Jump to content
ApiNZ Levy Proposal

ApiNZ's Amended 2018 Commodity Levy Proposal

Recommended Posts

It is incredible to me that an entity with perhaps a membership of about 10% of all registeered beeks can launch a campaign such as APINZ has to try to compell contributions from those (the vast majority of people involved) who wish nothing to do with them. 

In terms of people it is most definitely the tail trying to shake the dog.

Yes, I know, I have pretty much gone full circle in my posts now but this remains in my mind as an absurd situation. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the representation of beekeepers in NZ needs a restructure to create a body that truly represents all beekeepers and unify the industry (as much as may be possible) well before APINZ and it's cohorts are placed in what may be an irreversible position of power and control.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

apinz still and their board members still refusing to post here about how the vote will be split for determining levy spend, i.e. are the votes of all levy payers weighted evenly, or are the votes weighted by levy paid.

 

pretty good chance that legal advice is being sought as to whether the mis-representation of this issue by apinz could result in the vote being void and the levy being a no-go.

 void due to lies from the levy beneficiary is the view of this layperson, not a specialist lawyer though...

 

unsurprisingly apinz are being silent on this issue, @Dennis Crowley too, although vocal and sounding legit on other fronts. Gagged on this one perhaps?

Tommy,not gagged just been moving hives and pulling honey.

ill get back to you as still got more work to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8 February 2019 at 6:57 AM, Gino de Graaf said:

@Dennis Crowley @ApiNZ Levy Proposal

The extractor provides information to APINZ regarding quantity of honey processed by each beekeeper.  Didn't see anything about how the system is validated. 

APINZ then invoices each beekeeper 

How does APINZ know if the figures are correct? 

Beekeepers have to be correct to pass MPI audits- does APINZ have access to these records? 

I have posted similar questions twice before, no one seems to know as no one responded.

On trust at first, the only info asked for would be how many kgs and by whom. APINZ dosen't have access to those MPI records. But under the levy act MPI is able to audit the process. If people feel that there is way to much under-reporting going on about volumes then I would imagine that there would be viable question put to MPI around those records.

Share this post


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

 

Not even looking to pick off just come in over the top or approach the landowner with an open cheque book !

and with all the big boys being involved with Apinz it’s pretty certain they will have easy access to that info.

in my mind that others having access to this kind of info is worse than having corporates decide where our hard earned levy money is spent.

the whole thing smells like an old bait bag 

APINZ does not have access or needs access to those records, only volume and who, no other info needed. When it comes to invoicing a levy on kgs the volume and who to send invoice to is all that matters, not asking for info on how many hives or how well those hives are have done or where they did it. No conspiracy here folks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dennis Crowley said:

If people feel that there is way to much under-reporting going on about volumes then I would imagine that there would be viable question put to MPI around those records.

 

Thanks Dennis. 

I guess the 'people' could be APINZ?  Sounds like APINZ will get MPI to check for them.  Though currently no systems check in place. 

Share this post


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

APINZ does not have access or needs access to those records, only volume and who, no other info needed. When it comes to invoicing a levy on kgs the volume and who to send invoice to is all that matters, not asking for info on how many hives or how well those hives are have done or where they did it. No conspiracy here folks.

I don't think there is too much conspiracy theory here, just some clarification how the information will be handled. 

Just knowing the volume and by whom is pretty sensitive information. Though, beekeepers talk... if someone has a big crop it's nothing secret. Via the extractor, workers, farmers and friends.  I guess the 'type/value' is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gino de Graaf said:

 

Thanks Dennis. 

I guess the 'people' could be APINZ?  Sounds like APINZ will get MPI to check for them.  Though currently no systems check in place. 

Thats right, we would hope that there is enough honesty out their amongst extractors to just copy and past their extraction records (meaning only volume and who)as it is no big deal, as they will be sending invoices off to those who get extracted and so they will have volumes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gino de Graaf said:

I don't think there is too much conspiracy theory here, just some clarification how the information will be handled. 

Just knowing the volume and by whom is pretty sensitive information. Though, beekeepers talk... if someone has a big crop it's nothing secret. Via the extractor, workers, farmers and friends.  I guess the 'type/value' is. 

Agreed, that is also partly why we have gone on just cents/kg of honey. We don't need all the other info as it has no bearing on the levy process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dennis Crowley said:

Thats right, we would hope that there is enough honesty out their amongst extractors to just copy and past their extraction records (meaning only volume and who)as it is no big deal, as they will be sending invoices off to those who get extracted and so they will have volumes as well.

plenty of 'in house' beekeeper extractor operators who could easily under report.  I know it's not a big deal-  for one to under report but if many do  then all of a sudden we have reducing crops.  Less for $

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gino de Graaf said:

plenty of 'in house' beekeeper extractor operators who could easily under report.  I know it's not a big deal-  for one to under report but if many do  then all of a sudden we have reducing crops.  Less for $

Thats true, but to continue the underreporting they would have to also change their extraction records, as that is what MPI would go looking at I guess if we got them in to check, I just dont see the value init for them to do that---- but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dennis Crowley said:

Thats true, but to continue the underreporting they would have to also change their extraction records, as that is what MPI would go looking at I guess if we got them in to check, I just dont see the value init for them to do that---- but you never know.

In manufacturing generally, 'adjusting' stock on hand at either end of the financial year is a well known way of evening out tax liability from year to year - particularly relevant in a falling market.

Share this post


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

APINZ does not have access or needs access to those records, only volume and who, no other info needed. When it comes to invoicing a levy on kgs the volume and who to send invoice to is all that matters, not asking for info on how many hives or how well those hives are have done or where they did it. No conspiracy here folks.

 

Volume and who is all the info needed if they already know where you operate. 

 

Share this post


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

Thats true, but to continue the underreporting they would have to also change their extraction records, as that is what MPI would go looking at I guess if we got them in to check, I just dont see the value init for them to do that---- but you never know.

No, keep extraction records the same- you have to for MPI- just under report. What's the punishment for that... bit like not having sites registered? 

Value in it- ?  Kick backs, helping out, protest, because they can... 

Depending on 'good faith' got us in the manuka poop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, frazzledfozzle said:

 

Volume and who is all the info needed if they already know where you operate. 

 

I think floral type more important.  Big difference if it's mono manuka and pasture.  You might get 15kg good stuff and 50 low value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TradingI used to be pretty blasé about who I told about how much honey I got where but those days are well gone and I now consider all my production figures including total production to be highly sensitive information. I have to admit I would love to know what some other people are producing too. Having said that, I'm sure there can be procedures put in place to prevent information being used inappropriately just as there is now.

Dennis thank you for answering some of the questions and when you get time could you please have a close look at the questions I have asked in my previous post.

As for the question; did the NBA run a Trading\commercial activity? I don't think so but I have only ever been on the edge of what was going on. They certainly had a marketing team for a while and they did used to sell a few badges and tea towels. I suspect most of the commercial activity was done by allied groups such as the honey packers Association, Queen breeders Association and I think comb honey producers Association and the pollination Association, in later years I think there was also some time with the UMF Association.

 

Share this post


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

My concern centres about the fact we have a small group of large operators who will pretty much have complete control of the levy spend.

On the face of it this is not fair however what would be an example of an unfair outcome in this regard.

Are the big guys, going to have different levy funding priorities than you for example?

If so what might these differences be?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gino de Graaf said:

I think floral type more important.  Big difference if it's mono manuka and pasture.  You might get 15kg good stuff and 50 low value. 

 

If the corporates are already in the same area they will know what kind of honey is around. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

It is incredible to me that an entity with perhaps a membership of about 10% of all registeered beeks can launch a campaign such as APINZ has to try to compell contributions from those (the vast majority of people involved) who wish nothing to do with them. 

In terms of people it is most definitely the tail trying to shake the dog.

Yes, I know, I have pretty much gone full circle in my posts now but this remains in my mind as an absurd situation. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the representation of beekeepers in NZ needs a restructure to create a body that truly represents all beekeepers and unify the industry (as much as may be possible) well before APINZ and it's cohorts are placed in what may be an irreversible position of power and control.

Back to Federated Farmers ..... ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/02/2019 at 1:20 PM, Ali said:

Yes, I know, I have pretty much gone full circle in my posts now

More than one I was getting dizzy.

Edited by yesbut
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attached article was written by Barry Foster (BF on these posts and also char of the ApiNZ Science & Research group).

An interesting comment on the timing of the last levy.

And if you don't like the article, well then I've attached the Gisborne Herald crossword for you. . .  [JM]

 

Edited by ApiNZ Science & Research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

The attached article was written by Barry Foster (BF on these posts and also char of the ApiNZ Science & Research group).

An interesting comment on the timing of the last levy.

And if you don't like the article, well then I've attached the Gisborne Herald crossword for you. . .  [JM]

 

 

And here's the article - couldn't get the image to upload properly.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/dfc9bc102b10a4fca45b59bc8/files/0f25be82-cb96-4a57-a5af-bf9403c24d1f/Barry_Foster_letter_to_editor_FINAL.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a matter of liking or disliking the article @ApiNZ Science & Research but that same old cloaking the levy matter in the emotive/manipulative "research" garment.

The levy vote is vastly bigger than the research argument as I am sure you already know!

The real question is do we the prospective victims want  to have APINZ in a financial and political position this levy will place them in.

In short: NO

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

The attached article was written by Barry Foster (BF on these posts and also char of the ApiNZ Science & Research group).

An interesting comment on the timing of the last levy.

And if you don't like the article, well then I've attached the Gisborne Herald crossword for you. . .  [JM]

 

 

Nice article thanks for sending it through, except we are not voting on a research ONLY levy we are voting on a complete shift in NZ Beekeeper administration. That is a way bigger picture than what this article portrays and for you (who ever you are) to not understand that is a massive concern.

 

Since ApiNZ staff have now refused to answer the many questions put to them, I can only assume they really don't care in general (unlikely) or that they just don't care about anyone on this forum. 

 

It it is now time for me to vote.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Nice article thanks for sending it through, except we are not voting on a research ONLY levy we are voting on a complete shift in NZ Beekeeper administration. That is a way bigger picture than what this article portrays and for you (who ever you are) to not understand that is a massive concern.

 

Since ApiNZ staff have now refused to answer the many questions put to them, I can only assume they really don't care in general (unlikely) or that they just don't care about anyone on this forum. 

 

It it is now time for me to vote.

 

Fair enough comment @Bushy that it is not just research involved with the levy . . . but as the letter was written by the chair of the science group (and former president of NBA), I think its equally fair that it focused on that aspect. It is also from someone - like you - who can put this in a wider historical context  ie was around when the last levy came in and then disappeared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ApiNZ Science & Research said:

 

Fair enough comment @Bushy that it is not just research involved with the levy . . . but as the letter was written by the chair of the science group (and former president of NBA), I think its equally fair that it focused on that aspect. It is also from someone - like you - who can put this in a wider historical context  ie was around when the last levy came in and then disappeared

 

Yes but the emotion and validity of one aspect (research) is being used to sell the other (ApiNZ) and that is wrong, and is being done in a way that does not provide full disclosure to many fringe voters/industry participants.

 

To use your angle correctly, we should be voting on two levies. A research levy and an industry administration levy. Both completely separate.

  • Agree 2

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...