Biosecurity Act 1993

Pest management - National pest management plans

62: Second step: satisfaction on requirements

You could also call this:

"The Minister checks if a pest control plan is a good idea and follows the rules."

The Minister checks if the proposal follows the rules in section 61. The Minister looks at the proposal to see if it is a good idea. The Minister wants to know if the proposal will help get rid of pests or manage them well.

The Minister checks if the pest can cause harm to New Zealand's economy, animals, plants, or people. The Minister also checks if the benefits of the plan are greater than the costs. The Minister wants to know if people who have to pay for the plan will also get benefits from it.

The Minister checks if there is enough money to pay for the plan. The Minister makes sure the plan does not go against New Zealand's international agreements. The Minister checks if the rules in the plan are fair and will help achieve its goals.

The Minister checks if the proposal is clear and easy to understand. The Minister also checks if the proposal is not silly or annoying. The Minister looks at new information if a similar proposal was rejected in the last three years.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM315390.


Previous

61: First step: plan initiated by proposal, or

"Creating a pest control plan starts with a proposal that outlines the problem and a solution."


Next

63: Third step: satisfaction with consultation or requirement of more consultation, or

"The Minister checks if everyone affected has been asked about the plan and decides if more talking is needed."

Part 5Pest management
National pest management plans

62Second step: satisfaction on requirements

  1. If the Minister is satisfied that section 61 has been complied with, the Minister may take the second step in the making of a plan, which is to consider whether the Minister is satisfied—

  2. that the proposal is not inconsistent with the national policy direction; and
    1. that, during the development of the proposal, the process requirements for a plan in the national policy direction, if there were any, were complied with; and
      1. that the proposal has merit as a means of eradicating or effectively managing the subject of the proposal, which means—
        1. the organism proposed to be specified as a pest under the plan or the organisms proposed to be specified as pests under the plan; or
          1. the class or description of organism proposed to be specified as a pest under the plan or the classes or descriptions of organisms proposed to be specified as pests under the plan; and
          2. that each subject is capable of causing at some time an adverse effect on 1 or more of the following in New Zealand:
            1. economic wellbeing:
              1. the viability of threatened species of organisms:
                1. the survival and distribution of indigenous plants or animals:
                  1. the sustainability of natural and developed ecosystems, ecological processes, and biological diversity:
                    1. soil resources:
                      1. water quality:
                        1. human health:
                          1. social and cultural wellbeing:
                            1. the enjoyment of the recreational value of the natural environment:
                              1. the relationship between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, and taonga:
                                1. animal welfare; and
                                2. that, for each subject, the benefits of the plan would outweigh the costs, after taking account of the likely consequences of inaction or other courses of action; and
                                  1. that, for each subject, persons who are required, as a group, to meet directly any or all of the costs of implementing the plan—
                                    1. would accrue, as a group, benefits outweighing the costs; or
                                      1. contribute, as a group, to the creation, continuance, or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the plan; and
                                      2. that, for each subject, there is likely to be adequate funding for the implementation of the plan for the shorter of its proposed duration and 5 years; and
                                        1. that the implementation of the plan would not be contrary to New Zealand's international obligations; and
                                          1. that each proposed rule—
                                            1. would assist in achieving the plan's objectives; and
                                              1. would not trespass unduly on the rights of individuals; and
                                              2. that the proposal is not frivolous or vexatious; and
                                                1. that the proposal is clear enough to be readily understood; and
                                                  1. that, if the Minister rejected a similar proposal within the last 3 years, new and material information answers the Minister's objection to the previous proposal.
                                                    Notes
                                                    • Section 62: replaced, on , by section 39 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 (2012 No 73).