SECTION 12 - ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY OR HOME (Article 17) 255 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). 256 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. 257 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. 258 In 2013 these decisions were challenged in the High Court and ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Commission intervened in these proceedings.137 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.”138 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:139 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. 259 The Supreme Court found that the decision to establish the residential red zone in Christchurch was unlawfully made – in that it was made outside the ambit of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. The Court stated:140 The whole scheme of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, its purposes and its legislative history support the view that decisions of the magnitude of those made in June 2011 on recovery measures should have been made under the Act and in particular through the Recovery Plan processes. They were not. That the June 2011 137 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 138 Quake Outcasts v Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [2013] NZHC 2173 at [90]. 139 At [65]. 140 [2016] 1 NZLR 1. Page 67 of 93 Human Rights Commission submission to the Human Rights Committee in relation to New Zealand’s 6th periodic review under the ICCPR