Shops oppose change

Press, 22 July 1980, Page 1

Shops oppose change

Canterbury retailers last evening voted almost unanimously against the Saturday shopping legislation now before Parliament.

At a meeting called by the Canterbury Retailers’ Association to discuss the issue, 228 shop owners and managers voted against the legislation, and 16 for it. The vote represented 571 stores against Saturday shopping, and 37 in favour of. it. The member of Parliament for Christchurch Central Mr G. W. R. Palmer, urged retailers to make submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee considering the legislation. ■'/ . • The Labour Party was sceptical about the need for extended trading hours, he said. Labour research had indicated that not many: people in Canterbury supported Saturday shopping legislation.

Mr Palmer said that because of New Brighton, Canterbury shoppers had the best of both worlds.

The general feeling of retailers at the meeting was against a change in Canterbury. However, some did acknowledge that other parts of New Zealand should be given the freedom of choice. One retailer said that New Zealand was the only place in the world which did not allow freedom of choice in shopping hours. The Government had introduced the bill because it believed that “in the final -analysis” the public had to have the say. A New Brighton retailer said that if the public were demanding Saturday shopping, why had the suburbs’ turnover dropped in comparison with the central city. There were vacant shops in New Brighton. Saturday shopping had proved to be a financial disaster in Brisbane, said . another retailer! The manager _of Myers (a big department store chain in Australia) had told him that staff turnover in the retail trade was "terrific.” Most people worked in the •shop only temporarily, until they could find a job which left their week-ends free.'. . The introduction of the Saturday shopping legislation arose from the “utter failure” of the Shop Trading Hours Commission, said one retailer. It had not .allowed any: exemptions, especially in Auckland where there was a need. The president of the Canterbury '• Retailers’ Association (Mr T. A. Gyde) said that retail support- for Saturday shopping had come only from a small group of retailers who wanted' to steal a temporary marketing ad-

vantage from their com- ’ petitors. i It could not be argued I that Saturday shopping I would cater for the tourist market, Mr Gyde said. New Zealand’s narrow choice of goods and higher prices were of no interest to tourists from countries where a wider range of low-priced merchanidse was readily available. It was unlikely that a change in shopping hours alone would create a spending spree, said Mr Gyde. Retailers would hardly need the same number of full-time staff; it was probable that the industry would use more part-time people and this could add to unemployment. With more temporary and short-term staff the consumer would probably receive a lower standard of service: “The industry will have to run itself as a giant check-out operation, taking the money at the door and letting the customers make their selection.” “If retailers do not object to and oppose the proposed legislation .at this .; time, they must accept their responsibility for destroying a unique part of the New Zealand life-style,” Mr Gyde said. The Retailers’ Association would make the strength of the local feeling known to people , such as the Minister of Labour (Mr Bolger) and ’ local members of Parliament.