for these issues was the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act 2013 and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. The Commission is concerned that the legislation is wide-reaching without sufficient safeguards against abuse of power. There is inadequate oversight and inadequate provision for ensuring transparency and accountability. In its report to the Prime Minister on the legislation and broader human rights matters regarding surveillance the Commission recommended: • A full and independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence services be undertaken as soon as possible with terms of reference agreed on a cross-political party basis, to consider the role and function of our intelligence services, their governance and oversight mechanisms and to consider the balance between human rights and national security; and • Stronger accountability and oversight mechanisms, including Parliamentary oversight from a cross-party select committee, in addition to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.17 Arbitrary or unlawful interference with family of home Following the Canterbury earthquakes the Government designated certain areas used for residential purposes as the “red zone”. The Crown made an offer to purchase the property of people in the red zone for the full 2007 rateable valuation if their properties were insured. Owners of properties which were uninsured or consisted of vacant land were offered only half the 2007 rateable value of the land, and nothing for any improvements, including homes. Owners of commercial properties were offered half the 2007 rateable value of the land and half of the rateable value for any improvements (if the improvements had been insured). At the same time the Council indicated that it was unlikely to install any new services in the red zone and utilities may be discontinued. It would also be difficult to insure properties if people elected to remain. The effect was that it would no longer be viable for people to continue living in the red zone and they would find it difficult – if not impossible - to sell their property to a purchaser other than the Crown. The decision to red zone properties has had the effect of undermining the market value of those properties. As a result, owners of property within the red zone, particularly those who were uninsured or owned vacant land, find themselves at a considerable disadvantage economically, with severe social impacts, and under pressure to sell to the Crown on the Crown’s terms. In 2013 these decisions were challenged in the High Court. The Commission intervened in these proceedings.18 The High Court found that the Government’s creation of the Red Zone was made “outside of, and without regard for, the statutory regime and was not made according to law.”19 In addition the Court cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and quoted Article 17 of the ICCPR. It said that:20 A copy of the Commission’s report is available here: http://www.hrc.co.nz/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/09072013-Human-Rights-Commission-Report-to-the-Prime-Minister-re-GCSB-andTICS-Bills-FINAL.pdf 18 A copy of the Commission’s submissions to the High Court are available here: http://www.hrc.co.nz/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/Quake-outcasts_Submission-of-the-Human-Rights-Commission-as-Intervener.pdf 19 Quake Outcasts v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [2013] NZHC 2173 at [90]. 20 At [65]. 17 Page 6 of 35