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

F-200 Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: W Young J] (2015) 1 LAW
provided in a letter before action of 13 February
2013 sent by their solicitors to CERA:
The group [being the Quake Outcasts] considers
that your decision is susceptible to successful
legal challenge on a number of grounds, as well
as significant political embarrassment over the
next two years. For example, the group considers
that even the Government’s declarations of the
“red zones” are unlawful, as such declarations
have been made outside the statutory regime set
out in the CERA Act, and appear to have been
imposed without any consideration of the
requirements of that Act. Each of the group’s
members proposes to challenge every step of
your process at every step of the way should it
continue.
However, the Quake Outcasts would much prefer
to discuss with you the possibilities of a better
offer that meets both your needs and those of the
group members. …
[303] This rather suggests that the initial
challenge to the June 2011 decision was in the
nature of a negotiating tactic.
[304] The arguments for the Quake Outcasts
proceeded in part at least on the basis that the
procedural infelicities (as they see them) associated with
the June 2011 decision enhance their entitlements (as
they see them) as to what the government should offer
them for their properties. As will become apparent,
I do not accept that there were any such procedural
infelicities. But, more significantly, if there were
such infelicities, I do not see them as material as
to the offers to be made to uninsured owners. I
therefore see the validity of the June 2011 decision as a
red-herring and I think it would have been better if we
had chosen not to engage with it.
[305] In subsequent sections of this judgment I
will address:
(a) the scheme of the legislation;
(b) the challenge to the June 2011 decision;
and
(c) the basis upon which offers may be made to
the appellants.
The scheme of the legislation
[306] The structure of the Act is relevantly as
follows.
[307] The purposes of the Act are specified in
section 3:
“3 Purposes
The purposes of this Act are –
(a) to provide appropriate measures to ensure
that greater Christchurch and the councils
and their communities respond to, and
recover from, the impacts of the
Canterbury earthquakes:
(b) to enable community participation in the
planning of the recovery of affected
communities without impeding a focused,
timely, and expedited recovery:
(c) to provide for the Minister and CERA to
ensure that recovery:
(d) to enable a focused, timely, and expedited
recovery:
(e) to enable information to be gathered about
any land, structure, or infrastructure
affected by the Canterbury earthquakes:
(f) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and direct the
planning, rebuilding, and recovery of
affected communities, including the repair
and rebuilding of land, infrastructure, and
other property:
(g) to restore the social, economic, cultural,
and environmental well-being of greater
Christchurch communities:
(h) to provide adequate statutory power for the
purposes stated in paragraphs (a) to (g):
…”
[308] Sections 6 and 7 provided for the
establishment of a community forum and a crossparty
parliamentary forum. The purpose of each
body is to provide the Minister “with information or
advice in relation to the operation of [the] Act.”
[309] The functions of the Minister and the chief
executive of CERA are set out in ss 8 and 9.
These are specified by reference to the powers
conferred on the Minister and chief executive by
later sections of the Act. There are no general
provisions in these sections which render the
exercise of such powers subject to any compliance
with any other instruments (in particular the Recovery
Strategy or a Recovery Plan) which are provided for
in the Act.
(to be continued)
* * *
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015 142