Some are plainly concerned about being singled out by politicians who may later regulate their businesses. Others have a more prosaic reason for staying silent: they want to see what policies survive the election and, crucially, the coalition negotiations that follow it.<\/p>\n
Others too, sit as Crown-appointed directors to listed companies \u2013 such as Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy and Mercury NZ \u2013 where public comment on the politically charged issue of separating the gentailers\u2019 generation and retail arms could be seen to compromise their political neutrality during an election. Emphasis on \u201ccould\u201d.<\/p>\n
Take New Zealand First\u2019s proposal to buy back BNZ from Australia\u2019s National Australia Bank and merge it with Kiwibank to create a new Crown-owned National Bank of New Zealand.<\/p>\n
It is a dramatic proposal. NZ First says the new bank would be commercially run and funded through a mixture of sovereign banking bonds, Crown debt, investment capital and Kiwibank\u2019s existing capital.<\/p>\n
But National has already rejected the idea. Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop said he\u2019d seen estimates suggesting it would cost between $24 billion and $30b to buy back the bank (which NZ First disputes), with much of the cost paid through borrowing. Act is also opposed.<\/p>\n
So why would a major business leader put their name to a public campaign against a policy that may never survive the coalition bargaining process?<\/p>\n
There is another reason for caution.<\/p>\n
New Zealand does need a more competitive banking system. The Commerce Commission\u2019s 2024 market study found that ANZ, ASB, BNZ and Westpac did not face strong competition and described the market as a stable, highly profitable two-tier oligopoly. <\/p>\n
It recommended measures to encourage greater competition, including a stronger Kiwibank and open banking.<\/p>\n
So defending private property rights cannot become a convenient slogan for defending incumbent market power.<\/p>\n
Of course, Governments should intervene in markets where there is compelling evidence of market failure, abuse of market power or a clear public interest.<\/p>\n
The question is whether Governments should start rewriting the rules of private ownership and existing contracts because an intervention sounds attractive during an election campaign, which is the guts of Hartwich\u2019s letter.<\/p>\n
Competition law exists precisely because the market does not always police itself \u2013 the supermarkets are arguably a case in point.<\/p>\n
National has said it would split Foodstuffs into New World and Pak\u2019nSave; Labour would require Woolworths and Foodstuffs to operate their wholesale supply businesses independently from their retail stores, and the Greens would break up the \u201cduopoly\u201d requiring at least 120 stores and the distribution centre capacity to be sold into public ownership to form KiwiMart, a publicly owned supermarket chain with the mandate to prioritise affordability.<\/p>\n
The public relations fightback is well underway.<\/p>\n
But is there an issue?<\/p>\n
The Commerce Commission last month signalled it would take legal action against Foodstuffs South Island alleging anti-competitive behaviour.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe conduct we allege occurred deprives Kiwis of the best possible prices when shopping at their local supermarket and limits competition,\u201d commission chair Dr John Small said.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnder the franchise model, individual South Island Pak\u2019nSave supermarkets are supposed to be able to compete on pricing, discounts and promotions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Instead, the commission alleges Foodstuffs South Island applied guidelines and rules that stopped independently owned and operated supermarkets from offering certain discounts unless they received prior approval.<\/p>\n
The commission will argue that the alleged conduct constitutes resale price maintenance, which is prohibited under section 37 of the Commerce Act.<\/p>\n
Resale price maintenance prevents retailers from setting their prices below certain levels. The commission says such conduct can limit competition and lead to higher prices.<\/p>\n
These are allegations that will ultimately have to be tested through the legal process. But the case raises a broader question about the balance between central control and genuine independence within a franchise model.<\/p>\n
Then there are the gentailers.<\/p>\n
There is a cold, hard fiscal reason for the Government to think twice before dismantling the gentailers as business organisations including the Auckland Business Chamber have advocated.<\/p>\n
Its 51% holdings in Mercury, Meridian and Genesis generated roughly $599.5 million in dividends in the year to June 2026.<\/p>\n
There is of course a policy argument for greater competition, but structural separation has significant implications for investment and the electricity system.<\/p>\n
In my view, there is an even bigger question: how comfortable should taxpayers be with a Government simultaneously acting as policymaker, regulator and majority shareholder?<\/p>\n
That is not an argument for leaving business regulation unchecked. Quite the opposite. Competition law exists precisely because the market does not always police itself.<\/p>\n
With retirement villages being forced to change contracts \u2013 another Initiative bugbear \u2013 a different and more fundamental question about certainty of contract is raised.<\/p>\n
The counterview is that these are older New Zealanders who may have put virtually all their housing wealth into a retirement village and then discovered that getting their capital back can take many months.<\/p>\n
Why shouldn\u2019t Parliament be able to intervene where the regulatory framework has demonstrably produced an imbalance between residents and operators?<\/p>\n
Retrospectively, cancelling lawful mining approvals raises an even sharper issue of sovereign risk. A mining permit gives an investor legal rights under a regulatory framework; but it doesn\u2019t give the investor a permanent guarantee that Parliament can never change that framework \u2013 this is unfortunate but a fact.<\/p>\n
There is a strong argument that New Zealand needs business leaders prepared to speak more openly about productivity, regulation, infrastructure, tax, investment and the long-term economic direction of the country.<\/p>\n
We don\u2019t need a business community that becomes so risk-averse that it no longer participates robustly in public debate.<\/p>\n
But we also need politicians mature enough to hear criticism without treating the critic as the enemy.<\/p>\n
On that score, the evidence is not yet overwhelming.<\/p>\n