We hear all about the housing affordability crisis in Aotearoa NZ. The answer from central government is supply, supply, supply. They have brought in legislation that allows the minister to override local council decisions to enable the building of more houses. They have brought in the fast-track legislation to build more houses anywhere, regardless of long-term infrastructure (and impacts on local rates), environment, transportation or wellbeing implications. The assumption is that by building more houses, with minimal regulations, the housing crisis will be solved. All while simultaneously cutting and cancelling state housing projects. Rather than directly improving access to housing for those on low incomes, and addressing the inequities built into our housing system, we cross our fingers and hope that the market will sort it out. Not surprisingly, it hasn’t.
Yet there is no leadership from central government. We do not have a national food policy. We don’t even talk about food security or hunger. The tepid response from central government is limited to a recently announced approach of enabling the development of more supermarkets. Once again, the fast-track legislation will be used to encourage a third supermarket chain to operate more widely across the country. Supply, supply, supply. However, the addition of a Costco or Aldi’s to our supermarket options does nothing to address the underlying issues of a supermarket-dependent food system.
In the absence of central government leadership, responsibility falls once again to local government. There is abundant evidence that more localised food systems that are less dependent on large supermarket chains can contribute to environmental, social and economic wellbeing for local communities. Therefore, food should be on the agenda as we think about voting in local and regional council elections in October. Setting aside the compelling environmental and social rationales for food system change, let’s look at just the economic benefits of a more localised food system.
We all need to eat, every day. We spend a considerable amount of money accessing our food, and the economic impact of our food decisions is substantial. Relocalising some of that spending has a significant multiplier effect in terms of local jobs, local tax revenue and local economic wellbeing.
Detroit Michigan is a well-known example of efforts to relocalise food in response to economic decline that resulted from de-industrialization and the decline of the auto industry. Studies have found that shifting 20% of annual food spending in the city to local producers, suppliers and retailers would create nearly 5000 new jobs, generate an additional $20 million in annual business taxes for the city and would increase average household earnings by $400 per year. As a result, the city and region have developed local food policies that support local procurement through institutional spending on school lunches, expansion and support for urban agriculture, food retail co-operatives and farmers markets, all to diversify local food production and consumption.
What might the economic benefits of relocalising our food system be in Dunedin? A crude analysis suggests it would be substantial.
We can draw on the University of Otago’s Department of Human Nutrition national food cost survey that is completed every two years to provide a baseline (www.otago.ac.nz/humannutrition/research/food-cost-survey). The survey tracks the cost of a basket of food items required to feed individuals and households at a basic, moderate and liberal level. The most recent survey was completed in 2023. It shows that for a household with two adults and two children in Dunedin, a moderate spend on food was $356 per week (a 28% increase from the 2021 survey when costs were $278). The 2023 census tells us there were 31,410 households in Dunedin.
A crude calculation means that collectively, Dunedin households are spending just over $11 million per week on food. National estimates are that 82% of our food spending is captured by our supermarket duopoly. A substantial amount of that spending (certainly not all) is exported to other regions and other countries, which means we lose out on the multiplier effect of that economic activity. It is economic leakage and missed opportunities on a massive scale.
Collectively, Dunedin households are generating more than half a billion dollars of economic activity per year by eating. Tourism, by contrast, only contributed $379 million to the Dunedin economy in 2024. Food is far more important economically (and socially and environmentally) than tourism (and many other sectors of our economy). Yet we don’t talk about the local food economy, we take it for granted. We don’t have policy to support it.
What if we were able to divert just an additional 10% of that spending to local growers and local retailers? We would have an additional $1 million of economic activity circulating in our local food system, supporting livelihoods, jobs, and improved access to food — every single week. A far bigger impact than booking the next concert or All Blacks game at the stadium. Yet we have national and local tourism policies and strategies and significant public money supporting that sector, but no food policies or strategies, and limited to no money.
As you see candidates on the campaign trail in the lead up to the local body elections, consider asking them where they stand on the importance of food.
Sean Connelly is a senior lecturer in the University of Otago School of Geography. Each week in this column writers address issues of sustainability.
Candidates’ views
Our Food Network has surveyed candidates in this year’s local authority elections about food strategy and policy.
Their responses are here - https://tinyurl.com/4ckxrkws
