What was negotiator thinking?

THE more closely the role of the Public Sector Remuneration Committee is examined, the more questionable its operation - and purpose - becomes.

As the States' negotiating body it has a duty to reach settlements with government's thousands of staff that are fair, affordable and have regard to the economic climate and this community's aspirations. To that end, it also has an obligation to be careful with public money and not give away more than is strictly necessary.

For that reason alone, the deal it has struck with some staff - alleged restraint subject to a 3% minimum rise - was always going to be open to challenge, if only for the staff side merely paying lip service to economically difficult times.

But with inflation down to 1.2% and set to fall further, that settlement now looks reckless in the extreme and a further blow to government policy to keep expenditure at or below RPI.

Perhaps worse, the PSRC chairman won't discuss the committee's actions or what possessed it to make such a settlement. He is, of course, in good company. The civil service union representative was also uncharacteristically shy when approached and asked if members were so wedded to restraint whether they would renegotiate a more appropriate settlement.

It did, however, emerge that the deal PSRC announced in December is not the one the union believes it reached, which is a further question mark against the committee.

But the really worrying aspect is yesterday's attempt by the committee to justify the 3% minimum settlement, in which it says that pay agreements are not just about inflation levels. Other factors apply, including staff recruitment and retention, the needs of employees and the employer.

That, apparently, justifies an RPI-busting settlement for civil servants but not for teachers. That group is facing a rise of less than one percent because no minimum was included in the agreement. It is a baffling outcome. If a minimum was rejected for teachers, why not civil servants and others? Was it included because PSRC caved in when a second group raised the matter?

If the teachers' settlement is fair and reasonable, what does it make the civil servants'?

The PSRC's performance is questionable indeed.