Complete lack of judgment

The local government watchdog challenging the Government’s decision to appoint an observer to the troubled Christchurch City Council has chosen the wrong time to start barking. Local Government Minister Nick Smith appointed the Crown observer last week to oversee the workings of the council after months of infighting threatened to derail the city’s earthquake recovery. The appointee, former Nelson mayor and marriage counsellor Sir Kerry Marshall, will attend council meetings and give advice to Mayor Bob Parker and his councillors.

But Council Watch has challenged the move, asking the Ombudsman and solicitor-general to investigate the legality of the appointment. Spokesman Jim Candiliotis said the move is ‘‘unconstitutional, unlawful or at the very least a blatant interference in the governance of a city’’.

Council Watch and organisations like it play an important public role in scrutinising the behaviour of our elected officials, but its protestations in this instance are a massive misjudgment.

At no other time in its history has the Christchurch City Council needed strong, effective leadership more than it does now. And it’s not just a matter for Christchurch; the recovery and rebuild of the city have huge national implications.

Council Watch might be able to mount a strong legal argument against Dr Smith’s appointment of the observer, but it will receive an unsympathetic hearing in the court of common sense. While the Local Government Act does not appear to provide for the appointment of a Crown observer specifically, it clearly empowers the Government to intervene in extreme circumstances.

It seems foolish to argue that appointing a nonvoting observer to the council is unacceptable when the minister could sack the mayor and all the councillors and replace them with commissioners if he wanted to.

The far less extreme of the two measures is clearly in the spirit of the constitution, if not to the letter of the law.

Council Watch’s stance is further undermined by the fact Mr Parker and his councillors are unanimously supportive of Sir Kerry working with them, and is entirely at odds with the prevailing sense of ratepayer frustration at the council performance.

It decries the move as ‘‘blatant interference’’ in the governance of Christchurch, but that is exactly what the situation called for.

It’s now for the mayor and councillors to put their petty differences to one side and work towards rebuilding their city. If they do not, the Government will be entirely justified in relieving them of their duties entirely.