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

F-156 Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] (2015) 1 LAW
(c) Using s 27 to remove existing use rights
related to the land; 58
(d) The Minister could direct under s 16 that a
Recovery Plan be produced setting out the
amendments required to the City plan and any
other relevant RMA document; and 59
(e) The Christchurch City Council amending the
City Plan to change their land zoning. 60
[44] In his evidence, the then CERA chief
executive said that, “although [compulsory
acquisition] was an option raised by CERA
officials, by the time I took up my appointment as
Chief Executive on 13 June [this option] was not
on the table”.
Cabinet committee’s decisions
[45] As noted above, a week after the June 2011
earthquake, Cabinet authorised a group of eight
senior Ministers to take decisions on matters
relating to land damage and remediation issues.
On 22 June 2011, these Ministers made a number
of decisions which were recorded in a
memorandum for Cabinet signed by Mr Brownlee
dated 24 June 2011 (the Brownlee paper). The
decisions were announced to the public by the
57 The “pros” were identified as being “[c]an affect change
immediately following a public notice”, while the “cons”
were the same as identified above in n 56.
58 The “pros” were identified as being “[c]an affect change
immediately following a public notice” and the “cons” as
“[r]emoves existing use rights without any input from
those directly affected”, “[l]ess community awareness
and/or input into the process” and “[l]ess linkage to
overall recovery strategy”.
59 The “pros” were identified as “[ensuring] a more formal,
transparent process with an opportunity for community
engagement” and “[g]reater linkage to overall recovery
strategy, including input into future land use options”.
The “cons” were identified as being “[l]onger
timeframes to complete process” and “[c]ommunity
expectation that their views may change decisions”.
60 The “pros” were identified as the fact it could “occur
without using [Canterbury Earthquake Recovery] Act
powers” and “[l]ink to other related plan changes
required”. The “cons” were identified as “[d]oes not deal
with the issues of existing use rights” and “[l]onger
timeframes to complete process”.
Prime Minister and Mr Brownlee on 23 June
2011.
[46] In his paper, Mr Brownlee said that he
considered the loss of confidence and the scale
and severity of the damage warranted “a central
government response”. 61 A “circuit-breaker” was
required “to arrest the current decline in
confidence and to form a solid basis for
recovery”. 62
[47] The Committee’s decisions were taken in
light of a prediction from GNS 63 that the chance
of an earthquake of a magnitude of between 6 and
6.9 in the region over the coming year was 34 per
cent, falling to 17 per cent if there were no
significant aftershocks or triggering events in the
following month. 64
[48] The Brownlee paper explained that the
Committee was of the view that “urgent decisions
and announcements” from the Government were
needed as to how recovery would be supported in
the worst affected suburbs. The paper also
emphasised the importance of providing certainty
to home owners, creating confidence to enable
people to move forward with their lives, and
providing confidence in decision-making
processes for home owners, business owners,
insurers and investors. 65 The Committee
considered that it should use the best available
information to inform decisions and have “a
simple process in order to provide clarity and
support for land-owners, residents, and
businesses in [the worst-affected] areas”. 66
[49] As noted above, the Committee identified four
zones in Christchurch “based on the severity and extent
61 Memorandum for Cabinet “Land Damage from the
Canterbury Earthquakes” (24 June 2011) [Brownlee
paper] at [19].
62 At [19].
63 Formerly known as the Institute of Geological and
Nuclear Sciences, GNS is a New Zealand Crown
Research Institute which provides earth, geosciences and
isotope research and consultancy services.
64 Brownlee paper, above n 61, at [16].
65 At [5] and [2.7] of the recommendations.
66 At [5].
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015 98