82Second step: satisfaction on requirements

1. If the Minister is satisfied that section 81 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
3. 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
4. that the proposal has merit as a means of managing the subject of the proposal, which means the pathway or pathways; and
5. that each subject could spread an organism that is capable of causing at some time an adverse effect on 1 or more of the following in New Zealand:
   1. economic wellbeing:
   2. the viability of threatened species of organisms:
   3. the survival and distribution of indigenous plants or animals:
   4. the sustainability of natural and developed ecosystems, ecological processes, and biological diversity:
   5. soil resources:
   6. water quality:
   7. human health:
   8. social and cultural wellbeing:
   9. the enjoyment of the recreational value of the natural environment:
   10. the relationship between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, and taonga:
   11. animal welfare; and
6. 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
7. 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
   2. contribute, as a group, to the creation, continuance, or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the plan; and
8. 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
9. that the implementation of the plan would not be contrary to New Zealand's international obligations; and
10. that each proposed rule—
    1. would assist in achieving the plan's objectives; and
    2. would not trespass unduly on the rights of individuals; and
11. that the proposal is not frivolous or vexatious; and
12. that the proposal is clear enough to be readily understood; and
13. 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.