Your views- Tony Marryatt pay rise | Canterbury Opinion | Local Voices from Canterbury, New Zealand

Christchurch City Council chief executive Tony Marryatt's salary has soared to over $500,000. City councillors were divided seven votes to six to increase Mr Marryatt's salary by $68,129 from $470,400 to $538,529 a year effective from July 1.

The Star asked people if they thought Marryatt deserved the pay rise.  

Maeve Platts, 19, student, Merivale, said: "It probably depends on what he does. I guess his role is important after what we've been through this year." But she did think it was a lot of money considering it was less than Prime Minister John Key's annual salary of $411,510 a year.   

Tony Goulter, 22, New Brighton, said: "He probably does deserve it" for dealing with the stress of the impact of the earthquakes on the city.  

John Shoaf, 51, Anglican minister, central city, said: "It seems like a large figure. But I don't know exactly what the job entails so I don't feel qualified to comment on it. It could be fair."  

Gabby Topp, 30, manager, Cashmere, said: "I think it's really, really ridiculous. All our rates have gone up so we're obviously paying for it, we're not getting anything in return. I think it's disgusting."  

Mike Harvey, 72, retired, St Albans, supported Mr Marryatt's pay increase. "His salary is essentially for managing the city efficiently and effectively. Now not only does he have to do that but he has to manage the enormous consequences of the earthquakes on the city and needs to be compensated appropriately."    

Anne Fairbairn, 80, retired, Cashmere, was against Mr Marryatt's pay rise. She felt he "definitely didn't" deserve it. "I do think it's a lot for what he does. I think he was on enough money beforehand."  

Terry Shearer, 64, crane operator, Burwood, said: "It's a bit excessive isn't it? With the way the city is at the moment it could be spend some where more appropriate I'm sure."  

Riley Rasmussen, 19, St Albans, felt the pay increase was excessive. He believed Marryatt shouldn't be remunerated for the added stress of the quakes as "no one else is getting more money because of the earthquakes".