Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

(2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] F-167
ISSUES
[105] The submissions raise the following issues:
(a) Was the Crown merely providing
information in June 2011?
(b) Should the procedures under the
Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act
have been used?
(c) What matters were relevant to the September
2012 decisions?
Was the Crown merely providing
information in June 2011?
[106] We do not accept the Crown’s submission that, in
June 2011, the Government was merely providing
information to the public. The Cabinet committee
made a number of decisions on important matters
(as identified in the Brownlee paper) including:
(a) the decision that the situation in Christchurch
warranted a central government response; 141
(b) the setting of objectives for the “urgent
decisions and announcements” to be made
by the Committee, including promoting
confidence in decision-making processes
for home and business owners, insurers and
investors; 142
(c) the setting of criteria for determining the
identification of zones in Christchurch on
the basis of land damage, and the costeffectiveness
and social impacts of land
remediation; 143
(d) the decision on detailed criteria for
identifying areas where re-building was
unlikely to be practical in the short-tomedium
term and in particular, the decision
that this was to include a cost/value
analysis; 144
(e) the decision as to the requirement for areawide
responses even if individual
properties in the red zones had not suffered
extensive damage; 145
141 See above at [46].
142 See above at [48].
143 See above at [49].
144 See above at [50]-[52].
145 See above at [53].
(f) the decision to require territorial authorities
to discuss proposed maintenance or repair
of infrastructure and services in the red
zones with the Government (with a clear
implication that any large scale
maintenance and repairs would be
discouraged); 146
(g) the decision not to leave matters to
individuals and their insurance
companies; 147
(h) the decision not to use the compulsory
powers in the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Act; 148 and
(i) the decision to offer to purchase insured
residential properties at a sum in excess of
their current value, with an estimated net
cost of between $485 and $635 million. 149
[107] We are not suggesting that the decisions that
were taken by the Cabinet committee and announced
publicly on 23 June 2011 were not sensible decisions.
They may indeed, given the situation facing
Christchurch, have been seen by the Committee
as the only sensible decisions that could be made.
This, however, does not rob them of their character as
decisions.
[108] It is true that the decisions were made in light of
what was considered to be the best available
information. 150 The fact that decisions are based on
information and that some or all of the
information on which the decisions are based is
communicated to the public at the same time as
146 See above at [58].
147 See above at [55].
148 This was made explicit in the then chief executive of
CERA’s affidavit dated 16 July 2013 where he said “by
the time I took up my appointment as Chief Executive
on 13 June 2013 the option of compulsory acquisition
was not on the table. ... I can confirm that this option
had been discarded, and was and is not being pursued
directly or indirectly.” See above at [43]–[44].
However, we do note that the information
accompanying the June 2011 offers referred to the
Crown’s possible use of the compulsory powers of
acquisition: see above at [61].
149 See above at [57].
150 See above at [48]. This was a requirement that the
Committee had set itself.
109
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015