Jump to content
ApiNZ Levy Proposal

Commodity Levy - Voting Now Open

Recommended Posts

Beekeepers are beekeepers packers are packers.

How can packers make decisions on behalf of beekeepers or decides what to spend r&d money on and as a beekeeper how can we decide how to spend money on marketing .....i have no problem putting money into r&d for hive health .as far as market research goes ? We get paided as primary produces apparently 4-5$ kg? Same honey is selling for 20$ somebodys is being bent over ...

Pre manuka if i wanted to know what the honey price was goin to be i went to the supermarket and looked at price of 500gram honey and that was what we expected no more no less ..

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I object to the basis upon which the levy is being struck, it is ill-thought out and reckless.  If multi-floral is $7/kg and the levy $0.10c, and manuka is selling for $20-$180/kg where is the equity and fairness in that to non-manuka producers? It's a tax on those who can least afford it, at a time when returns have plummeted.  

 

 

  • Agree 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CraBee said:

I object to the basis upon which the levy is being struck, it is ill-thought out and reckless.  If multi-floral is $7/kg and the levy $0.10c, and manuka is selling for $20-$180/kg where is the equity and fairness in that to non-manuka producers? It's a tax on those who can least afford it, at a time when returns have plummeted.  

 

 

I would have thought those depending on $7/kg returns would have the most to gain from research, both into hive health/productivity and marketing, particularly developing markets for non-Manuka honey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

I would have thought those depending on $7/kg returns would have the most to gain from research, both into hive health/productivity and marketing, particularly developing markets for non-Manuka honey?

 

They may do.   It is a question of affordability though.  No commercial enterprise though ramps up r&d expenditure when their returns have halved in two years....that's a time for belt tightening.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been some discussion about different levy rates for Manuka and other honey. Could it be argued that most Manuka honey already pays a levy to the umf group. This levy seams to provide real value and has built a brand that is respected the world over. As well as being envied by beekeepers the world over. It has allowed the group to put into action many things including trying to protect the Manuka name. Something to consider when pondering the value of a levy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There has been some discussion about different levy rates for Manuka and other honey. Could it be argued that most Manuka honey already pays a levy to the umf group. This levy seams to provide real value and has built a brand that is respected the world over. As well as being envied by beekeepers the world over. It has allowed the group to put into action many things including trying to protect the Manuka name. Something to consider when pondering the value of a levy.

 

UMF is a private investment decision though. 

 

The levy is a compulsory deduction.  This is not self interest here - I have both multi-floral and manuka this season, but one of the tenets of any taxation system is that it must be fair, this levy is far from it.  In hand with $price/kg for multi halving in the last two years it is screwing people down at the worst time.

 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

 

 

 

The levy is a compulsory deduction.  This is not self interest here - I have both multi-floral and manuka this season, but one of the tenets of any taxation system is that it must be fair, this levy is far from it.  In hand with $price/kg for multi halving in the last two years it is screwing people down at the worst time.

 

Now is the best time for a levy vote  while eyes are firmly on the bottom line . It motivates to reflect on where money is best spent , unlike in boom times 

Edited by M4tt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

I would have thought those depending on $7/kg returns would have the most to gain from research, both into hive health/productivity and marketing, particularly developing markets for non-Manuka honey?

 

No those producing non Manuka honey won’t see any benefit from any kind of research for many years to come .

$7 kg ? Who’s offering that ?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@frazzledfozzle  not sure how much research you need to do on clover that hasn't already been done ...maybe they might come up with a knew way to spread it on ya toast

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence to queen breeders as i am one too . A queen producer with 1000 units producing 3-4000 queens 0kgs honey how you gonna levy them ?????

Share this post


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

 

They may do.   It is a question of affordability though.  No commercial enterprise though ramps up r&d expenditure when their returns have halved in two years....that's a time for belt tightening.

could be argued that only the long term survivors do R&D + marketing in lean times, the rest go under

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Nuc_man said:

@frazzledfozzle  not sure how much research you need to do on clover that hasn't already been done ...maybe they might come up with a knew way to spread it on ya toast

or a better way to market the obvious advantages nz clover honey has over honey blended in europe from chinese sugar syrup and who knows what else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Nuc_man said:

No offence to queen breeders as i am one too . A queen producer with 1000 units producing 3-4000 queens 0kgs honey how you gonna levy them ?????

introduce a second commodity levy? on honey bee queens?

the commodity in question is honey, nothing else. Something to do with how the law is written.

Share this post


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

could be argued that only the long term survivors do R&D + marketing in lean times, the rest go under

Sort of tommy dave  

R&D  done when prices were high and can pay back in hard times.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You realise that’s higher than 10 cents per kg? 

That was the thought loading the truck in the the hot hot sun with the sweat stinging the eyes and bemoaning the fact that the cow cockies had chopped all the shade trees down years ago and where were we going to shelter for lunch.  I did'nt do the maths !

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

could be argued that only the long term survivors do R&D + marketing in lean times, the rest go under

 

I've heard that said before and it sounds good but have never seen it happening in practice.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me, again from the outside, that the bottom line is king. The best way of enhancing that is not disease control or better queens or hive quotas or more apprenticeships. It's Marketing. End of story.  Time to sell "New Zealand Honey" 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only levy payers have a say on how levy funds are spent.  This means that packers and exporters can't have a say on how the levy is spent.  If the levy is passed, only the levy paying representatives on the board can direct the investment of levy payers.

 

We did consider a lower levy rate for clover and a higher rate for Manuka.  Advice from MPI is that this is not currently possible. This is because it takes testing to determine whether or not a honey is actually manuka or not. We did not want a levy proposal that introduced compulsory testing.

 

Queen bees are not included in the levy.  To do so would require a whole new levy and round of industry consultation.  Our current focus is on this commodity levy, which covers the substantive amount of honey production.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ApiNZ Levy Proposal said:

We did consider a lower levy rate for clover and a higher rate for Manuka.  Advice from MPI is that this is not currently possible. This is because it takes testing to determine whether or not a honey is actually manuka or not. We did not want a levy proposal that introduced compulsory testing.

 

hands up who doesn’t test their honey for MPI Manuka markers if they think it might be Manuka ?

 

  • Agree 3
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We well understand that honey is tested.  The big difference is that the Minister will not sign off a commodity levy that mandates testing. In addition to this, there is no domestic definition for manuka honey at present.  The definition only applies to honey for export.  This is one of the key reasons that MPI's lawyers advised us that they would not sign off a two-tiered levy.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ApiNZ Levy Proposal said:

, there is no domestic definition for manuka honey at present.  The definition only applies to honey for export. 

What a load of nonsense !!

 

Again , politics and other agendas getting in the way of what should be simple .

 

Im not having a go at you @ApiNZ Levy Proposal, but rather the silly rules you are bound by and have to abide by .

 

Unfortunately, this means that the one size fits all approach to the levy , which doesn’t recognise the chasm between different values of honey , just is not fair 

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do understand the frustration.  The Commodity Levies Act is very prescriptive.  However it is the only mechanism we have for raising funds from all of industry, ensuring that everyone contributes to industry good investment. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ApiNZ Levy Proposal said:

We do understand the frustration.  The Commodity Levies Act is very prescriptive.  However it is the only mechanism we have for raising funds from all of industry, ensuring that everyone contributes to industry good investment. 

 

This is why beekeepers resist. Not every one contributes according to the amount off skin in the game.  Could you not have worked harder at how the levy is collected?? Sure, it's simpler and easier to collect via the extractor- 

I could become interested if the collection method ensures that all beekeepers pay a reasonably proportional amount.  

Focus on the 'buyers' of bee products/services - yes complicated but fairer.  Via a small % on invoices generated??  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nu Bee says that honey packers and exporters can't have a say how the levy will be used, what a load of bull, most packers and exporters own beehives as well, so they will pay the levy and  have a say on how the levy is used, 

now ,I believe in the blurb it says that voting on the levy spend will be weighted by the number of hives owned . Guess who is going to hold all the power when it comes to deciding what to spend research money on , it aint going to be the smaller family owned business that's for sure.

 

 

  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ApiNZ Levy Proposal said:

We well understand that honey is tested.  The big difference is that the Minister will not sign off a commodity levy that mandates testing. In addition to this, there is no domestic definition for manuka honey at present.  The definition only applies to honey for export.  This is one of the key reasons that MPI's lawyers advised us that they would not sign off a two-tiered levy.

 

 

 

Wow.  

So here is the solution.  All honey purporting to be manuka packed in NZ and sent for export , exported in drum, or sold in NZ pays a higher levy rate.  Done.

The Minister didn't want to mandate testing, they didn't have to.

But the Minister has instead signed off on a levy that is disproportionately unfair to most of the industry.

I don't know anything about APINZ politics and who has captured what there, but the buzz is that large corporate type entities and manuka producers pull the strings.

That becomes very believable when you see this proposed levy and how it has been designed.

 

 

  • Agree 3

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...