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.
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