18.04.2015 Views

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

Martyrs memorial special issue of 15-31 March 2015 paying tributes to Bhagat Singh and other comrades.

Martyrs memorial special issue of 15-31 March 2015 paying tributes to Bhagat Singh and other comrades.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

F-184 Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Eliyas CJ] (20<strong>15</strong>) 1 LAW<br />

for reconsideration by the chief executive, as<br />

indeed the Court of Appeal ordered. 229 <strong>No</strong> appeal<br />

against those orders is brought by the Crown<br />

parties.<br />

[219] Instead, Quake Outcasts and Fowler<br />

Developments appeal against the basis of the<br />

reconsideration ordered by the Court of Appeal<br />

and against its rejection of their contention that<br />

the establishment of the red zone was unlawful.<br />

[220] As to reconsideration of the offer, the<br />

appellants contend that the Court of Appeal was<br />

wrong to hold that the chief executive could<br />

lawfully distinguish between property insured for<br />

land damage and property not so insured when<br />

setting the terms of the offers to purchase. They<br />

seek orders that would compel the Crown to offer<br />

to purchase their land and improvements at 100<br />

per cent of the 2007 rating valuation.<br />

[221] As to the lawfulness of the red zone, the<br />

appellants say that the establishment of the red zone by<br />

ministers acting under Cabinet authority was unlawful<br />

because it was not taken under the Act and in<br />

accordance with its scheme, which required prior<br />

adoption of a Recovery Strategy or Recovery<br />

Plan after opportunity for public input. They say<br />

the red zone has “effectively eliminated any<br />

market for the properties” within it and is<br />

preventing their recovery from the effects of the<br />

earthquakes, contrary to the purpose of the<br />

legislation. In the High Court they sought<br />

declarations that the red zone establishment was<br />

unlawful and that those property owners who do not<br />

wish to sell to the Crown are “entitled to remain on<br />

their properties, supported by essential facilities, as<br />

permitted by law”.<br />

The scheme of the legislation<br />

[222] The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act<br />

20<strong>11</strong> came into effect on 19 April 20<strong>11</strong>. The Act<br />

set up a framework under which the huge effort<br />

required to respond to the damage caused by the<br />

earthquakes could be coordinated. The responses<br />

229 The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery v<br />

Fowler Developments Limited [2013] NZCA 588,<br />

[2014] 2 NZLR 587 (O’Regan P, Ellen France and<br />

Stevens JJ) at [148] and [166]-[168].<br />

necessary were principally for the Minister for<br />

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the chief<br />

executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery<br />

Authority. In addition, important roles were<br />

recognised under the legislation for local<br />

government. The Minister was required to set up<br />

a community forum under s 6 of the Act to<br />

provide the Minister and the chief executive with<br />

information or advice in relation to the operation of<br />

the Act, to which they were obliged to have regard.<br />

A separate Parliamentary forum, comprising<br />

members of Parliament living in greater<br />

Christchurch or representing constituencies in<br />

greater Christchurch was to be established under<br />

s 7, also to provide the Minister with information<br />

or advice in relation to the operation of the Act.<br />

[223] The purposes of the Act are contained in s 3:<br />

“3 Purposes<br />

The purposes of this Act are –<br />

(a) to provide appropriate measures to ensure<br />

that greater Christchurch and the councils<br />

and their communities respond to, and<br />

recover from, the impacts of the<br />

Canterbury earthquakes:<br />

(b) to enable community participation in the<br />

planning of the recovery of affected<br />

communities without impeding a focused,<br />

timely, and expedited recovery:<br />

(c) to provide for the Minister and CERA to<br />

ensure that recovery:<br />

(d) to enable a focused, timely, and expedited<br />

recovery:<br />

(e) to enable information to be gathered about<br />

any land, structure, or infrastructure<br />

affected by the Canterbury earthquakes:<br />

(f) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and direct the<br />

planning, rebuilding, and recovery of<br />

affected communities, including the repair<br />

and rebuilding of land, infrastructure, and<br />

other property:<br />

(g) to restore the social, economic, cultural,<br />

and environmental well-being of greater<br />

Christchurch communities:<br />

(h) to provide adequate statutory power for<br />

the purposes stated in paragraphs (a) to<br />

(g):<br />

… … … … …”<br />

Law Animated World, <strong>15</strong>-<strong>31</strong> <strong>March</strong> 20<strong>15</strong> 126

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!