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: Eliyas CJ] F-189
valuation for those whose homes were insured.
Such offers were said to ensure that the equity of
home-owners in their properties would be
preserved. The paper itself considered that the
properties currently had “minimal value”. 263
[245] This proposal may not have entailed
recourse to the coercive powers available under
the legislation to clear the area, but it is clear that
the offers were pitched to encourage relocation of
those who were insured and Crown ownership of
the land. 264 And the policy of Crown acquisition
and preference for clearance was reinforced by
messages sent to the property owners with the
offers pointing out that insurers might not be
willing to renew policies in the red zone and
might even cancel them, that the Council and
utility providers might conclude that maintenance
of services was not practicable within the zone,
and that ultimately the Crown might have to
compulsorily acquire the land at its then value
which was likely to be substantially below the
price then on offer.
[246] The resulting depopulation expected as a
result of acceptance of the offers was itself
expected to accelerate the running down of
infrastructure and services, as was made clear in
the Cabinet paper of 24 June 2011. It is clear too
that the policy adopted was to encourage that
effect. The infrastructure available within the red
zone was identified as an issue in the paper.
While there was no talk of use of the coercive
powers under the Act to direct Councils in
connection with the provision and maintenance of
infrastructure and services, the paper advised that
the relevant Councils would be “asked to discuss
any proposed maintenance and repair plans, for
the infrastructure in these areas, or any proposed
regulatory interventions for the areas” because of
the view taken that “[as] a result of these offers
there is unlikely to be any justification in the near
263 At [89].
264 As is pointed out by Glazebrook J at [83] when
subsequently property in the Port Hills was moved from
white to red status, it was without adopting a similar
policy of clearance and Crown ownership.
to medium term for the infrastructure and
services in these areas to receive any more than
temporary repairs”. 265
[247] Successful implementation of policies
designed to achieve population relocation and
expected to have an impact on the need for
maintenance and repair of services and
infrastructure inevitably added to the uncertainty
and hardship being experienced by those to
whom offers were not being made in June 2011.
That uncertainty and hardship could reasonably
have been seen to be likely to be exacerbated if
there was significant delay in addressing the
position of those property owners who were not
eligible to receive the June 2011 offers.
[248] Their position had been acknowledged in
the Cabinet paper of 24 June 2011. The paper
advised that “[c]onsideration will need to be
given over time to the position of these
people”: 266
Neither uninsured residential properties nor
vacant lots are covered by EQC land or
improvements insurance. For residential owners,
the risks of not having insurance were risks that
ought to have been considered when making the
decision to invest in the property. Residential
owners should have been aware of the risks when
choosing not to purchase insurance. Vacant lot
owners were not eligible for EQC or private
insurance cover.
[249] At the time announcements were made in
June 2011, it seems to have been envisaged that
the position of these uninsured owners would be
considered within a matter of weeks. The
eventual fifteen month delay was explained by
the Minister in an affidavit in the proceedings as
having been caused by the need for the Authority
to prioritise its efforts.
[250] The Authority had much to do. In
particular, there was pressing need to work out
how the rehabilitation of properties and land
within other areas identified as orange and white
265 Memorandum for Cabinet “Land Damage from the
Canterbury Earthquakes” (24 June 2011) at [52].
266 At [62]-[63].
131
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015