OBJECT OF AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATIONS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 20 April 1934, Page 7

OBJECT OF AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATIONS

(To tlio Editor) Sir, —In reply to Mr Barltrop’s letter in yqur issue of IStli inst. 1 certainly agree with him that associations have a general duty to watch the interest. of all motorists and that lorry owners are eligible as members. A number of them are members of the N.A.A.

Mr Barltrop’s grievance .seems to be that automobile associations did not put up a light against the Transport Act. As a matter of fact the principle of control of transport —a world-wide problem—by transport boards lias, I think, been tacitly admitted by associations and the country generally to be a national necessity. But when the regulations governing the working of the Act were promulgated, the South Island Motor Union and its various associations, including the N.A.A., did take an active interest. In No 1 soil the Progress League convened a public meeting largely attended by carriers when the draft goods-serviee regulations came out. The N.A.A. were represented, and on its behalf 1 fully explained the Act and proposed regulations and pointed out some of the injustices that should be remedied, such as the goodwill of a carrier’s business being practically lost, the lack of provision for the transfer of licenses, the unfairness of a purchaser not being able to take advantage of the so-called “automatic rights” of bis vendor, etc. Several resolutions were passed and I bad correspondence with tlie Commissioner of Transport on these points. Most of them have now been remedied.

At Mr Barltrop’s request, the N.A.A. convened a meeting a few months ago to discuss the Act when only the executive of the association turned up. My remarks as quoted by Mr Barltrop from your report, robbed of their context, hardly bring out the full import of what 1 said at last week’s meeting of the executive. We were talking of tlie proposal to discuss tlie Act. when 1 stated that it hardly seemed worth while as nobody except the executive was keen enough to come along and I doubted whether it was the job of tlie executive accordingly (I may have said “of the association”) to hold a discussion when no lead had been given as to wliat 'aspect of tlie Act was to be considered. However, I think it will be conceded that the N.A.A. would take up the cudgels if any real flaw in the Act was pointed out that was working against the principle of reasonable control. None of us likes the Act which is no doubt working harshly on some unfortunate carriers, bqt it seems that we have no option but to accept it and make tlie best of tilings until some constructive proposal of criticism shows a better solution. It seems a hopeless task if it is considered that we should fight to have the Act repealed. No intimation from those vitally interested that they would like this done lias so far reached the association or even the S.I.M.U. as far as I know

In regard to Dr. Gibbs's dual position as our president and as chairman of the licensing authority for this district, it has . been the opinion of tlie S.I.M.U. and its associations, openly expressed,' that motorists were fortunate in having one of their own representatives helping tp administer the Act, when their interests could to some extent he watched. Further Dr. Gibbs and the association were congratulated on the appointment. Should his position as our president at any time conflict with Iris other duty, I have no doubt but that he would be the first to realise it and act accordingly. Certainly if he did not, the association would dra\V his attention to the matter.

I must apologise Mr Editor in asking for so much space but I think the association members should not he misled by the said letter. —I am, etc., CYRIL M. ROUT. Nelson, 19th April.

[To the Editor] Sir, —May I correct an unfair and misleading impression conveyed by Mr H. Barltrop’s letter, wherein lie deals with the conduct of a recent special general meeting of the association. When the discussion was “closed” by the reply of the mover (which was not made until the chairman had asked if members had anything further to say), one member did made an additional comment without any objection being raised, but when another member was about to speak again, a point of order—as Mr Barltrop knows —was directly raised by one of the vice-presidents, and the' president therefore had no option whatever hut to uphold the objection. Had the point been raised earlier in the discussion, which it was quite open for Mr Barltrop to have done, it is equally obvious that of necessity it must have been upheld.—l am, etc., E. R. NEALE. Secretary Nelson Automobile Association, Nelson, 19th April.