Jump to content
ApiNZ Levy Proposal

ApiNZ Commodity Levy Proposal

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Don Mac said:

Phil with respect to R & D it is not necessarily the "leanest and meanest".

Yes of course
That was a poor choice of words.

As far as money for getting Varroacides to market goes, its amazing how easy it is to finance large volume items.
A few cents per item is one hell of a lot of leverage.
Marketing and the likes is sometimes less than a cent per item


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope todays Dunedin meeting is a useful one. Was certainly intending to come but have two sick children at home with me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Otto said:

I hope todays Dunedin meeting is a useful one. Was certainly intending to come but have two sick children at home with me...

Yes it was, shame you couldn't make it. Now we have finished the road shows there will be an exec meeting on Monday to go through all the feed back and look at what we should change. It has been good to see the same things pop up that are consistent from top to the bottom and a few extreme outside the box thinking. We will keep you all up to date as and when I can.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone heard of the 4 pests campaign?
It can be found on Wiki and was an effort by the Chinese (Chairman Mao)to eradicate Sparrows, Rats, Flies and Mosquitos from 1958-1962
They killed so many Sparrows (easiest to kill) that the locus populations boomed, severely damaging crops, contributing significantly to the great Chinese Famine that killed 25-40 million people.
 

This is just one example of how policy can affect outcomes in unforeseen ways

 

IMO the Minister should be mindful of the possible effects that policy could have on Hive numbers going forward.
It may be a fact that there are currently too many Hives in NZ but on the other hand, what number would be too few.
One of the reasons that the Apiculture industry must remain viable across a broad spectrum of income streams is that this mitigates the risk of  catastrophic  losses of Hive numbers should one dominant income stream suddenly collapse or if the number of competent Beekeepers reduced further due to lack of opportunity.
IMO, no matter how valuable and sort after Manuka Honey is or becomes, it is critical that the industry maintains a wide and diverse base.



 

Edited by Philbee
  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/08/2018 at 3:21 PM, Ted said:

So I think people we can assume from this response Apinz is not prepared to divulge their membership numbers.  We can only guess why - because their beekeeper membership is very low and they don’t want to admit it.  Simple solution to this - everyone vote no and they are dead in the water.

I just sent an email to their levy@apinz etc address.

I have 1 hive, at most I will keep two in our semi urban situation. I’m just up and running again after a break from beekeeping. Granted I’m feckless and not yet thoroughly informed about the levy.

Now for my $86 in 2018 I read on their website that I no longer even get a mag in the mail. I can’t justify rejoining folks, especially when they send out an impersonal broken record response here. Wheres the emotional literacy.

I understand that they are trying to be professional but it doesn’t come across well does it.

It has turned the tide for me. This is about Bees -selfless creatures acting for the greater good. Beekeepers are aligned to that ethos. We take our livestock seriously. What about us wee guys.

I can’t justify renewing APINZ membership,  so how do I get to vote. 

Right where’s that poll then....I’m a no , too ....APINZ.

 I was going to rejoin after seeing the bee forum poll today, thinking it was the right thing to do, but now perhaps I shouldn’t after going online to their website and seeing costs as opposed to what is delivered to me....the one hive holder. I’m charged membership rate the same as those with 25 hives. I don’t perceive that as a fair suck of the sav at all. 

Only about 30% of our community are apinz members.

If APINZ can’t bear to reveal humanity I can’t see how our values align..this business-like stuff they responded with here doesn’t help me at all. I can’t see what they do for small hive holders and we are worthy of value as part of the Industry whole, just as a single bee is to its hive.

It’s very possible this is my own misunderstanding of APINZ proposals, a lack of accurate informing of myself, on my part, but without a more encouraging response from them it might remain so. People react negatively to the clinical written word, there’s no tone of voice or other ques to help the receiver, so misunderstandings happen, members don’t rejoin to even be eligible to vote.

Was it the intention of the good people at APINZ cause even one tiny beekeeper like me to turn up their toes?

.... find the Third Door through to preserve the widest support and bonds APINZ . There’s always a third door and another way, come on APINZ we know you have good core values just as we all do. I do think the support of people represented in this online community is key to the industry thriving in the face of the change of status of honey. They are kind and encouraging. So bring that out in us. Yes I think it matters that I have decided not to renew my membership to your organisation as a result of what I read here and on your website. Impressions matter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome @GoEDto the great unwashed majority of the beekeepers register that doesn't belong to APINZ and are largely unhappy with them.

I think they advised a membership of about 15% of beekeepers a while back and stated that encompassed around 50% of NZ's hive count. The larger operators by my thinking.

The vote on the levy business was proposed to go to a group of honey producers as prescribed by APINZ. They would become the levy payers and by compulsion the funders of APINZ which would consume about 60% of the levy monies while offering up the remainder to undefined research.

Initially put in like it or lump it terms which they may or may not now revise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GoED, the levy we are proposing is called a commodity levy and is a primary industry based levy so those industries may raise funds for their industry good projects etc, it is not collected by the lifestyle block/hobbyist as the numbers of what ever those industries levy that lifestyle block/hobbyist own/farm/grow is not economic, although the lifestyle/hobbyist will gain all the benefit of any research or other that comes out of industry good projects. The reason that you who have a couple of hives and others who have 25 hives pay the same is that anyone who has 1-25 hives is deemed to be a hobbyist, and yes we could all argue that till the cows come home, which has been done many times, what that number should be, and we would never come to agreement, so 1-25 was decided on as a middle area of most discussions.

 

Ali, read the details and stop regurgitating the lie about APINZ keeping 60% for themselves, go read the commodity levy act.

 

Everyone else, we have just sent the proposed changers to the levy that we have had from feedback and the roadshows to the printers for insertion in October beekeeper mag, go read it, I try to post on here when I get a copy so maybe able to see it before mag comes out. 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the explanation Dennis I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Yes I did understand those nuances re hobbyists and the commodity levy and I’m still interested in things such as commodity levy’s. APINZ’s decisions in the commercial sector of this industry will impact non commercial beekeepers and eventually change demographic of those participating. I see inclusiveness nowhere on your horizon and that might prove to be a strategic mistake. I don’t agree with the APINZ decision that people with less than 3 hives should pay the same as those with 25. You will possibly not pick up as many urban beekeepers as you could, whom I think are a still vital part of this whole. 

 I can’t justify paying the APINZ membership fee for the little I will receive back in the way of tangible and immediate resources to enable me to become an increasingly able beekeeper, as I do here. Hence, yesterday after reading the top layer of apinz website resources before I re-joined,  I instead took the step of donating to NZ Bee forum, where I perceive that I receive a wealth of experienced voluntary help, immediately. The impersonal and corporate Apinz website as it stands did not convince me of the benefit of re-joining.  I shall watch developments for APINZ and am always open to re-joining in the future. 

Right on with living life....I need to get out to my hive. Have a wonderful sunny Saturday Dennis. ? Thank you again 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Ali, read the details and stop regurgitating the lie about APINZ keeping 60% for themselves, go read the commodity levy act.

Mr Crowley, I can only assume you are having a bad day.

Throughout this messy business I have had the clear understanding that 40% about would be offered up for currently undefined research.

If this is not the case please let us know what the percentage is?

I would be grateful if you ceased to imply that I lie. I do not. Nor did I state or imply the APINZ would "keep" the other 60% for themselves. I used the word consume. Which can be construed as utilise perhaps.

Treating any of APINZ's probably to be compelled contributors with disdain is unhelpful to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems as though APINZ could use the lot for themselves under the act....
10Use of levy

(1)No industry organisation shall spend any amount of levy for any commercial or trading activity.

(2)Subject to section 6(3), in specifying how a levy is to be spent, or a means by which an industry organisation is to ascertain how it may be spent, a levy order—

(a)may specify any purpose or purposes for which no amount of levy shall be spent:
(b)subject to subsection (1) and paragraph (a), may specify all or any of the following purposes:
(i)research relating to the commodity or commodities concerned, or in relation to any matter connected with it (including market research):
(ii)the development of products derived from the commodity or commodities concerned:
(iii)the development of markets for the commodity or commodities, or products derived from the commodity or commodities:
(iv)the promotion (including generic advertising) of the industry concerned, the commodity or commodities, or products derived from the commodity or commodities:
(v)the protection or improvement of the health of animals or plants that are, or parts of which are, or from or by which is or are produced or gathered, the commodity or commodities concerned:
(vi)the development or implementation of plans or programmes of quality assurance (relating or relevant to the commodity or commodities concerned):
(vii)education, information, promotion, or training, (relating or relevant to the commodity or commodities concerned):
(viii)day to day administration of the organisation’s activities (not being the administration, direct or indirect, of any commercial or trading activity undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf):
(ix)any other purpose the Minister thinks fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 v

1 hour ago, Ali said:

Mr Crowley, I can only assume you are having a bad day.

Throughout this messy business I have had the clear understanding that 40% about would be offered up for currently undefined research.

If this is not the case please let us know what the percentage is?

I would be grateful if you ceased to imply that I lie. I do not. Nor did I state or imply the APINZ would "keep" the other 60% for themselves. I used the word consume. Which can be construed as utilise perhaps.

Treating any of APINZ's probably to be compelled contributors with disdain is unhelpful to say the least.

Ali, Ive often wondered what you do for a day Job.
Lawyer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ali said:

I would be grateful if you ceased to imply that I lie. I do not. Nor did I state or imply the APINZ would "keep" the other 60% for themselves. I used the word consume. Which can be construed as utilise perhaps.

 

 . . .which can be further construed as 'keep'

It is disingenuous to suggest the research is undefined when you will have seen posts by @Pike (for the @ApiNZ Science & Research group) surveying for research topics and issues of greatest importance to beekeepers.

 

We get it Ali. You don't like ApiNZ and you don't want to be a member. Moving on . . .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving on ?  moving on to NZ beekeeping. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, olbe said:

Moving on ?  moving on to NZ beekeeping. 

Yes, or SNI Beekeeping Group.

Edited by Trevor Gillbanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, yesbut said:
Seems as though APINZ could use the lot for themselves under the act....
10Use of levy

(1)No industry organisation shall spend any amount of levy for any commercial or trading activity.

(2)Subject to section 6(3), in specifying how a levy is to be spent, or a means by which an industry organisation is to ascertain how it may be spent, a levy order—

(a)may specify any purpose or purposes for which no amount of levy shall be spent:
(b)subject to subsection (1) and paragraph (a), may specify all or any of the following purposes:
(i)research relating to the commodity or commodities concerned, or in relation to any matter connected with it (including market research):
(ii)the development of products derived from the commodity or commodities concerned:
(iii)the development of markets for the commodity or commodities, or products derived from the commodity or commodities:
(iv)the promotion (including generic advertising) of the industry concerned, the commodity or commodities, or products derived from the commodity or commodities:
(v)the protection or improvement of the health of animals or plants that are, or parts of which are, or from or by which is or are produced or gathered, the commodity or commodities concerned:
(vi)the development or implementation of plans or programmes of quality assurance (relating or relevant to the commodity or commodities concerned):
(vii)education, information, promotion, or training, (relating or relevant to the commodity or commodities concerned):
(viii)day to day administration of the organisation’s activities (not being the administration, direct or indirect, of any commercial or trading activity undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf):
(ix)any other purpose the Minister thinks fit.

Yesbut, it is easy to pick a part of the levy to promote a decided idea, it would have been better and more beneficial to people who still are unsure to post the full picture so people can make up their own mind. 

Yes Section 10 as you have posted talks about where and how a levy may be used, but if you had posted section 6 it would show in 6(1)(i)(i and ii) that in relation to section 10 it is about how the organisation is to spend levy and  by what means that organisation has consulted the persons paying the levy. Those things are different for every organisation so you also have to read what an organisation has put out in relation to how the levy system is going to work for that organisation, hence why I suggested to Ali to read both APINZ material and the levy act. You also could have posted about the last four sections of the act that talk about how an organisation is held acountable for the way it spends the levy money. 

 

I personally don't have an opinion, which way people vote, I know which way i would like them to vote, but its up to them, so out of respect to them give them the whole picture so they can make up their own mind.

 

Ali the reason there is no defined research projects is because the levy payers(if it gets) have not voted/decided on where they would want the money to go, if we had made a decision I'm sure some would have had an issue with that as well. If we get the levy then the list that JohnF mention would be a good starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JohnF said:

. .which can be further construed as 'keep'

It is disingenuous to suggest the research is undefined when you will have seen posts by @Pike (for the @ApiNZ Science & Research group) surveying for research topics and issues of greatest importance to beekeepers.

 

We get it Ali. You don't like ApiNZ and you don't want to be a member. Moving on . . .

Thanks John but no thanks. As Mr Crowley has posted there are reasons why the research is currently undefined. 

It is not a matter of don't like APINZ and don't want to be a member, that is childish in my opinion.

I am however very unhappy with how APINZ has launched and progressed the levy matter from the outset. A self proclaimed lead body that has in my opinion shown itself to be inept and conclusively out of touch with the majority of the members of the beekeepers register.

I would go as far as to suggest it has little or no interest in the majority of the members of the beekeepers register by it's performance so far. Yet, it attempts to take money from their hands by way of compulsion.

Being responded to in the fashion you have chosen amongst other somewhat arrogant and careless replies by some representing APINZ on this forum (remember the incessant requests for APINZ membership numbers?) does you or APINZ no credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ali said:

Thanks John but no thanks. As Mr Crowley has posted there are reasons why the research is currently undefined. 

It is not a matter of don't like APINZ and don't want to be a member, that is childish in my opinion.

I am however very unhappy with how APINZ has launched and progressed the levy matter from the outset. A self proclaimed lead body that has in my opinion shown itself to be inept and conclusively out of touch with the majority of the members of the beekeepers register.

I would go as far as to suggest it has little or no interest in the majority of the members of the beekeepers register by it's performance so far. Yet, it attempts to take money from their hands by way of compulsion.

 

The commodity levy is for the commercial beekeepers - in that case, yes, I would say the focus has been on that commercial minority since they are the ones paying it. To chase levies for the hobbiest majority would chew up funds for administration. I do not know the numbers but last time I looked I thought it was something like 7000 beekeepers and about 700 commercials (10% or so).

 

3 hours ago, Ali said:

Being responded to in the fashion you have chosen amongst other somewhat arrogant and careless replies by some representing APINZ on this forum (remember the incessant requests for APINZ membership numbers?) does you or APINZ no credit.

 

Because I disagree with you I'm arrogant? When I post under my own moniker with my own photo then I'm representing no-one else but me. You can re-litigate what you wish but let's wait and see what changes will come as a result of the industry meetings.

Edited by JohnF
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2018 at 12:19 PM, Philbee said:

Has anyone heard of the 4 pests campaign?
It can be found on Wiki and was an effort by the Chinese (Chairman Mao)to eradicate Sparrows, Rats, Flies and Mosquitos from 1958-1962
They killed so many Sparrows (easiest to kill) that the locus populations boomed, severely damaging crops, contributing significantly to the great Chinese Famine that killed 25-40 million people.
 

This is just one example of how policy can affect outcomes in unforeseen ways

 

IMO the Minister should be mindful of the possible effects that policy could have on Hive numbers going forward.
It may be a fact that there are currently too many Hives in NZ but on the other hand, what number would be too few.
One of the reasons that the Apiculture industry must remain viable across a broad spectrum of income streams is that this mitigates the risk of  catastrophic  losses of Hive numbers should one dominant income stream suddenly collapse or if the number of competent Beekeepers reduced further due to lack of opportunity.
IMO, no matter how valuable and sort after Manuka Honey is or becomes, it is critical that the industry maintains a wide and diverse base.

And now they orchardists are said to be hand pollinating their fruit trees due to lack of....pollinators.

Go China. Maybe we can watch and learn.

Edited by dansar
The response to the quote was posted inside the quote window.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JohnF said:

Because I disagree with you I'm arrogant? When I post under my own moniker with my own photo then I'm representing no-one else but me. You can re-litigate what you wish but let's wait and see what changes will come as a result of the industry meetings.

No John I am not suggesting you are arrogant at all.

I do refer to some prior posts with an APINZ logo back when this matter was in it's earlier days here. Those posts sadly left a poor impression of whoever was the author and APINZ accordingly. 

I guess we all await version 2 with interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/09/2018 at 5:44 PM, Ali said:

Being responded to in the fashion you have chosen amongst other somewhat arrogant and careless replies by some representing APINZ on this forum (remember the incessant requests for APINZ membership numbers?) does you or APINZ no credit.

was there ever an explicit answer to the question:

how many registered beekeepers are members of APINZ?

 

 I remember loads of deflection around percentage of hives etc, but never a black and white number. A body unprepared to answer such a question is... (complete that sentence as you see fit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tommy dave said:

 

 

 I remember loads of deflection around percentage of hives etc, but never a black and white number. A body unprepared to answer such a question is... (complete that sentence as you see fit)

 

Dead !

Edited by Trevor Gillbanks
fixed post
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...