Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4455. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I want to reflect briefly on the contribution from Dr Nick Smith who for those who do not know was the Minister who checked out of Cabinet—or maybe he does need to be checked out; it is one of the two. That member got up and gave an array of figures about the historical cost of local government. He made it up then he accused speakers on this side of the House of not telling the truth when they disputed it and then of course he blocked singularly—I think he was the only National MP who blocked—the tabling of those figures that show the truth. I just say to Dr Smith as his hair stands on end as he speaks that he has no credibility when it comes to— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: At least he’s got some. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is true Mr Finlayson. I grant you that but I do not need to be checked out unlike that member. I say this: Dr Smith has absolutely no credibility when it comes to citing figures given as Moana Mackey said his disgraceful conduct in respect of manufacturing crises and saying as Minister that ACC was going to go broke so that he could slash and burn it. And now we know of course that its investments are at a record high. That member is a bit like John Banks. His credibility is in the political sewer. 
I stand as a Canterbury member as a person who has lived in Canterbury for most of his life—both as a politician and before being a politician—and I can say this. In respect of the salary increase of the chief executive of the Christchurch City Council and the controversy around that individual and the mayor not just because of the salary but because of the lack of performance I have never seen—and I am sure Mr O’Rourke who is a former councillor will probably agree with me—conservative business elements and others in the community so united to rid themselves of an individual. I am not making a judgment on that but they are so united to rid themselves of an individual because of the lack of performance. I just place that on the record. I am not making a judgment on Mr Marryatt but the facts speak for themselves. I have never seen a time when businesses came together and demanded that he go and demanded accountability from that council. Therein lies the difficulty because we have a crisis in Canterbury. 
Let us just speak about Christchurch. We have sadly a dysfunctional in my view local authority where there has been infighting and where there has been a lack of transparency. I would cite even Councillor Tim Carter who is related to a member opposite and is a good councillor. He may not be the political colour that I am but he is a good councillor. He and others have joined hands across the aisle in demanding accountability from that local authority. I commend Councillor Carter and others for that.  
What the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill simply seeks to do is to obtain some accountability from that council. When you have a council in Christchurch that is dysfunctional and not performing and a local authority area in Canterbury in crisis and suddenly there is an approval for a $68000 salary—and Nick Smith said of course in his usual slipshod way slippery with the facts that the chief executive officer did not accept the $68000—in Nick Smith’s small myopic world this system works. Well maybe he has forgotten the outcry that came from all quarters of Christchurch—all quarters of Christchurch and across by the way the political divide including some of his mates few though they are—saying that this is not on. This is not on. Very few levers exist for a council to stop that behaviour. Why did Mr Marryatt not take it? Well Dr Smith wakey-wakey it was the strength of public opinion. He did take $26000 though of course. He did take that. 
If Dr Smith demands accountability and transparency he should support this bill. If he does not like it and he wants to improve it then what he could do is allow it to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee show his real steel—if he has got any—and propose some amendments to improve it. But oh no tonight it is pray and spray from Nick Smith. He has no ideas himself. If he had legislation that we voted against he could put it up again when he is a Minister but he has checked out in a number of ways and he knows it. He has checked out completely. I would say that that member will not be back in Cabinet any time soon. If he does not agree with the legislation and he thinks it can be improved then he has an option and that is to get up and vote for it send it to the select committee and prove us wrong. But he does not like it. It has been proposed and yet again he and his party have sold out the people of Canterbury.