The first load of Orders in Council have been passed under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. As at the time of posting they can be found here.
Most of them are dry and uncontroversial, as you would expect. Those of us who have railed against the powers granted under the Act don’t do so because the Government will behave dictatorially, but because it will have the power to.
One power surprised me, and that is the one contained in the Canterbury Earthquake (Civil Defence Emergency Management Act) Order 2010. Clause 9 of that OIC appears to extend the powers that exist under law to requisition property, so that they can be enforced without the need for a state of emergency to first be declared.
This is just the kind of power that concerns me. What need is there to empower officials to seize people’s property in the absence of a state of emergency (which was lifted yesterday), and in the absence of a humanitarian catastrophe? If people were dying or hungry I could easily see why it might be necessary to seize medicines or food. But are we really in such desperate straits?
I don't wish to be too critical, in case there are good and valid reasons why this power is needed. I just want to know what they are.
Friday, September 17, 2010
2 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The main modifications to the Resource Management Act are extending the deadline within which a Council has to process a resource consent/make a decision by 60 working days and removing the requirement on councils to enforce district plans if the earthquake recovery acts against that. The first clearly shows the need for a law such as this applying to April 2012 is bunk. The second shows another abuse of power.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteWhat about section 14 of the
Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act) Order 2010
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2010/0318/latest/DLM3240434.html
Christchurch City Council and Waimak District Council relieved of complying with any of their resource consents.
Mayor Bob can, without any fear of prosecution, now commit any act of environmental pollution in the name of responding to the earthquake
He could contaminant the air by burning tyres in the Square or he could use the Waimakariri River as a drain for hazardous and toxic wastes. Which I think they are already doing...