Foodstuffs Auckland

"No", says supermarket boss Tony Carter.  "I'm not going to tell you how much I get paid, and no, I don't have a private jet."

In fact, the chief executive of New Zealand's seventh-largest business, Foodstuffs Auckland, gets somewhere in the vicinity of $1.3 million a year.

Hardly likely then that Carter has the same dilemma as others about what he can - or can't - afford to spend his discretionary income on.  "Obviously a lot goes into investments, some is given away to charity ... but there's no tropical island."

A finalist in the Deloitte/Management magazine executive of the year contest, Carter is hesitant when asked whether CEOs are paid too much.  "Salaries in New Zealand tend to be lower than what's available overseas but, like a lot of positions in business, they are driven by the international market.  "I'm not saying we are not paid well or we should be paid more.  But I think even those people who earn what are perceived to be very high salaries in New Zealand could earn more overseas if they wanted to."

He said some under-performing bosses continued to get hefty annual pay rises but argued that much criticism focused on what a person earned rather than how they performed.  "That does hurt. Sure, you are fair game if you do a bad job, but simply just being disrespected for what you earn is unfortunate.  It sends the wrong signal to New Zealanders - we should be trying to be successful whatever we do."

SUIT-ABILITY
A survey of more than 500 chief executives reveals the typical boss is male, 52, has four weeks' annual leave and has been in the job for fewer than five years. He earns an average salary of $216,000 plus $111,000 in extras. He gets at least one of the following benefits: company vehicle or car allowance, telephone costs, club fees, medical insurance, superannuation. And he will have received a 5.9 per cent pay rise in the past year.

The Sheffield Chief Executive Officer Survey also says bosses in Auckland have higher salary packages than those in other parts of the country, with a median value of $297,670. Last year, 56 per cent of CEOs received performance-based pay.

It was worth about 14 per cent of their package, compared to 39 per cent overseas. Only 9 per cent of New Zealand CEOs are female.

Flagship store The Warehouse Extra is among retailers failing to meet projected sales targets at Auckland's Sylvia Park complex.

But like competitors Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises, The Warehouse management remains confident business will pick up.

The only site in New Zealand to have three-way grocery competition has been going through periods of ghostly quiet on some weekdays, prompting some prospective tenants to dub it "Spooky Park".

The Sylvia Park Warehouse Extra - which opened with the rest of the complex last June - was running below present targets, chief executive chief Ian Morrice said yesterday.

But he said he still had confidence in the Mt Wellington shopping complex.

"Our view on Sylvia Park is that this is a long-term target that will take some years to mature as a location."

"The initial performance has not continued [but] that is not something that has concerned us."

Progressive Enterprises managing director Peter Smith has said its Foodtown operation at Sylvia Park has sometimes faced lower-than-expected foot traffic.

Foodstuffs chief executive Tony Carter said that after an initial flurry business revenue was down.

"I don't know the details from the actual store but we are entirely comfortable. This is something that happens at a new centre."

All three expected revenue to increase as Sylvia Park developed.

Kiwi Income Property Trust reports strong demand for tenancies and insists existing retailers are enjoying good sales. Stage three of the four-stage complex - featuring an entertainment and restaurant row - will open on March 29, making Sylvia Park New Zealand's biggest mall.

PROPERTY

Worth: $140 million

PHILIP CARTER has a $40 million war chest from his sale of a former Queenstown camping ground that will be developed by Hanover Group. He is now looking for new investment opportunities. The repositioning of the Crowne Plaza Queenstown, where he took a $20 million joint venture interest, has also taken his focus in recent months. He generally stays in his holiday home there. Between his work at Queenstown and regular trips to Europe and Australia, he fulfils duties as director of Christchurch International Airport. In central Christchurch, he owns hotels, commercial properties and blocks of residential land. At Hanmer he owns a strip of commercial buildings. His headquarters are in the Regent building in Cathedral Square, Christchurch.

Last year he bought a property near Sumner where he will be closer to his father, 89-year old Maurice, who founded the empire that Phillip bought out from other members of the family including brothers Tony, chief executive of Foodstuffs, and David, National list MP. The purchase of the Hurst Seager-designed Kinsey Tce house on Clifton Hill was controversial because he decided to demolish most of it and the neighbours kicked up a fuss because of its historical associations, and possibly something to do with their views. It was the house where Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton ate his last supper before heading south a century ago. The demolition squad did a thorough job - right down to an anchor in the garden that had been salvaged from one of Shackleton's ships. It took a couple of calls to his mate, construction magnate Buzz March, who employed the gang, to ensure the anchor was returned after some persuasive talk.

2005: $140 million

As markets go, Papatoetoe's can't hold a 10c candle to its big brother, Otara, with its South Seas flavour, streets of vendor stalls and flocks of tourists.

In fact, at Papatoetoe it takes only 15 minutes to scan the stalls in the carpark behind the St George St shops. There are no queues and one clothing stall holder still manages to smile after selling just two pairs of knickers in a morning.

But to the patrons yesterday morning, the market was their little taste of a cosmopolitan style of mixing socialising with shopping - bargains and banter.

Next Sunday, however, after 15 years, the market will be no more. The licence of market operators Nita Knight and son Jason has expired and Manukau City Council refuses to renew it - on the recommendation of the Papatoetoe Community Board.

The market's closeness to the New World Supermarket and the mainstreet shops of old Papatoetoe has led to its downfall.

Supermarket operator Hamish Walton complained that the market deprived his customers of parking space.

The terms of the market's licence provided for a section of the carpark to be kept available for New World shoppers but it was often used by market traffic. The Knights failed to get council approval for an alternative venue at the local licensing trust's tavern carpark.

They gave the bad news to stallholders and customers through a circular letter yesterday, saying it was disappointing to have to close a valued community asset, and that they hoped to find another venue.

That day cannot come soon enough for local resident Joyce McGarvey. "I don't want to see this market go and I'm angry over what's happened."

An avid sifter through second-hand goods and recycler, she brings her plastic bags from home to give to stall-holders.

She confesses an ulterior motive - the school teacher of 24 years finds the market a perfect place to meet and greet her pupils' parents, who are shy about visiting her at her office.

She recalls how neighbours used the market over the years to sell their home-made apple pies, or bedcovers and cushions to raise money to put their children through the technical institute.

The market is a treasured weekly outing for nearby residents of homes for the elderly. The board made its decision in September and would not be swayed even by a petition signed by 1000 market supporters.

Chairman Gary Troup said that complaints about the market had come from businesses other than New World. "We have people in retail who are working very hard and somebody comes in for five hours on a Sunday and takes their cream."

There are few things more frustrating for an employer or employee than being forced to obey outdated regulations that are no longer relevant to today's workplace.  Red tape of this nature is like molasses. I know from my experience as the managing director of Foodstuffs (Auckland) that it is easy for a business of any size to get bogged down.

One piece of legislation that has clearly passed its use-by date is the 22-year-old Holidays Act. Since this law was introduced, New Zealanders have changed. We've changed the nature of the work we do, and the hours we spend doing it. Once employees were mainly wage-earning 9-to-5ers, but today far more are casuals, or self-employed, or salary-earners.

Almost every other Government intervention into our working lives has been overhauled: shop opening hours have been liberalised; the Employment Contracts Act freed us from many prescriptive regulations. Yet despite all these changes, we continue to rely on the same old holidays legislation, which as well as being out of date is complex and difficult to enforce.

That's why many people in the business sector, including the Business Roundtable, have been hoping that some government would consider putting the tired old Holidays Act out of its misery.

Sadly, though, the Government is planning to replace one bad law with another. Although it cuts down on some complexities, the new Holidays Bill is hardly any more relevant to today's labour market than the act. Crucially, it still mandates holiday arrangements upon employers and employees, instead of allowing people to reach their own agreements.

As Business New Zealand and other organisations have warned, the Holidays Bill cuts down complexities in some areas, yet sprouts whole new areas of regulatory intricacies in others. It is like a pharmacist supplying you with a pill for your migraine and then giving you a whopping head-butt before you leave the store.

One cause of the headache for business owners is the news that administration and compliance costs are likely to increase rather that decrease. In fact, some tourist and retail operators could choose to remain closed on public holidays because the new legislation means it could cost the equivalent of 20 hours of ordinary pay to employ a person for one eight-hour day.

The effects of the Holidays Bill won't be confined to private business. Many public sector operations that work seven days a week - such as prisons, police, hospitals and fire services - could be affected. The Auckland District Health Board estimates its increased new costs at $1.25 million. The Government and taxpayers will need to decide between reduced services and increased taxes.

The new legislation is being examined by the parliamentary transport and industrial relations select committee, which is hearing submissions from the public.  The Business Roundtable is challenging the committee to dump both the archaic Holidays Act and the new, flawed bill. Full deregulation is both feasible and reasonable. These days there is little sense in having the Government involved in the holiday arrangements between employers and employees.

Despite dire warnings from unions in the 1990s, a decade of life under the Employment Contracts Act showed that employers and employees are sophisticated labour market participants.  As with the Employment Contracts Act, we will find that moving to a deregulated environment does not lead to either group employers or employees having a chokehold on the other.

Repealing this legislation would not put us out in the wilderness internationally; the world's richest and most productive economy, the United States, has no statutory provisions at all governing annual leave or the terms of employment concerning public holiday arrangements.

Left on their own, employers and employees have the scope and the ability to structure work, pay and holiday arrangements in a way that is satisfactory to both sides. Regulation makes it difficult or impossible for this to happen.

If the committee cannot bring itself to recommend a fundamental review of the act with a view to its repeal, it should at least recommend that only minimum holiday entitlements are set by law, and that employers and employees should be free to negotiate mutually acceptable holiday terms, including trading pay for time, and vice versa.

The old Holidays Act is a molasses of legislation. The new Holidays Bill may have a slightly different flavour, but the outcome will be just as annoyingly sticky for workplaces.