A.A. parts prices ‘wrong’

Press, 7 July 1977, Page 3

A.A. parts prices ‘wrong’

PA Wellington i i. Motor companies would j have to face the public reac-! tion to Automobile Association incompetence, a Motor [ Vehicle Dealers’ Institute I official, Mr G. H. Roake,| told the Commission, of In-| quiry into the distribution of j motor-vehicle parts yester- ; day.

He said that a section of I ‘the association’s submission! was riddled with mistakes. I I The section, which was a; comparison of prices from i [franchise holders and other; ' distributors, was irrespon-; isible because of its errors' and the naming of motor | companies allegedly charging j the high prices. The section contained not only incorrect prices but also comparisons between two completely different parts. The association had ridiculed motor companies, which would now have to stand the rebuttal of its incompetence. A Nelson company, Vining and Scott, Ltd, had been' made by the association’s! 'submission to look like; ■ “profit mongers” when this) ■ was not the case. i Mr Roake asked the asso-, ! ciation’s secretary-general ■ (Mr R. W. Lithgow) to with-j draw the comparison chart' from the submission because of the errors it contained. Mr Lithgow said that he! would not do this until he 'had checked the figures :

complained of and taken ad-1 vice on the matter. He denied that the association’s submission was riddled with [mistakes but said that it [could contain some. [ He apologised to the com|mission for an error in the [price-list section of the subj mission, which had incorrectly quoted the price of a Triumph 2000 front engine 'pipe at $142.59 from an [Auckland franchise dealer. The correct price should [have been $7.30. The error had been caused [by the transposition of two [sets of figures. ■ The commission’s chair- ; man (Mr M. J. Moriarty) [said that he accepted Mr ! Lithgow’s apology to the 'commission and to the dealer named in the submission.

The association’s technical services manager in Auckland (Mr R. G. Lewis) agreed under crossexamination by Mr M. C. Walls for the Ford Motor Company, that figures in the submission had not been |checked. 1 The association had been I too busy preparing its sub--1 mission to make inquiries of 'motor companies. i Mr Lewis said that he had ionly five staff at his disiposal in Auckland. He de- ! nied an a assertion by Mr i Walls that he could have (made inquires in the three ! weeks available between the price survey and inquiry. Mr Lithgow agreed’ with

I Mr Walls that the submission contained some mistakes but denied that it had been written to gain publicity. Insufficient checks had I been made on some items listed in the submission. I To Mr M. O’Brien, Q.C.,| I for the Todd Motors Corpor-j 'ation, Mr Lithgow said that! he had appeared in a South' Pacific Television interview on Monday evening while still a sworn witness of the inquiry. ! He agreed that his associjation had sought complaints [from its members to present ■ at the inquiry. Complaints had been sought through two association magazines, which had a combined circulation of 300,000. The association had received 176 written complaints. Two further association officials who helped to compile the submission will be cross-examined today. Federated Fanners’ technical advisor (Mr R. Odinot) told the commission that retail-price lists for spare parts should be made readily available by distributors to' the public. Sales tax on agricultural machinery and motor-vehicle i spare parts should be abolished. Price-control legislation should be revised to actively stimulate competition, efficiency, and productivity in industry. Mr Odinot said that the Industrial Development Commission should be asked to conduct a review of

motor-vehicle and agricul-tural-machinery industries engaged in the importing, assembly, and manufacture of vehicles, machinery, and parts. [ Sales tax should fall on [consumer goods rather than iproductive goods.