Biosecurity Act 1993

Pest management - Regional pathway management plans

91: Second step: satisfaction on requirements

You could also call this:

"The council checks the plan is good and fair for everyone and the environment."

When a council is making a regional pathway management plan, they need to check some things. The council must be satisfied that the proposal is not inconsistent with the national policy direction, other plans, or the Resource Management Act 1991. The council also checks if the proposal is a good way to manage the pathway.

The council looks at whether the pathway could harm the region's economy, plants, animals, or people. They think about things like soil, water, and air quality, as well as human health and animal welfare. The council wants to know if the benefits of the plan outweigh the costs.

The council checks if people who have to pay for the plan will also get benefits from it. They make sure there is enough money to implement the plan for at least 5 years. The council also checks if the rules in the plan are fair and will help achieve the plan's goals.

The council ensures the proposal is clear and not frivolous. If the council rejected a similar proposal before, they want to know if there is new information that answers their previous concerns.

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 It might be out of date or be missing some parts.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=DLM315797.


Previous

90: First step: plan initiated by proposal, or

"Creating a plan starts with a proposal that outlines what the plan is, what it wants to achieve, and how it will work."


Next

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

"Checking if everyone's been heard: is the consultation good enough or does it need more work?"

Part 5Pest management
Regional pathway management plans

91Second step: satisfaction on requirements

  1. If the council is satisfied that section 90 has been complied with, the council may take the second step in the making of a plan, which is to consider whether the council is satisfied—

  2. that the proposal is not inconsistent with—
    1. the national policy direction; or
      1. any other pathway management plan or pest management plan; or
        1. a regional policy statement or regional plan prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991; or
          1. any regulations; and
          2. 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 managing the subject of the proposal, which means the pathway or pathways; and
              1. 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 the region:
                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 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 council rejected a similar proposal within the last 3 years, new and material information answers the council's objection to the previous proposal.
                                                      Notes
                                                      • Section 91: replaced, on , by section 39 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 (2012 No 73).
                                                      • Section 91(a)(iii): replaced, on , by section 6 of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023 (2023 No 68).