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

Recommendations

Info

F-154 Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] (2015) 1 LAW required would not be possible under the current legislation, whereas the processes set out in the Bill are “efficient while providing appropriate safeguards”. 44 Concluding his introductory speech, the Minister highlighted the purpose of the legislation and reassured the House that the powers would not go unchecked. The Minister said: 45 “Overall, this bill enables the Government to move swiftly to restore the social and economic wellbeing of the greater Christchurch area and its affected communities. The checks and balances ensure that the necessary powers for recovery are used judiciously, are open to appropriate levels of public scrutiny, and provide for appeal.” [32] In essence, the purpose of the Bill was to put in place mechanisms for the effective recovery of the Christchurch region. As the Minister said: 46 “In order to achieve the policy intent of effective and efficient rebuild and recovery in Christchurch, the legislation needs to ensure that the desired outcomes identified in the recovery strategy by the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Agency [sic] and the Minister, which provides for the recovery plans, are able to be efficiently and effectively delivered on the ground.” [33] Much of the concern surrounding the Bill was due to the extensive powers to be vested in the Crown. In response to criticism that the powers granted under the Bill “go too far”, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, the then Minister for Conservation, said that that those fears had not been realised with the predecessor legislation (the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010) and that “[t]here are significant checks and balances to ensure that the powers are used properly, and are necessary for the Canterbury 44 (12 April 2011) 671 NZPD 17899. See also the Minister’s comments at 18130 where he said “[t]his bill is an enabling framework setting out a range of powers that may need to be exercised during the recovery process. It does have significant checks and balances on the use of those powers.” 45 At 17901. 46 At 17899. recovery and rebuild”. 47 Mr Brownlee, during the Bill’s second reading, stated that the “most clear check and balance is the requirement that all of those powers must be exercised in the recovery process and cannot step outside of that”. 48 [34] During the Bill’s second reading, Mr Brownlee also made the following comments about Recovery Plans. He said that: 49 “The decisions that need to be made here are very, very dependent upon research about the condition of the land in Christchurch, and upon getting enough information to deal with individuals who have those broken properties so that they can be given some choices about what their future is. ... All of those things will require a series of recovery plans, and, quite patently obviously, there will need to be discussion about how those plans are delivered with those local communities and those affected individuals.” [35] The need for community participation and consultation in the decision making processes, to the extent compatible with expedited recovery measures, was stressed. Ms Wilkinson, in recognising the need for efficiency and community input, said: 50 It is important that the need for community participation is balanced against the need for timely and effective decisionmaking. Cantabrians want a say in how their region is rebuilt. It is, after all, their region. This bill provides for the establishment of a community forum, made up of local representatives who will provide advice to the Minister. There will also be a public consultation process in place. Cantabrians want to be heard, but they want to see action. It is a matter of striking the balance between effective coordination and consultation and the need for progress. [36] A similar comment was made by Mr Brownlee when, during the second reading, he 47 At 17904. 48 At 18130. 49 At 18130. 50 At 17904. Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015 96
(2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] F-155 said “I sincerely think that having a structure that allows rapid decision-making that can give effect to decisions that the community is on board with is exactly what is required here”. 51 [37] Mr Brownlee also emphasised the importance of the quarterly reports to Parliament required by the Bill. 52 He described the reporting requirement as a “significant control”. 53 [38] In essence, while the Act granted extensive powers to the Crown to ensure the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental recovery of greater Christchurch, the legislative history illustrates that the Crown was not to be granted unbridled power. Instead, the legislation provided for extensive checks and balances and ensured that community input was central, but not decisive, to decisions that would have significant implications for the communities of greater Christchurch. As the legislative history makes clear, the Recovery Strategy and the Recovery Plans were to be the central mechanism for Canterbury’s recovery. Further background [39] As noted above, the first of the series of Canterbury earthquakes occurred on 4 September 2010. Further major earthquakes occurred on 22 February 2011 and 13 June 2011. These and related earthquakes and aftershocks caused some areas of the city to experience liquefaction and land damage. In addition, some Christchurch properties, especially in the Port Hills area, were in danger from rock fall, cliff collapse and land slippage. [40] The Government responded to the first earthquake by appointing Mr Brownlee as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on 7 September 2010. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 was introduced on 14 September 2010 and came into force on 15 September 2010. [41] Following the February 2011 earthquake, the 2010 Act was replaced by the Canterbury 51 At 18129. 52 See above at [17]. 53 (12 April 2011) 671 NZPD 17901. Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 on 18 April 2011. CERA had been established as a new Government Department on 29 March 2011. 54 The first chief executive of CERA was appointed on 13 June 2011. 55 CERA work [42] From April 2011, officials from EQC, CERA and the Treasury began assessing the impact of land and property damage in the greater Christchurch area and identifying the worst affected areas. In identifying the land damage, extensive data was collected from sources such as Land Information New Zealand, land data from local councils, engineering teams, private surveyors and other engineering resources. Property data was collected from EQC and private insurers. On behalf of the EQC, Tonkin & Taylor (a firm of environmental and engineering consultants) was commissioned to assess the land damage caused by the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. [43] It was recognised that some areas may no longer be suitable for habitation. In discussing land “retirement”, an internal CERA paper prepared at the beginning of June 2011 identified options, which, the paper stated, were not “all mutually exclusive and so a combination may be appropriate”. The options were: (a) Voluntary or compulsory acquisition of property (under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act); 56 (b) Using the power under s 27 of the Act to amend the land use zoning under the City Plan; 57 54 State Sector (Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority) Order 2011. See also sch 1 of the State Sector Act 1988 as amended with effect from 29 March 2011. 55 This first chief executive resigned from his role as chief executive on 17 November 2014. 56 The paper identified that the “pros” of this option were that it could “happen without the need for any further approvals and/or consultation” and that “[l]and use activities easily managed if in Crown ownership”. The “cons” were identified as “[l]ess community awareness and/or input into the process” and “[l]ess linkage to overall recovery strategy”. 97 Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015
Page 1 and 2:
(2015) 1 LAW Martyrs Memorial Speci
Page 3 and 4:
(2015) 1 LAW Martyrs Memorial Speci
Page 5 and 6:
PARUCHURI HANUMANTHA RAO Paruchuri
Page 7 and 8:
(2015) 1 LAW Paruchuri Hanumantha R
Page 9 and 10:
(2015) 1 LAW Paruchuri Hanumantha R
Page 11 and 12:
A law may be formal or informal. An
Page 13 and 14:
(2015) 1 LAW A Historical View of L
Page 15 and 16:
(2015) 1 LAW A Historical View of L
Page 17 and 18:
THE ZIETGEIST MOVEMENT : A NEW TRAI
Page 19 and 20:
(2015) 1 LAW The Zeitgeist Movement
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTYR RAMPRASAD
Page 27 and 28:
(2015) 1 LAW Autobiography of Marty
Page 29 and 30:
CHARLIE HEBDO: THINKING NEW, RETHIN
Page 31 and 32:
(2015) 1 LAW Charlie Hebdo : Thinki
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
POLICING BELIEF: IMPACT OF BLASPHEM
Page 43 and 44:
(2015) 1 LAW Policing Belief: Impac
Page 45 and 46: HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY OR ELECTOR
Page 47 and 48: (2015) 1 LAW Shreya Singhal v. Unio
Page 87 and 88: (2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 95: (2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 143 and 144: DISENGAGE WITH PAKISTAN COMPLETELY
Page 145 and 146: LEGENDARY HOCKEY PLAYER DHYAN CHAND
Page 147 and 148:
(2015) 1 LAW 147 Our reverent and g
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?