Tony Marryatt and the $68,000 pay rise

03 Feb 2012 07:20p.m.

Jimmy wrote:

Tony Marryatt was offered the rise by the councillors and he honoured their offer by accepting it. He did not negotiate this increase. No wonder there is an uprising in Chch against the Mayor and elected councillors. Something has gone dreadfully wrong in NZ Local Politics when a CEO (used to be "Town Clerk")of a region can get more than the Prime Minister of New Zealand and in the Christchurch City Region - the CEO gets more than Mr Obama - President of the USA. Where and when did true perspective go so very very wrong? Can it be fixed????

02 Feb 2012 01:51p.m.

Philip wrote:

Thanks to the moderator for the extra space.

The pay rise would equate to somewhere around fifty cents per ratepayer or less. Some perspective perhaps?

Perspective means wondering why Wellington ratepayers aren't forming a torch carrying mob despite their CEO on a pro rata basis earning a much higher salary. Assuming that all council CEO jobs are comparable?

What should Mr Marryatt be paid? I haven't got the first idea. How many people are suitably qualified to determine public or private sector senior management position salary packages in NZ? Or think they know how to run their local authority better than those charged with the task? Most Cantabs with an internet connection apparently.

Quote comment #142 from Stuff thread quoted in my previous comment: Even if he is working really really hard, when you look at his pay in relation to normal people's you can't argue that he is working THAT MUCH harder than everyone else.

Professionals aren't paid only by how hard they can work, they're paid the going rate of professionals. Which is why a sparky costs a lot more than a shelf stacker. Are people really this stupid?

If I was Tony Marryatt faced with a tidal wave of negative public opinion I would probably resign simply because I would not want to live in a city where I was now so unwelcome.

Reply to Colleen: If you're husband ever earned total income of $54 850 or more in a tax year then at current marginal tax rates he did in fact earn as much as Mr Marryatt's now relinquished pay rise, at least after tax. The $68 129 pay increase at Mr Marryatt's 35.04% marginal rate of tax comes out at $44 256 net, or $54 850 when grossed up using your husband's PAYE marginal tax rate . Mr Marryatt's after tax pay increase is 13.8%. His after tax salary initially went up from $319 521 to $363 804. Doesn't quite sound as impressive as $538 529 once the $174 724 in PAYE is deducted. That's an effective tax rate of 32.4%

I don't care how good or bad Campbell Live is. You can turn my TV off when you take the remote out of my cold dead hand.

02 Feb 2012 07:50a.m.

Philip wrote:

To Sir or Madam, I am very thankful for your reply.

I'd would like to reply in kind.

First of all, studies show that if you smile... whether it's fake or not, your body will release pleasure chemicals regardless. Tell a friend!!

I am a Wellington ratepayer. Our CEO Garry Poole is paid a salary of $418 230 to manage a local authority with a population of not more than 200 000. He received annual pay increases of $19 000 in 2010 and $13 000 in 2011. His salary has doubled in the 13 years since taking the job.

I noted one ignorant comment from a Cantab (Stuff.co.nz: Marryatt's pay a 'red rag' to city residents comment #53) saying they would like Mr Marryatt to be paid a similar amount to Garry Poole. This would perhaps require scaling up the WCC CEO salary to roughly $600-800K in consideration of the much larger population of the CCC local authority area. This person was angry that Mr Marryatt was grossly underpaid? Clearly this comment contains no distinction between Greater Wellington and the fragmented local authorities it consists of. Garry Poole does not manage a region of around 400 000 people.

There are a lot of table-thumping emotionally charged comments that don't seem to have a lot of substance to them around the pay issue. Most comments are of a similar ambiguous nature as to why or why not the pay increase is justified and could be picked apart with a few straightforward questions.

In the item with Mr Marryatt, he is told by Mr Clayton that his new salary (and his old salary) is greater than that of John Key and Barack Obama. Mr Clayton doesn't back this statement up with the relevance of this fact to anything else. The same can be said for Garry Poole, David Meates, Roger Sutton and Doug McKay. John Key took a pay cut to enter politics. He's not there merely to 'cream it'. John Key and Roger Federer: they both work because they enjoy it, neither has to.

I beg the most gracious moderator for one supplementary comment!

01 Feb 2012 07:52p.m.

colleen wrote:

my firefighter husband of over40 years, even with overtime has never earned the income of this payrise even with overtime. Maybe the higher up you get the more you think you are worth, our insurances (out side chch) have all gone up as we as a country are paying the price to rebuild ChCH, but I think CHCH needs to come to terms with being a town, it has lost its identity, its council think it is worth more than its ratepayers and NZ can no longer keep subsidizing its rebuild, councillors paycheck, and overinflated wage increases while NZ employers struggle for a 2% staffing increase - cheers Colleen

01 Feb 2012 07:33p.m.

S K Whanau wrote:

It is so sad to see the type of greed, desensitised, distant type of people we have in our country.
You cannot make decisions like this without knowing what you are doing. How can you take any sort of funds knowing so many people are going without, there comes a point where you have to humble yourself and say I have enough and this is not a time to take what others need.
Be sure that everybody is accountable for ones choices in life and it will all come back around to bite butts deserving. Stay strong CH CH

01 Feb 2012 07:22p.m.

Alan wrote:

I Think maybe it would be a good idea togive the enormours pay packages to the police ,Fire fighters and ambulance and get rid of ceo and Mayor

Also If we have a Mayor of CHCH why do we need a CEO Surely thats the job of the mayor

01 Feb 2012 11:48a.m.

steven pearson wrote:

well if the chch council can afford these payrises they dont need the money donated to rebuild chch from me

01 Feb 2012 09:48a.m.

Reya wrote:

I have watched with dismay as you programme has fanned the flames of the Tony Marryatt pay rise story. As a Chch reisdent I can tell you that this has not been a huge topic of conversation and I don't hear the public calling for the Mayors head. While there is no doubt that the CEO pay rise was poorly timed the blame should sit at the feet of the councillors who voted for it. Perhaps Tristram Clayton should run down a couple of them and give them the National Enquirer treatment that he did to Tony Marryatt. Come on Campbell Live this is cheap and sensationalist journalism at its worst. Shame on you. It is time to let this story drop. Let Christchurch return it's focus to the rebuild.

01 Feb 2012 07:33a.m.

To Philip wrote:

Sir as you say Campbell Live made five formal requests to interview Tony Marryatt, they showed restraint and respect -they even tolerated him SNEAKING out the back door to avoid the media - his claims that he has never received those requests throws the blame on the office receptionsit and the communications staff which is Marryatt's way - shift the blame! he was dishonest about several things in the interview that are directly atrributable to his mismangement and I think he is thumbing his nose at all Chrsitchurch ratepayers who oppose him. If you do in fact live in Christchurch and you are happy for your rates money to be eaten up by Marryatt and Parker so be it, that is your right but I would prefer to see honourable councillors serving our city with energy and integrity and working under the mandate of a professional rather than being terrorised by the Stalin type, manic personality of the current CEO. And next time your don't like something on the tele just turn it off!

31 Jan 2012 11:39p.m.

Colin wrote:

The pay rise the CEO fought hard to hang on to was only a small straw on the back of his already dismal performance. He's been over spending ratepayers money and not delivering to them. His council have also been giving away community amenities at a great cost to Christchurchs current and future generations for the private profiterring of developers.