CHAIN STORES

Evening Post, Issue 73, 23 September 1936, Page 12

CHAIN STORES

INQUIRY CONTINUED

TODAY'S HEARING

NAMES WITHDRAWN

MR. WYLIE'S STATEMENT

The Industries and Commerce) Committee of the House of Repic-j sentatives continued today its hearing of the petition asking for legislation to control the activities of chain stores. Mr. G. G. G. Watson is appearing for a group of department stores and Mr. Arthur Douglas Wylie is in charge of the petition. Mr. J. Hodgens presided. Mr. Watson said that during the adjournment he had had a chance of investigating the bona fides of certain signatories. Mr. Wylie had said that he had been able to make only a bare existence, but he was able to employ four or five canvassers who were promised remuneration of 20 per cent, of the donations from the signatories, plus travelling expenses. Numerous applications had been received from people asking to have their names withdrawn from the petition, and he had had advice of many who had written to the chairman. Mr. Watson said he had also obtained a copy of the printed receipt that Mr. Wylie issued to subscribers to his petition. The receipt was quoted by Mr. Watson as follows: — Received from the sum of towards the expenses of the presentation to Parliament of a petition by the retail trade in New Zealand against the unrestricted operations of departmental stores and overseas capital interests, and towards payment of the services and expenses of the organiser for the petition, Mr. Arthur Wylie. . REQUEST OF BUYING CONCERN. ; Mr.' Watson said that he had also received from the Wellington Federated Buyers a letter asking to have their name withdrawn from the petition. The letter read: "My organisation acts as buyer for a number of independent grocery and general stores. We represent in all approximately- 53 stores. We and our client storekeepers have been very concerned at the statements made before a Parliamentary Committee by Mr. Wylie in support of his petition. Many of our client storekeepers signed the petition under an entire misapprehension, and, having read the newspaper reports of Mr. Wylie's statements to the Committee, they now wish to withdraw their support to the petition. . . . Finally, we wish to state on behalf of our organisation that we feel that we are quite able to meet, and indeed to beat, the competition of chain stores while preserving the identity of the individual independent storekeeper. Acting for so many independents, we have a greater buying strength than most chain-store organisations, and the independents that we are catering for find themselves in a position to meet the chain store on its own ground." Mr. Watson said the letter covered forty or fifty people who wished to have their names withdrawn. Mr. A. S. Richards (Roskill) thought that the turn the evidence had taken required some serious deliberation by the Committee before it proceeded any further. The Chairman: I would suggest that It might be as well as • hear Mr. Wylie's explanation. Mr. Richards: I suggest that Mr. Wylie should be allowed to make his Statement, and then we should deliberate to determine what further action We should take. MR. WYLIE'S STATEMENT. ■Mr. Wylie said he did not think a great deaf of reliability could be placed on the people who had asked to have their names withdrawn, because the petition consisted of only two lines, end it was difficult to see how they had signed it under a misapprehension. Some of the people had given him from £1 Is downwards, but the majority had given him practically nothing. Out of more than 8000 in the North Island there were only a little more than 3000 who had given donations. They ranged from 3d to 2s 6d in the majority of cases, and above 10s in 26 or 27 cases. He did not wish the inference to be drawn that the majority of people in the North Island had given r guinea. The people who signed the petition were not such big fools as Mr. Watson suggested. Sixty per cent, of the business people in New Zealand were lacking in business acumen and business intelligence. Mr. Petrie: 60 per cent.? • Mr. Wylie: 60 to 80 per cent. I will Stick to 80 per cent. The Chairman: Would you say all the business- acumen is in chain stores? Mr. Wylie: They have the brains of the country, apart from Parliament, of course. (Laughter.) Mr. Wylie said that all those signatures put,in by Mr. Watson, had been organised by one individual, who was a merchant. Mr. Watson: That is contrary to fact. Mr. Wylie: I say definitely that the organiser is a merchant who is eking out a living by buying on a percentage basis for those individual stores. The chairman said he had letters from a number of people in various parts of the Dominion asking to have their names removed from the petition and dissociating themselves from the representations made by Mr. Wylie. Mr. Wylie: That may be so, but you will find that every one is a member of the same buying organisation. The Chairman: They are only individual retailers as far as I can gather. Mr. Watson: Every one of them. Mr. Wylie: They belong to this organisation. BUTCHERS' SUPPORT. Mr. Wylie produced a telegram from the Canterbury Master Butchers' Association to the effect that it was still ■^strongly in support of the petition. He had dozens of letters wishing him the best of luck and hoping that he would be successful. The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan): Did you personally get the signatures? i!tt. There were four others besides myself. I called on 300 or 400 signatories. The Minister remarked that there must be a conflict between the petitioners and those associated with combined buyers. "Even if they had signed the petition," remarked Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Wylie, "do not the statements you have made represent in effect your own personal outlook, and not the outlook of those who signed the petition? You have had no way of testing it, have you?" Mr. Wylie: I have unbiased opinions On behalf of the masses. The Minister: It is still your own opinion. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (National, Egmont): Perhaps Mr. Wylie intends to call some of the petitioners in support of his statement. Mr. Wylie: There are many who ■would come forward before a Royal Commission, but they are afraid to come put now because of victimisation. The Minister: Parliament is the

highest. Court in the land. Why should they not be willing to give before Parliament the evidence they would give before a Royal Commission? Mr. Wylie: They are afraid of the publication of the evidence. The Minister: What I want to know is to what extent does your statement represent the true viewpoint of the people who signed the petition. In reply to cross-examination, Mr. Wylie admitted that the C.W.S. had no capital invested in New Zealand, but they did supply goods. It was pointed out by the chairman that the Committee would not be satisfled with the evidence until it had had i the opportunity of hearing statements I from some of those who had signed the | petition. I Mr. Wylie: 1 am thoroughly in accord with that. The chairman: Will you arrange lor certain of them to come before the Committee to give evidence? Mr. Wylie: I can only do so il the Press is not present. They arc not prepared to make statements in the Press that will lead to victimisation. Mr. Watson said that Woolworth's, McKenzie's. and Mac Duff's had not seen the letter he had handed in, and did not know he had received it until he read it to the Committee today. The chairman said they had reached a stage where the Committee should have before it the representatives of the other interests that Mr. Wylie said he had authority to act for, and they should insist on having the evidence. Mr. Wilkinson: The evidence we have in support of the petition is not conclusive at all. BASIS OF QUALITY. On behalf of the Advisory Council of the New Zealand Standards Institute Mr. L. J. McDonald, the secretary', submitted that the protection sought by the owners of individual stores against chain store competition could be best, provided by the progressive application of the principle of standardisation. The ° adoption oi' standards, or standard specification;!, he said, provided a measure of quality in the same way that a standard measure of length or weight provided a measure of quantity, and therefore established a basis for price competition in relation to quality, which, after all, was little, ii1 any, less important than quantity. In twenty-two of the leading industrial countries the quality, utility, performance, capacity, convenience, and' safety of an increasing proportion of goods and equipment were reliably indicated to purchasers through the promulgation of standard specifications by impartial : experts. These denned the quality of the base material or component constituents of goods and the processes of manufacture. By this means the buyer was relieved of the necessity of purchasing on the basis of his own inexpert knowledge, plus the assurance of persuasive salespeople and specious^ advertisements, which, together with statements of labels, were frequently so misleading. The Committee adjourned until Wednesday next.