Mr Nash, Mr Atkin In Heated Exchange

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29268, 28 July 1960, Page 16

Mr Nash, Mr Atkin In Heated Exchange

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 27, The Prime Minister (Mr Nash) and the former Auditor-General (Mr C. J. R. Atkin) had a heated exchange in the House of Representatives lobby today. Earlier, Mr Atkin sat at the back of the House as Mr Nash said: “The former Auditor-Genferal has been acting in a political manner and has been trying to make things difficult for the Government.” Speaking in the discussion on Ministerial replies to questions, Mr Nash said: “It was unfortunate that this year’s Auditor-General’s report was not the work of the current Auditor-General but of the former Auditor-General. It was a pity there were misleading statements in the report, but it is worse still that the retired Auditor-General is continually going to the press and making incorrect statements.”

Mr Atkin spoke to Mr Nash as the Prime Minister left the chamber when the House rose for the tea adjournment. The two men appeared to speak to each other heatedly and then Mr Nash walked away from Mr Atkin.

Later, Mr Atkin in a statement to the Press Association said: “My statements to the press on July 6 and July 14 are correct, and on two occasions I have offered to the Prime Minister to repeat them on oath. I can do no more. I leave it to the public to judge who is correctly stating the facts.” Oatb of Secrecy

In the House today, Mr Nash said the Public Service Commission was “looking into the matter” to see if Mr Atkin had broken the Public Service oath of secrecy.

In reply to a question by Mr J. G. Edwards (Government, Napier) Mr Nash said the Solici-tor-General (Mr H. R. C. Wild, Q.C.) aild officers in the Customs Department, the Treasury and the Law Drafting Office, denied that Mr Atkin had asked them about earlier use of provisions in the Customs Amendment Act, 1921.

Mr Edwards: Can anything be done to prevent a former Audi-tor-General supplying inaccurate information to the public? Mr Nash: There is no way of preventing a person, if he so wishes, supplying inaccurate information to the public. But in reply to a question by Mr G, A Walsh (Opposition, Tauranga), Mr Nash said there was no “irregular or unfair” procedure by the Audit Office in connexion with matters referred to in the Auditor-General’s report.

Mr Nash said he did not think the Auditor-General had consciously misled the House in his report, but he thought there were some misleading statements in it.

When Mr A. E. Kinsella (Opposition, Hauraki) asked Mr Nash if he would alter the provisions in the 1921 Act which permit tax alterations while Parliament is not sitting, Mr Nash replied loudly: “No, No. It’s not bad law. It’s the practice in the United Kingdom.” Inquiry Suggested

Mr Nash said the Auditor-Gen-eral should feel free to say what he liked. “But it’s his job to report to Parliament. He should not say it in the press. That’s entirely wrong.” Mr Nash said Mr Atkin, as a retired Auditor-General, had the right to “go” to the press. “But he ought not to. He should not use information be got in bis term of office as Auditor-Gen-eral,” he added. Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako): Why not have an inquiry? Mr Nash: Mr Atkin has told me he is presenting a petition to Parliament and I told him I hoped he would. Mr J H Hanan (Opposition. Invercargill) said the Government had been “sticking the boot” into the present AuditorGeneral and the former AuditorGeneral. Some of Mr Nash’s

statements were “quite improper.” “The Prime Minister has said the Auditor-General must report to Parliament, but the Public Revenue Act, 1953, says the Audi-tor-General can communicate with the Minister of Finance or with any other person concerned with any account or transaction subject to audit.” Mr Hanan said. Mr C. G. E. Harker (Opposition, Hawke’s Bay) said it was distressing that the Government was attempting to destroy public confidence in the Auditor-Gen-eral. Mr A. E. Allen (Opposition, Franklin) said the Labour Party appeared to have a traditional dislike for auditing. He claimed the management of some union funds had been “shocking.” Mr Allen’s remark drew vigorous protests from the Government. The Minister of Marine (Mr Fox) a former union secretary, called it a "slur” on unions. “Auditor-Generals should not spread themselves too much in press statements,” said Mr Fox. “Publicity goes to some people’s heads.”