The test for this one will be whether the detail, when it arrives, actually addresses the barriers the Commerce Commission identified, or simply restates a preference for less regulation without a mechanism attached.