Haste of earthquake recovery legislation raises concerns
13 April 2011
Haste of earthquake recovery legislation raises concerns
Legislation passed under urgency responding to the Canterbury earthquakes and their aftermath should be limited to those matters that require an immediate response. Less urgent matters, particularly issues relating to compensation, should be set aside for closer consideration in Parliament.
This was the message from the New Zealand Law Society in its comments to the select committee considering the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill in Christchurch today.
“The Law Society acknowledges that the Canterbury earthquakes and their aftermath justify emergency legislation to facilitate the speedy restoration of the region, but we have concerns about the haste with which the bill has been conceived,” says Rachel Dunningham, a Christchurch lawyer and spokesperson for the Society’s Law Reform Committee.
For the most part the bill balanced the need to facilitate the speedy restoration of the region while maintaining transparency and accountability, but in a number of areas its provisions are unclear, Ms Dunningham says.
“In particular the Law Society is concerned that the legislation is unclear on intended compensation in the case of land acquisition and may give rise to unrealistic expectations.”
“It is important that care is taken to ensure that the provisions relating to property rights and compensation do not have a detrimental impact on people and businesses. The central principle should be that where private individuals suffer a loss caused by the actions of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority rather than the earthquake, that loss should be compensated.”
The Law Society made a number of suggestions for clarifying the intentions of the legislation as well as a number of specific recommendations.
The Society’s Law Reform Committee prepared its comments at short notice after being invited by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery to make urgent submissions to the select committee. The Law Reform Committee members who participated have backgrounds and experience in the fields of commercial and business law, property law, constitutional law and the rule of law. A number are based in Christchurch and have first-hand experience of the conditions there.
ENDS