8 The Role of Central Government in Regional Pest Management
The Responsible Minister is appointed by warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, and the Ministry referred to in the Act is similarly appointed by the Prime Minister and is responsible for the administration of the Act. Currently MAF Policy is the Ministry referred to in the Act, and as part of its functions is the responsible agency for providing policy advice to the Responsible Minister. The responsibilities of the Responsible Minister are outlined in Section 8 of the Act:
"8. Responsibilities of the Responsible Minister - (1) In addition to being responsible for the administration of this Act, the responsible Minister has responsibility for -
(a) Providing for the co-ordinated implementation of the Act;
(b) Recording and co-ordinating reports of suspected new organisms;
(c) Managing appropriate responses to such reports..."
In this section the functions of the MAF in respect of the management of pests at the regional level are discussed, with a view to determining how it might best ensure that these responsibilities are fulfilled. This section focuses exclusively on Section 8 (1)(a), the need to provide for co-ordinated implementation of the Act, since this is most relevant to the management of pests at the regional level. The issues are discussed at an overview level, with specific recommendations for actions summarised in Section 9.
Central government has to date taken a fairly "hands off" approach to implementation of the Act. A submission was made by MAF Policy to each of the proposed RPMSs, and it maintains a register of the status of RPMSs to date (notified, proposed, etc) and of all pests notified at the regional and national level. MAF has largely concentrated on maintaining the Act, through the legislative process, and facilitating Orders in Council allowing the Crown as land occupiers to be bound by RPMSs. Most of the interpretation of the Act at the regional level has been undertaken by Regional Councils, individually or in the BTAG forum. MAF staff have generally been under-resourced in terms of being more pro-active in respect of the Act, and hindered by personnel changes and restructuring over the period. Furthermore, Central Government's role at the regional level has not always been apparent, particularly since the BTAG forum has worked so well in its co-ordination function. However, this study has highlighted a number of areas in which regional implementation of the Act is not necessarily in accord with the principles of the Act. It is clear that if Central Government is to have a view on the way in which the Act is to be co-ordinated and implemented, then it needs to promulgate that view in an effective manner. In doing so, care should be taken to avoid over-reliance on legislative mechanisms.
We suggest that there are a number of ways in which Central Government can act to ensure the Act is implemented in a way which is more consistent across regions, and more in keeping with its spirit and principles. Principles to guide it in doing so are outlined below:
Partnership
Central Government should see itself as partnering the already successful institutions that regions have developed, particularly the BTAG and BWOG groups which have the expertise and mana which make them the major institutions in respect of regional implementation of the Act. Central Government needs to have a clear understanding of how it can complement these organisations, since to attempt to replace them would be wasteful and ineffective.
Prescriptiveness
The spirit of the Biosecurity Act is clearly that it is enabling legislation. The Act does not seek to determine that particular pests should be included or not included, nor that the strategies should be funded in a particular manner, nor that the analysis conducted in respect of these issues should be carried out in a particular manner. It focuses on the issues which should be considered in making these decisions, and it is appropriate that different Councils will attach different weights to different considerations, and that together with geographic and other matters, will lead to a diversity of pests managed and funding regimes. Any role that MAF Policy adopts will need to avoid being seen as prescriptive in respect of these issues.
Rights of Other Parties
A RPMS represents intervention by a region in the affairs of individuals. This intervention is made because it is believed that the actions of some parties are impacting on other parties34, and that by doing so the welfare of the region will be enhanced35. However, in intervening regionally the rights and welfare of some individuals will be harmed, since they will be forced to undertake control of a pest for which they receive no benefit, or because they may be required to fund the strategy through rates paid on their land again for which they perceive no benefit. It is the role of the tests in the legislation to ensure that within limits, that the rights of all are treated as fairly and equitably as possible, and that all parties affected by the intervention are able to understand and be satisfied of the reasons for intervention. In this respect, process and transparency are important principles which should be upheld as a counterbalance to the powers bestowed upon Regional Councils.
Resource Efficiency
It is unlikely that the resourcing central government has available for implementation of the BSA 1993 will increase dramatically. This report therefore focuses largely on simple and inexpensive measures which will assist Regional Councils to more effectively implement the Act.
This report recommends three approaches which central government should adopt to ensure the more effective implementation of the Act. These are:
- Changes to the legislation;
- Facilitation of co-ordination of the Act;
- Undertaking research which will assist Councils in their decisionmaking.
The balance of these three approaches is important. It would, in theory, be possible for MAF Policy to propose a legislative programme which attempted to force Councils to adopt particular levels of analysis and positions on funding of strategies, but this would be neither effective nor productive in terms of Central Government's relationship with Regional Councils. We recommend that Central Government adopt a legislative programme that aims to clarify understanding of the Act, and that reinforces the need for process and transparency in Regional Councils' implementation of the Act. This should be partnered with a facilitative approach, where Central Government seeks to work with the BTAG and BWOG groups to further the process which they have initiated of interpreting the Act and producing some generic guidelines for implementing the Act. The third strand of action is the commissioning of research, again in partnership with the Regional Councils, which will assist all parties in ensuring that information is available to determine whether pests should be included in strategies, and once RPMSs have been promulgated, to determine whether the regional intervention has been effective. The appropriate actions for Central Government in respect of each of the major issues which have been identified are discussed in the summary of recommendations which follow.
34 Section 72(1)(b)
35 Section 72(1)(a).
| © MAF 1999 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
