Jump to content
Daley

Are you a member of APINZ?

Are you a member of APINZ  

180 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you a member of APINZ



Recommended Posts

What  i think Ali is trying to say is that while we appricated the reasearch and science side of things..it feels like that is the decoy to a side agenda of control of the bee industry in nz by this organisation. One area I find interesting is market access.

 

So it could used by speical interest group to reduce competition by making the complicant cost if producing honey so complex and expensive that small operators can not compete. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/01/2019 at 7:00 PM, john berry said:

If we have a yes vote a lot of people including me are going to want a lot more debate on issues.How is this going to happen under Apinz's current structure?

You keep hollering until someone listens.

Have you forgotten where you are. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, flash4cash said:

What  i think Ali is trying to say is that while we appricated the reasearch and science side of things..it feels like that is the decoy to a side agenda of control of the bee industry in nz by this organisation. One area I find interesting is market access.

 

So it could used by speical interest group to reduce competition by making the complicant cost if producing honey so complex and expensive that small operators can not compete. 

My experience has been that there is no entity more productive and competitive than a band of self determining owner operators, in other words a Co-op

The big guys will never have it all their own way and you can take that to the Bank

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Philbee said:

My experience has been that there is no entity more productive and competitive than a band of self determining owner operators, in other words a Co-op

The big guys will never have it all their own way and you can take that to the Bank

I think those of us with long enough memories of the dairy industry will disagree. When Fonterra was first founded, they used whatever funds it took to annihilate any small would-be startups who spent good money to setup as boutique cheese manufacturers etc - much like the present honey extraction laws for hobby and small producers. This went on for a couple of decades, and now some have established and done well, Fonterra is using dairy-farmer members hard earned cash to buy those small operators out, and inevitably the quality goes down to suit the corporate model - Puhoi Cheese is one of our nearby examples, and they are plainly evident around the country. The head of Fonterra earns ridiculous money from the pot created by hard-working people in cowsheds all around the country without knowing one end of a cow from another.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailabee said:

without knowing one end of a cow from another.

Why would you if you can do without ? One end slobbery the other s.......

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found an interesting MPI report on commodity levies while slightly out of date in 2012, has some relevant comments that are still valid.

 

Two things that struck me is of the 31 other commodity levies we keep being told about, in 2012 only 4 were bigger than what ApiNZ is proposing for us. A quick search of current data suggests in 2018 this has not changed greatly.

 

The other is the really low level of participation in ALL industry levy votes. Between 2002 and 2012 the average participation vote was only 37%, and only one commodity levy of more than 20 members got over 50% participation.

 

Apinz keeps telling us we must support this levy proposal because every other industry supports theirs. Clearly with less than 50% participation, 'yes' votes will almost always win because there is a vested interest for one group to be more active; ie access to others people's money.

 

All I get from the numbers listed is beurocrates always win because literally no one else cares.

 

 

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/3736/send

  • Like 2
  • Good Info 3

Share this post


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

 

By 'people of ApiNZ' do you mean the paid employees? The board members like @Dennis Crowley ? Volunteer group members on the @ApiNZ Science & Research group like myself?

Or all of the above? In which case, should I be offended? Hmm . . .
 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'research ploy'. The levy proposal has stated from the outset a suggested spend of 40% of levy funds on R&D. Do you feel this is a ploy since a number of people are now supporting the concept of research?

@Ali if you knew the work and research funds begging by people like Barry Foster (who I can promise has been doing this a lot longer than most) for a few thousand dollars - on a 300 millions dollar industry - then perhaps you'd choose your words more carefully than 'ploy'

@JohnF, there is no doubt at all that research is warranted. How and who should fund this is another debate entirely, by levy perhaps but not the model being mooted in my opinion.

I believe the current proposal is crudely constructed and frankly hamfisted, thus not in the best interests of the proposed contibutors.

I strongly believe that the research matter is being used by those supporting APINZ to manipulate the voters. 

The issue is really the survival of APINZ and the capture of funds, control and thus power in the hands of APINZ.

The whole matter appears crudely devised and frankly the beekeepers of NZ deserve and need better. There are a lot of issues involved that are of concern to the ordinary beek, not only the research angle.

The vast majority of beeks have declined to be a part of APINZ yet now it is proposed they be compelled to be a part of it and to fund it's agenda. This is an underhand and and unethical manner of conduct in my view. 

APINZ come from a position of having a large percentage of the hives in NZ under their auspices by way of the very large operators ( who are causing so many difficulties for the rest of us) and are seemingly hell bent on furthering the aims of the large operators who are pillaging the rest of us.

I have no wish to target individuals but am dismayed by the organisation that is APINZ and the way in which it attempting to drive us to compulsory participation in their agenda.

Given the current APINZ structure is large operator led it can be seen as being in the interests of them rather than the best interest of the industry.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Philbee said:

My experience has been that there is no entity more productive and competitive than a band of self determining owner operators, in other words a Co-op

The big guys will never have it all their own way and you can take that to the Bank

You are being to näive.  Everybody would love to only have half the hives in NZ. They just want everyone else to be the one to take the hit.  The bigs boys get that way because they are aggressive.  If they can use compliance cost to crush their competition they will. Look at the board members there are the big players on there.  They would love to crush the small players and remove them from the market, more money for them.  

Edited by flash4cash
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the big boys want to crush the small players ..... the big boys biggest problem is finding concientious labour to work their bees. They can have all the bees in the world on paper, but they might just be dud boxes in the field.

Quality over quantity will always win, and the small boys will always have the quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bushy said:

 

 

The other is the really low level of participation in ALL industry levy votes. Between 2002 and 2012 the average participation vote was only 37%, and only one commodity levy of more than 20 members got over 50% participation.

 

Apinz keeps telling us we must support this levy proposal because every other industry supports theirs. Clearly with less than 50% participation, 'yes' votes will almost always win because there is a vested interest for one group to be more active; ie access to others people's money.

 

 

And this is where the nonsense begins .

 

A yes vote that is Actually less than 50% of the TOTAL number of ELIGABLE voters means , no

 

From my experience , the vast majority of voters who don't vote, don't care , but certainly don't mean 'yes'

 

So the appropriate industry involved then gets ruled by a minority yes vote , which from my school exam days is a fail below 50%.

 

And yet we still carry on using this recipe to try and makes things 'better '

Edited by M4tt
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, M4tt said:

And yet we still carry on using this recipe to try and makes things 'better '

It's called democracy.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M4tt said:

From my experience , the vast majority of voters who don't vote, don't care , but certainly don't mean 'yes'

That is why we ended up with a minority government.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hector Wong said:

That is why we ended up with a minority government.

 

That , and the fact that the choices in the lineup were also below average ?

Edited by M4tt
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jamesc said:

Not sure why the big boys want to crush the small players ..... the big boys biggest problem is finding concientious labour to work their bees. They can have all the bees in the world on paper, but they might just be dud boxes in the field.

Quality over quantity will always win, and the small boys will always have the quality.

 

Two words that have been human drivers since Adam and Eve.

Control and Influence.

 

Control of resources, Control of new entrants, Control of pricing, Influence over industry and larger political decisions.

 

Just look at the Fishing, Dairy, and wine industries if you want to see where honey industry is heading with large company/corporate influence.

 

Ironically, the disruption in honey industry will probably happen regardless of levy vote, but a yes vote will speed up process, as small players provide finance for "industry good" decisions.

 

And if you think your little home based selling enterprise will fly under the radar, just go and talk to some small independant cheese makers and discover the influence Fonterra is having on their survival through MPI regulation.

 

Yes you are right, bees will always need you, me, and hundreds of the fantastic Beekeepers that make up this industry, but it will all be pointless breath if we lose control over the next steps in the chain.

 

While I might sound bitter and paranoid, I am old enough to remember the detrimental control the Honey Marketing Board had on average beekeepers.

We now have a perfect world of two respected industry groups providing guidance and the voice of reason over each other and more importantly politicians and MPI.

 

I would wager a carton of your favourite southern brew that keeping two groups healthy and an independant research trust would provide a base I would be proud to hand onto my next generation.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bushy said:

 

Two words that have been human drivers since Adam and Eve.

Control and Influence.

 

Control of resources, Control of new entrants, Control of pricing, Influence over industry and larger political decisions.

 

Just look at the Fishing, Dairy, and wine industries if you want to see where honey industry is heading with large company/corporate influence.

 

Ironically, the disruption in honey industry will probably happen regardless of levy vote, but a yes vote will speed up process, as small players provide finance for "industry good" decisions.

 

And if you think your little home based selling enterprise will fly under the radar, just go and talk to some small independant cheese makers and discover the influence Fonterra is having on their survival through MPI regulation.

 

Yes you are right, bees will always need you, me, and hundreds of the fantastic Beekeepers that make up this industry, but it will all be pointless breath if we lose control over the next steps in the chain.

 

While I might sound bitter and paranoid, I am old enough to remember the detrimental control the Honey Marketing Board had on average beekeepers.

We now have a perfect world of two respected industry groups providing guidance and the voice of reason over each other and more importantly politicians and MPI.

 

I would wager a carton of your favourite southern brew that keeping two groups healthy and an independant research trust would provide a base I would be proud to hand onto my next generation.

Hmmmm ..... Divide and rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bushy said:

While I might sound bitter and paranoid, I am old enough to remember the detrimental control the Honey Marketing Board had on average beekeepers.

We now have a perfect world of two respected industry groups providing guidance and the voice of reason over each other and more importantly politicians and MPI.

 

I would wager a carton of your favourite southern brew that keeping two groups healthy and an independant research trust would provide a base I would be proud to hand onto my next generation.

 

A couple of things i wonder:

1 - after the initial levy vote and assuming the levy goes through, how will voting on board members (who will decide on levy spend as far as i understand it) work? will it still be one vote per levy payer, or will there be some sort of weighting based on amount of levy paid? if the latter, then @Ali is correct and a levy is simply handing a lot of industry control to just a handful of commercial operators?

2 - again, assuming the levy goes through. Could a board support it funding another organisation (e.g. nz beeks inc or whatever) for specific purposes? and, i guess more importantly, would it?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just answered my own question, @Ali is right about industry capture, basically small producers will have zero say on how the levy is spent. Thoughts @Dennis Crowley:

Voting on the investment of levy funds will be weighted based on declared honey volumes by levy payers. 
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sailabee said:

I think those of us with long enough memories of the dairy industry will disagree. When Fonterra was first founded, they used whatever funds it took to annihilate any small would-be startups who spent good money to setup as boutique cheese manufacturers etc - much like the present honey extraction laws for hobby and small producers. This went on for a couple of decades, and now some have established and done well, Fonterra is using dairy-farmer members hard earned cash to buy those small operators out, and inevitably the quality goes down to suit the corporate model - Puhoi Cheese is one of our nearby examples, and they are plainly evident around the country. The head of Fonterra earns ridiculous money from the pot created by hard-working people in cowsheds all around the country without knowing one end of a cow from another.

Luck for us all APINZ didnt look at the dairy industry to base our levy on.

Share this post


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

 

A couple of things i wonder:

1 - after the initial levy vote and assuming the levy goes through, how will voting on board members (who will decide on levy spend as far as i understand it) work? will it still be one vote per levy payer, or will there be some sort of weighting based on amount of levy paid? if the latter, then @Ali is correct and a levy is simply handing a lot of industry control to just a handful of commercial operators?

2 - again, assuming the levy goes through. Could a board support it funding another organisation (e.g. nz beeks inc or whatever) for specific purposes? and, i guess more importantly, would it?

Tommy 1- Voting on who sits on the board is 1 person 1 vote as that is not a levy fund purpose. 2 - Technically yes if that is what the levy payers decide.

Edited by Dennis Crowley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, M4tt said:

And this is where the nonsense begins .

 

A yes vote that is Actually less than 50% of the TOTAL number of ELIGABLE voters means , no

 

From my experience , the vast majority of voters who don't vote, don't care , but certainly don't mean 'yes'

 

So the appropriate industry involved then gets ruled by a minority yes vote , which from my school exam days is a fail below 50%.

 

And yet we still carry on using this recipe to try and makes things 'better '

Then vote regardless of your views or others will decide for you.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, flash4cash said:

You are being to näive.  Everybody would love to only have half the hives in NZ. They just want everyone else to be the one to take the hit.  The bigs boys get that way because they are aggressive.  If they can use compliance cost to crush their competition they will. Look at the board members there are the big players on there.  They would love to crush the small players and remove them from the market, more money for them.  

Ah, but we have, or at least I have pointed out before that the Stats dont support that.

I cant remember the exact numbers but I quoted them from the Magazine a few weeks ago that if every beekeeper with 1000 or less hives was eliminated, the Hive numbers would only drop by a relatively small number

What this means in real terms is that any reduction in hive numbers that the big guys might achieve will come at a very high cost and be of questionable significance given it is a fact that there are still people wanting to enter the industry.

Its also worth remembering that just because a player is big, that doesn't mean they are invincible 
My view is that there will always be a balance of power.

Edited by Philbee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sailabee said:

I think those of us with long enough memories of the dairy industry will disagree. When Fonterra was first founded, they used whatever funds it took to annihilate any small would-be startups who spent good money to setup as boutique cheese manufacturers etc - much like the present honey extraction laws for hobby and small producers. This went on for a couple of decades, and now some have established and done well, Fonterra is using dairy-farmer members hard earned cash to buy those small operators out, and inevitably the quality goes down to suit the corporate model - Puhoi Cheese is one of our nearby examples, and they are plainly evident around the country. The head of Fonterra earns ridiculous money from the pot created by hard-working people in cowsheds all around the country without knowing one end of a cow from another.

Good point but have  considered how land ownership and the associated debt burden effects the model.
Beekeeping is unique in this regard.
Dairy farmers and others who own large blocks of land farm for capital gain.

They are actually in the real estate business.

This makes them fair game to anyone who can manipulate their cash flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Tommy 1- Voting on who sits on the board is 1 person 1 vote as that is not a levy fund purpose. 2 - Technically yes if that is what the levy payers decide.

yep, but voting on how the levy is spent is not the same thing.

I'm quoting from page 7 of your proposal here, which means that small producers will have effectively zero voice in how their levy is spent. Unless the levy proposal is incorrect, which would be a shame as it risks the whole process being rendered invalid:

Voting on the investment of levy funds will be weighted based on declared honey volumes by levy payers
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Ah, but we have, or at least I have pointed out before that the Stats dont support that.

I cant remember the exact numbers but I quoted them from the Magazine a few weeks ago that if every beekeeper with 1000 or less hives was eliminated, the Hive numbers would only drop by a relatively small number

What this means in real terms is that any reduction in hive numbers that the big guys might achieve will come at a very high cost and be of questionable significance given it is a fact that there are still people wanting to enter the industry.

Its also worth remembering that just because a player is big, that doesn't mean they are invincible 
My view is that there will always be a balance of power.

So the balance of power is probably in the family beeks favour right now because the corporates aren’t taking money out of our pockets to use it against us yet, they’re just cutting into our profits by overstocking areas and crowding us out of areas where we have been for long before them.

Until we say Yes to a levy.

Weighted voting is a real possibility and it’s unlikely to be ‘fair’ but it’s 100% legit and above board.

 

This levy is shady as hell, it’s a no from me Simon.

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


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

yep, but voting on how the levy is spent is not the same thing.

I'm quoting from page 7 of your proposal here, which means that small producers will have effectively zero voice in how their levy is spent. Unless the levy proposal is incorrect, which would be a shame as it risks the whole process being rendered invalid:

Voting on the investment of levy funds will be weighted based on declared honey volumes by levy payers

 

Yes under the commodity levy act, voting on the spend of levy funds is weighted, deciding on where to spend those funds is based on everyone having a vote at AGM or other form of communication ,and the board is then charged to see that the process happens within the timelines/financial value etc.

  • Good Info 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...