PUBLIC SERVICE CLAIMS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 110, 22 February 1950, Page 3

PUBLIC SERVICE CLAIMS.

ONE WITNESS FOR COMMISSION CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR ATKINSON (P.A.) WELLINGTON, February 21. The' Public Service Commission’s only witness, Mr L. A. Atkinson, an Assistant Public Service Commissioner, was cross-examined at to-day’s sitting of the Government Service Tribunal. He was still giving evidence when the tribunal rose till to-morrow. The tribunal is hearing claims by the Public Service Association for increased salaries and margins. Submitting that the Public Service Association had failed to prove its ease for salary increases for Government servants under commission con trol and that it should be disallowed, Mr E. R. Winkel, for the Public Service Commission, in his address said that 115,000 Government servants could be affected by any salary increases granted by the tribunal. Each £lO increment would cost more than £1,000,000, Mr Kinkel said.

The number under commission control was 51,000 —28,789 on the permanent staff, 2369 on the temporary staff and 20,000 workmen engaged under a Public Service regulation. The figure of 115,000 was accounted for by the addition of 64,000 other public servants in departments not under commission control —railways 26,700, Post and Telegraph 16,100, teachers 11,000. police 1500, and armed forces 8700. “The estimated cost of a £22 a year increase- for Government servants is not less than £2,500,000,” said Mr Winkel, who drew attention to the review of the Dominion’s economic position by the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) and to the statement by Mr Attlee that increased demands for money payments when there was no increase in production to meet them led straight to inflation. More than 230 facts and expressions of opinion were said by Mr J. P. Lewin, advocate for the Public .Service Association, to be contained in. written submissions put before the tribunal in reply to the association’s claim. Mr Lewin said that, as only one witness was called by Mr Winkel, he would have to cross-examine the oke witness concerning the great number of points presented.

National Party Pamphlet “Surely you are going to spare us that,” said Judge Stilwell (chairman of the tribunal) when Mr Lewin produced a National Party folder which he- called a “pre-election party dodger.” “That is not a publication by the Government,” said Mr Winkel. “It is from a party which subsequently became the Government.” Mr Lewin handed the document to Mr Atkinson and asked him to read a paragraph in the folder headed “A satisfied Civil Service,” which read in part: “No civil servant will, have occasion to fear a change of Government. It is imperative in the interests of New Zealand to have a satisfied civil service.”

Mr Lewin questioned Mr Atkinson about his corroboration of the opening submission of Mr Winkel. Mr Atkinson did not agree that he had merely co-operated to provide blanket authenticity for Mr Winkel’s opinions. He had gone through the submissions carefully and satisfied himself as far as lie was able that they were correct.

The witness agreed that the association’s claims implied a distinction between skilled and less skilled, not only between skilled and unskilled. After answering a number of questions on the truth of statements in the submissions, Mr Atkinson admitted he had qualified some of them. He did not think, however, that there had been any serious weakening of the commission’s case.

Mr Lewin referred to a statement in the 1949 standard wage pronouncement that,, in applying the pronouncement due regard must be paid to increases granted since October, 1947. Had not the door been left open to the Court to allow such increases? asked Mr Lewin. It had in fact allowed them in a number of awards. Was not the door left open to the Government Service Tribunal also? 'Mr Atkinson agreed that if it had been left open to the Court it had also been left open to the tribunal. The commission’s figures about the effect on the national economy of an increase in Public Service salaries were quoted by Mr Lewin. He asked Mr Atkinson if farmers had not had an increase in income in the last year. Would not an increase in farming incomes without a corresponding increase in production be inflationary? Mr Atkinson agreed to the extent that there was more money and no more goods to be bought. Asked if the expenditure of a large sum on compulsory military training would tend to have an inflationary effect, Mr Atkinson said: “To a degree, yes. Any unproductive expenditure leads that way. The fact .that it might tend to be inflationary is not necessarily a barrier." * After a brief re-examination, Mr Winkel closed the case and members of the tribunal began to question Mr Atkinson.