RAINBOW LORIKEETS 

Dear Sir

 

Dr Hicks, the Chief Technical Officer the Department of Conservation has recently gazetted the Rainbow Lorikeet as an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993, in the belief that they “are capable or potentially capable of causing unwanted harm to indigenous flora and fauna”.

 

He did not give as a reason harm to human beings by disease, or harm to the agricultural or horticultural industries of New Zealand, but harm only to indigenous flora and fauna. Dr Hicks presumably formed his belief from claims provided by the Department of Conservation, such as those publicised in the “Rainbow Lorikeet Fact Sheet”.

 

Evidence in the accompanying commentary on this Fact Sheet shows that these claims are either exaggerated or incorrect. The evidence also shows that Rainbow Lorikeets pose no threat to birds or humans by disease, that they are anatomically not adapted to live and breed in the NZ bush and thereby pose no threat to native birds by competition for food or nest sites. The evidence also shows that Rainbow Lorikeets pose no threat to the horticultural industry of New Zealand.

 

I have asked the Minister of Conservation to correct the misinformation already broadcast about Rainbow Lorikeets. I have also asked him to withdraw the inappropriate classification of the Rainbow Lorikeet as an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act, for the reason that the evidence provided to the Chief Technical Officer is incorrect.

 

The Department of Conservation has previously used the perfectly adequate provisions of the Wildlife Act to control vertebrate pests such as Rats, Stoats, and Opossums. The accompanying research suggests the Rainbow Lorikeet is harmless, yet its classification as an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act has elevated it to a peak of undeserved infamy in comparison to those pests.

 

The Biosecurity Act has drawn together a large number of laws relating to diseases and pests which threaten the health and economic welfare of New Zealand. Those laws under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture have been used as a successful shield against such menaces as foot and mouth disease, anthrax, and serious pests and diseases of livestock and crops. The evidence shows plainly that the Rainbow Lorikeet does not fall into this category. By invoking the Biosecurity Act for this non-event, the Department of Conservation has trivialised a law designed for infinitely more dangerous threats.

 

I submit that you should ask your Department to review the evidence in the enclosed Commentary. When you are satisfied that the research is correct, I trust you will urge the Minister of Conservation to view the matter in a sensible perspective and withdraw this notice against the Rainbow Lorikeet. I also hope you will urge the Minister of Conservation to reserve the use of the Biosecurity Act for a more proper purpose in the future.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Rex Gilfillan

 

Enc: Commentary on the Rainbow Lorikeet,  with supporting documents (total 8). The video mentioned is not included - let me know if you need a copy.