CHAIN STORES

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 68, 17 September 1936, Page 10

CHAIN STORES

RETAILERS' PETITION

HEARING BY COMMITTEE

TODAY'S EVIDENCE

Further evidence in support of the retailers' petition to Parliament asking for legislation to control the activities of chain and department stores was heard by the Industries and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives today. Before resuming his evidence, Mr. A. V. Wylie, of Wellington, put in a letter from the Master Butchers' Federation of New Zealand withdrawing a signature from the petition, but said the withdrawal was solely due to the inability of the association to give financial support, as the butchers were behind the petition. Mr. Wylie said he had received a letter from Mr. Tunley, the president of the Master Butchers' Association, withdrawing his signature as the association was unable to offer any financial support. Mr. A. S. Richards (Roskill) asked if that was the only reason for withdrawal. Mr. Wylie said he had written to the association asking for financial support and Mr. Tunley had replied that the association was unable to give that support and wanted the name erased. He believed the butchers were still behind the petition and the master butchers of Canterbury were strongly behind it. He put in a letter from that organisation and letters from the retail grocers of Canterbury, the Chemists' Service Guild of New Zealand (Otago district), the South Island Fruit Retailers' Association, the Canterbury and Westland tobacconists, and watchmakers and jewellers supporting the petition. • WHOLESALE TRADING. Mr. Wylie went on to deal with the Co-operative Wholesale Society of Great Britain, which, he said, had an annual turnover at wholesale prices of over £200,000,000. To satisfy the needs of its markets it had entered into production on its own account and was in a position to supply many of the requirements which New Zealand imported. There were C.W.S. agents in Wellington, and extensive advertising had been undertaken to pave the way for trade. If the Government was going to foster that class of cooperative trading, his suggestion was that the sooner every means of production in New Zealand was socialised the better. There should either be elimination of such concerns from New Zealand or socialisation of the trading and production of the country. The C.W.S. had co-operated to smash small traders by the use of chain and department stores, combined with "cut-throat" competition and "decoy" selling, and backed by untold millions of capital. Mr. Wylie went on to detail the ramifications of the C.W.S. in Great Britain. Mr. Wylie next dealt with Boots (N.Z.), Ltd., and said that chain and department stores led to "dead-end" employment which was a social menace. Such stores also led to the depreciation of real estate values. He alleged that Boots' was connected with a South African organisation, but admitted to Mr. Lan Macarthur, who represented Boots (N.Z.), Ltd., that he had no direct evidence regarding that. ROYAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED. In conclusion, Mr. Wylie suggested that the Committee should recommend the setting up of,a Royal Commission so that business men could give their evidence in support of the petition, not only in Wellington, but also, throughout New Zealand. With the Press present at the Committee many business men would not come forward because of the fear of victimisation. Victimisation was rife throughout New Zealand, he said, and he knew business men who would not come forward because they feared they would lose business if they did so. A Royal Commission would remedy that. Mr. Richards: Don't you think the Committee has a thorough grasp of the position? Mr. Wylie said he realised the Committee contained business men who had a knowledge of retail business conditions. He asked if there was a possibility of a Royal Commission being set up. The Chairman: That rests with the Committee, Mr. Wylie. ? In reply to Mr. G. G. G. Watson, who represented Woolworths (N.Z.), Ltd., J. R. McKenzie, Ltd., and Macduffs, Mr. Wylie said his objective was "one man, one shop, one department," and any organisation that owned more than one shop should be taxed. Mr. Watson: Did all the people who signed your petition appreciate that your object was one man, one shop, one department? Mr. Wylie: Yes, they certainly did. Mr. Watson asked why some of the petitioners had written to the Committee saying that their signatures had been obtained by misrepresentation. Mr. Wylie: Is it possible for any person of common sense to sign a thing without reading it? There were only two lines to read. i In reply to a further question, Mr. Wylie said the Chinese and Hindu fruiterers who had signed the petition were interested in the matter because they had a right to say what should be kept in their shops. There were organisations behind the petition. It had been started by the Retail Traders' Association, but that association had "gone phut." The petition was backed by individuals and business associations. It had always been understood that the gross profit to be recommended between manufacturers and retailers was 20 per cent. He had not done any manufacturing but had taken his figure from a wholesaler, and believed that those who had signed the petition would agree to that limitation of profit. He suggested that retailers should make at least 25 per cent., but he did not consider that would increase the cost of living because the cost to the retailer would be smaller. Mr. Watson: So you are going to squeeze the wholesaler and gorge the retailer. Mr. Wylie: It will not gorge the retailer; it will merely give him a decent standard of living that he has not got at present. Mr. Wylie admitted that there had been many departmental stores in New Zealand for as long as he could remember, but said it was only during the last four years that the individual retailers had been attacked by department stores. He objected to overseas capital being used in retail business in New Zealand, but agreed that outside capital could be used in the Dominion. To Mr. A. W. Free, representing the National Dairy Association, which is the New Zealand agent for the Cooperative Wholesale Society, Mr. Wylie said he had no evidence to show that there was C.W.S. capital in New Zealand, but its capital was represented by goods imported. He objected to C.W.S. goods being supplied to co-operative dairies so that they could cut the prices of retailers. Goods were supplied in opposition to New I Zealand articles, and he considered ! preference should ba given to New i Zealand manufacturers.

Mr. Free: Your objection boils down