Wagner Nicky: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on this Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill. I understand that there are some concerns about the level of salaries of council chief executive officers because coming from Christchurch I am particularly familiar with the argument. There has been considerable angst about the salary of the Christchurch City Council chief executive officer increases in that salary—particularly because they were made during particularly difficult times in our city—and how the back payment should be made. But generally speaking councils manage the employment and remuneration of their chief executive officers with good judgment they seek remuneration advice and except for a couple of high-profile situations generally it is under good control. 
Of course the National Government is extremely interested in the costs of local government. We are appalled by the rates increases that have happened in New Zealand to ratepayers since 2002 and the change legislation. We want our councils to be more efficient more responsive and better focused. Ratepayers need to be confident that their councils are spending their money wisely that they are operating in a cost-effective manner and that they are delivering the services that they need and want. As has been discussed in the House we are working hard on reforms that will provide that stronger governance more responsible financial management and improved efficiency. 
We agree with Annette King that ratepayers would like a more transparent process of managing the chief executive officer’s appointment—both their employment and remuneration policies. Under the new legislation that is going through the House at the moment councillors will be empowered to set these policies and to put explicit limits on staff numbers. This is not just about the chief executive officer; this is about all the staff who are employed by councils across the country. We will also require increased disclosure in the annual reports of the numbers of staff who are employed and their salary bands. We believe it will be that disclosure—those open-to-the-public information requirements—that will keep costs in check. So although the National Government is concerned about the costs and the chief executive officers’ remuneration is a significant expense we think it is something that locally elected councillors can and should manage. 
This bill requires that the State Services Commissioner should approve the terms and conditions of remunerations. We do not believe that this is the role of central government. We trust local decision-making for local communities. It is particularly important that decision makers in this process are accountable to their ratepayers. Certainly the State Services Commissioner would not face that accountability. Councillors would be very unwise to make flamboyant decisions in this case because they tend to be voted out. It will be interesting to see what happens to councillors in the long term. In summary we support local democracy and decision making as close as possible to the communities that pay so we cannot support this bill.