RETAILERS UP IN ARMS

Chronicle (Levin), 15 March 1949, Page 6

RETAILERS UP IN ARMS

Press Association)

Minister Does Not Know ; Whai He Talks About

(Per

WELLINGTON, March 14. Hostility to the control exerclsed by legislation passed in the dying hours of the last session of Parliament, over the amount of goodwill that may he chaxged on the sale of a business, was voiced by a meeting of several hundred small retailers held in Wellington tonight. It was unanimously "-decided to call ,on the Governimenlj to repeal clause 19 of the Tenancy Act 1949. 'The meeting £iso formed a N.Z. Business* Protection Association to take further steps in the matter. During the meeting cases were quoted in reply to the statement issued to-. day by the Minister of Labour, Mr. McLagan, on the issue. It was ciaimed that these cases indieated that the Minister "did not know what he was talking about. ' ' Mr. Will Appleton, who presided, said he was pleased, as their Mayor, to respond to requests he had received to help them fight their cause. He had looked into the Minister 's statement very carefully. He agreed in the need for protecting servieemen but they aiso looked to see a fair deal for the rest of the community. Mr. Appleton referred to the particular portion of Mr. McLagan 's statement which held that leases of businesses for periods of less than two years and businesses on premises let on a weekly or monthly. tenancy, wTere left free of any control of sale or transfer of business. He quoted a Petone business bought in June 1947 for £1450. The takings wero built up from £30 to between £80 and £100 weekly. For health reasons the man and wife wished to sell and were oft'ered £1870 as follows: — Plant £150, stock £575, goodwill £1145. Tlie price fixed by the Land Valuation Court was £050. "I thiuk the time has come for a showdowu, " said Mr. Appleton amid applause. There was no need for uiis costly Saies Court, he said and the land saies legislation generally was one of the main causes of difficulty in people getting homes. If the people were in a position to pay for a business or a home, he saw no reason why they should be interfered withs ."We,ai» just not going to submit to the •GoVernment's muzzlehold, " he adde'd. y '-"j?, 'J Smair businesses " builq Britain just^s .'they bnijid up.. this qquntry and the i'uture of tliq JJiritish', 'B'Oipire depends on individual.,enterpri§ie and not on the1 socialistic idehls o$'l the present Government." Mr. J. R. Marshall M,P. described the laws as unjust, harsh and unc.onscionable but it^ was merely p&rt of the vast control system the Government was endeavouriflg to implement to the full. It usually took some.time to rouse New Zealanders bqt^ judged by the attendaneq at tlie meeting they had been rousedv./ - , Mr. Marshall ppinted out that this legislation had beeii -passed in the dying hours of the last session- of Parliament with little opportunity for full consideration. He quoted cases in refutation of Mr. McLagan 's statement, including that cited by the Mayor. "The worst case was that of a widow who pur-

ehased a bed and breakfast business in March 1948 for £1450. Rents ut that time brought in £17 weekly. Based on these the widow entered into commitments and found lierself in diliiculties. When the tenants *■' mfeals were reduced ■by the Fair Rent Act to £13/7/6, the widow was then oifered £950 for the •business which went to th'e-Land Valuation Court and. /fixed was £55(3,. Duq,,j^%fii^.ci%Sm»^hee8 the wido'w "ffgure; "Did nqf'tlfe organiser of this meet,ing get a message __froni the Priine Minister asking hi|tt 'tp defer it in the meantime? ' ' askpd^a meifibej of tiro audience wli'en questions were callcd for. " . * \ 3 After "consulting with "the organiser, Mr. Appleton sa'iSdCthe answer was that Mr. Frasdr woke ubgtoo late.* I . r.y-