top of page

Explainer | Unpacking the Green Party’s Price Gouging Policy

12 minutes ago
5 min read

Written by Nicholas Holden


On the 18th of August 2026, Green Party MP Ricardo Menéndez March lodged the Commerce (Excessive Pricing in Retail Grocery Industry) Amendment Bill (the Bill) (New Zealand Parliament, 2026), a Member’s Bill. This Bill seeks to prohibit price gouging by supermarkets and is one component of the Greens’ multifaceted plan to reform the food system (Ross, 2026). In turn, I will discuss what the Bill entails, its inspiration, what it does well and concerns that may need to be addressed to ensure that it serves its purpose. Although this Bill applies only to the supermarket sector, the Green Party intends to introduce a “broad prohibition on excessive pricing” in the future (Ross, 2026, p. 6).


What the Bill Says

The policy underpinning the proposed reform is clear: to prevent supermarkets from benefiting from exorbitant profit margins on products at customers' expense. This takes the form of prohibiting “excessive pricing”. For the purposes of the Bill, pricing is “excessive” if it is “compared to the cost to the regulated grocery retailer of the supply, plus a reasonable margin” (Commerce (Excessive Pricing in Retail Grocery Industry) Amendment Bill). Charging excessive prices can result in significant financial penalties. Additionally, presumably to assist with Commerce Commission monitoring and to incentivise margin awareness and discipline, covered supermarkets are required to keep on hand comprehensive pricing information for at least 3 years. Failing to hold such information will also result in financial penalties, albeit likely much less than for charging “excessive” prices. 


The Bill’s Inspiration

The Bill is largely modelled on Australia’s newly minted price-gouging provisions in the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Food and Grocery) Regulations 2024. The only major difference that seems to exist between the Greens’ Bill and the Australian provisions is that “excessive pricing” under the Australian provision is when it is “significantly excessive” relative to cost and a reasonable margin, compared with the Bill, which requires it to be “excessive” relative to the cost and a reasonable margin (Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Food and Grocery) Regulations 2024). It could well be that this difference does not materially affect how these prohibitions would be applied. 


Before its repeal in 1986, s 54 of the Commerce Act 1975 (New Zealand) provided for a broad prohibition on “profiteering in goods and services”. However, this provision was quite different to that now proposed by the Green Party. There is clear guidance provided in the section as to what constitutes a “price which is unreasonably high”, with there being no such guidance in the Bill as to what is a “reasonable margin” (Commerce Act 1975). Further, for s 54, unlike what is proposed in the Bill, the touchstone for assessing whether there has been a breach is the price of comparable goods and services, with cost only becoming relevant where such comparability is not possible and as a defence (Commerce Act 1975). Given the greater detail contained in s 54 regarding what amounts to a breach and its placing less emphasis on cost, the Greens’ proposal has considerably more in common with the Australian equivalent.


What the Bill Does Well

Clearly, the policy underpinning the Bill is a good one: to alleviate the cost pressures that customers increasingly feel at the supermarket checkout. Further, the Court's ability to make compensatory orders to “aggrieved person(s)” appears to provide at least a chance for consumers to directly access redress for breaches of which they are ultimately the victims (Commerce (Excessive Pricing in Retail Grocery Industry) Amendment Bill). Across New Zealand’s consumer protection framework, it is often difficult for victim consumers to access remedies directly. For example, claims in relation to the unfair contract term provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1986 can only be brought by the Commerce Commission (Fair Trading Act 1986). However, only time will tell whether the courts’ ability to make compensatory orders benefits victim consumers, as it may be difficult for the courts to discern who the “aggrieved person(s)” are if they are not party to the proceeding. Also, Courts could be sceptical about making compensatory orders alongside pecuniary penalties, despite being empowered to do so, for fear of double punishment (Commerce (Excessive Pricing in Retail Grocery Industry) Amendment Bill).


What the Bill Could do Better

A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is certainty as to what the law demands (New Zealand Law Society, 2025). Given the Bill’s lack of guidance on what constitutes a “reasonable margin”, supermarkets covered by these provisions will be operating in a state of uncertainty. By comparison, the level of clarity provided in s 54 of the Commerce Act 1975 was better, albeit not perfect. This lack of clarity could result in penalisation where good-faith efforts have been made to impose only a “reasonable margin”. However, over time, this certainty may be provided through judicial decisions as cases are brought. But, with respect to the Australian equivalent, it has been noted that evidential challenges may well make claims difficult and infrequent (Australian Government: The Treasury, 2025). Hence, underscoring the desirability of greater certainty within the provisions themselves. Claims being brought only infrequently do not mean that the provisions will not have an effect. It is likely that the prospect of a claim, Commerce Commission monitoring and the need to hold comprehensive pricing information will provide at least some deterrence (Australian Government: The Treasury, 2025).


Something to Be Cautious About

At present, the Commerce Commission is underfunded, making it difficult for it to discharge all of its functions adequately (New Zealand Parliament, 2025). Given the vast array of products held by supermarkets, monitoring compliance will be onerous. As part of the Green Party’s broader food policy, they propose increasing Commerce Commission funding by $25 million, including doubling its litigation budget (Ross, 2026). Ideally, this will ensure that the Commerce Commission can adequately monitor and enforce these provisions whilst not detracting from the important work they do in other areas. Further, if the left bloc requires the Opportunity Party to form a government post-election, then greater funding for the Commerce Commission is likely, given that empowering the Commerce Commission is one of the Opportunity Party’s bottom lines (The Opportunity Party, 2026).


Conclusion

Overall, this proposal is a well-meaning attempt to protect consumers from harmful supermarket pricing tactics. Although in its current form, there is arguably room for improvement. Coming into the election, the Labour Party also has a policy to ban price gouging. Thus, it is likely that, should the left bloc have the numbers to form a government, a price-gouging prohibition of some form will make it through coalition negotiations (New Zealand Labour Party, n.d.). If this is so, it will be interesting to see what is submitted during the Select Committee process, given there will inevitably be input from the affected supermarkets as well as consumer groups.



References

Australian Government: The Treasury. (2025, October). Introducing an excessive pricing prohibition for supermarkets: Consultation paper. https://storage.googleapis.com/files-au-treasury/treasury/p/prj3852ad4714616af4b9260/page/c2025_706284_cp.pdf



Commerce (Excessive Pricing in Retail Grocery Industry) Amendment Bill 2026 [Proposed Members’ Bill].


Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes – Food and Grocery) Regulations 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2024L01651/latest/text



New Zealand Labour Party. (n.d.). Banning Price Gouging. https://www.labour.org.nz/election-policy-pages/price-gouging/



New Zealand Parliament. (2026, August 18). Commerce (Excessive Pricing in Retail Grocery Industry) Amendment Bill. https://bills.parliament.nz/v/1/0ad71a80-0c4e-4188-5f3c-08defcab1276?lang=en


New Zealand Parliament. (2025). Reports of select committees on the 2024/25 annual reviews of Government departments, Offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises: Volume 1. https://www3.parliament.nz/media/12115/_final-ar-compendium-2024-25-vol-1.pdf


The Opportunity Party. (2026). Our Bottom Lines for 2026. https://www.opportunity.org.nz/bottom_lines


Comments

bottom of page