The use and enjoyment of one’s home is a fundamental human right. In my view the creation of the red zone comprised an interference with that right. The Government appealed the High Court’s decision to the New Zealand Court of Appeal. Again the Commission intervened in these proceedings and submitted that: The decision to treat the small group of uninsured home owners differently from other home owners in the particular context of the residential red zones raises a serious issue of non compliance with New Zealand’s international obligations. In particular the decision raises issues of arbitrary and disproportionate interference with the right to enjoy one’s home, and a retrogressive step by the government in protection of the right to housing (including security of tenure and adequacy of housing conditions). Although the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s decision that the offers made to owners of un-insured and vacant land in the red zone was unlawful, it considered that the red zoning process was lawful. It is unclear at this stage whether the decision of the Court of Appeal will be appealed to the New Zealand Supreme Court. Participation (Article 25) Despite having a strong commitment to democratic principles, the Canterbury earthquake recovery has highlighted the fragility of some human rights protections. People affected by the earthquakes are limited in their opportunities to participate in problem identification, solution design and decisionmaking in issues which affect their lives. Difficulties are faced in the provision of full and timely information relevant to decision-making, and clear timeframes and transparency from decisionmaking authorities. Limitations on meaningful participation and the uncertainty faced by many Cantabrians are factors contributing towards deteriorating standards of mental health and wellbeing. The Canterbury experience is symptomatic of a wider trend to move towards centralised governance, progressively removing the voice of those affected from the decision making process. Counter-Terrorism measures and respect of Covenant guarantees – Operation 8 (Articles 2, 7, 14 & 26) On 15 October 2007, 17 people were arrested in an exercise that became known as Operation 8. The exercise was the result of months of visual surveillance and interception of private communications by the police that had been authorized in the belief that the surveillance was necessary to prevent terrorist activity21. The Solicitor General later found the use of the Terrorism Suppression Act to obtain the interception warrants was justified but that there was insufficient evidence to authorise prosecution under that Act. The implications of the use of the Terrorism Suppression Act was the subject of much public discussion and led to renewed concern about the effectiveness of the criminal law in preventing organized threats to public safety and security. The treatment of Māori and Pakeha was also raised and it was suggested that the police would not have employed the same tactics if predominantly Pakeha communities had been involved. Within days the Commission received over 50 enquiries, complaints and expressions of concern. In considering how best to respond the Commission took into account that those arrested would be able to challenge any evidence through the formal court processes and that a complaint mechanism with extensive powers to examine Police files and require evidence, namely the Independent Police 21 As defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 Page 7 of 35