Jump to content
Frederick

Commodity Levy / Fight for the Industrys future?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

@Ali What is patently dishonest is anyone trying to represent "more that 50%" as anything other than a majority.  It is unclear to me how we can put this any more simply than stated above.  The Commodity Levies Act requires a majority of support of voters before a levy order can be passed.  Period.  Naturally we cannot count the votes of those that don't vote.  I'm unaware of any vote across the world that attempts to count the vote of those who do not vote. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted

Edited by yesbut
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

@Ali What is patently dishonest is anyone trying to represent "more that 50%" as anything other than a majority.  It is unclear to me how we can put this any more simply than stated above.  The Commodity Levies Act requires a majority of support of voters before a levy order can be passed.  Period.  Naturally we cannot count the votes of those that don't vote.  I'm unaware of any vote across the world that attempts to count the vote of those who do not vote. 

@ApiNZ Levy Proposala clear statement whether the vote is by way of weighted voting or a 1 person 1 vote method is what I am asking for. There are majorities and majorities depending on the intention of the writer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ali  This is as clear as  you will get

 

Under the Commodity Levies Act the vote must pass two hurdles. First, more than 50% of those that vote must vote yes.  Second, those 'yes' votes must represent more than 50% of all the hives declared by those who voted.   Once again I repeat, this is a requirement of the Act. ALL Commodity Levy votes are run like this, all 33 of them.

 

Let me explain further.  If say 1000 beekeepers vote and between them they have 50,000 hives, then more than 500 have to vote yes.  IF that hurdle is passed, THEN they also have to own AT LEAST 25,000 hives.

 

Have you looked at your voting form yet?  You will see you have to fill in two fields.  Once is a simple 'yes' 'no' the second is a declaration of hive numbers.  For the vote to proceed both of those metrics must be more than 50%.  This is also know as a majority

 

Not sure I can assist further with this one.  If you are still confused you could call MPI and ask how Commodity Act voting works.  Again I would encourage you to read consultation material 

  • Like 1
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


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

The SNI group was formed from the old NBA regional group that could not reach a resolution with ApiNZ.

 

Can you elaborate on the issues Trevor?

Share this post


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

@Ali  This is as clear as  you will get

 

Under the Commodity Levies Act the vote must pass two hurdles. First, more than 50% of those that vote must vote yes.  Second, those 'yes' votes must represent more than 50% of all the hives declared by those who voted.   Once again I repeat, this is a requirement of the Act. ALL Commodity Levy votes are run like this, all 33 of them.

 

Let me explain further.  If say 1000 beekeepers vote and between them they have 50,000 hives, then more than 500 have to vote yes.  IF that hurdle is passed, THEN they also have to own AT LEAST 25,000 hives.

 

Have you looked at your voting form yet?  You will see you have to fill in two fields.  Once is a simple 'yes' 'no' the second is a declaration of hive numbers.  For the vote to proceed both of those metrics must be more than 50%.  This is also know as a majority

 

Not sure I can assist further with this one.  If you are still confused you could call MPI and ask how Commodity Act voting works.  Again I would encourage you to read consultation material 

We are back in the territory of not really addressing the question in a direct and forthright manner I feel @ApiNZ Levy Proposal.

Thus I will make a gambit and state below what I see as the real situation.

 

A vote for any increase in the levy will be by weighted voting.

 

Please feel free to clearly state if am in fact wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ali there is no levy in place yet.  This is the vote in front of us.

 

Any future vote to increase the levy would be by simple majority vote.  Again I refer you to consultation material or call MPI to discuss.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the event of a ‘Yes’ vote, the levy payers will be asked to vote and elect all five commercial representatives on the Board (and who would be confirmed at the 2020 AGM).  ApiNZ has taken this approach as we wanted to ensure a fully transparent and accountable process that would ensure the levy payers have the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidates to sit on the new Board.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is more heat than light in this discussion.  Some historical perspective might be useful - we've been here before!!

  • We had an apiary levy that followed a hive levy (applied under The Hive Levy Act). 
  • The apiary levy was one of the first commodity levies under the new Commodity Levies act.
  • We had many good things come from these levies including research, marketing initiatives and industry planning.
  • Without a levy most of these would not have been done.  "Manuka" was a significant initiative from the work funded by these levies. The AFB management programme was another.
  • The NBA executive was taken over by a faction whose politics discouraged many from standing for election, so we ended up with appointed executive members (no elections) and the whole lot descended into a morass of nepotism and political infighting. 
  • The Apiary levy failed to be renewed at a vote of the levy payers.
  • The vote against the levy mostly reflected the desire to get rid of the NBA incumbents and their appalling behaviour.
  • Many of the names that were part of that NBA are now against the levy....
  • These divided politics today are likely to cause the levy vote to fail again.
  • If you want good things to happen, you need money to do them. You need a levy. 
  • If you vote no for the levy, then another proposal and vote will be years away.
  • If you think the industry is going well and doesn't have a need for collective action requiring funding, vote no.
  • If you disagree with the politics, efficiency, application of the levy etc, stand for election and fix those issues.

Disclaimer:

As a marketer (no hives) I have no levy to pay, but will also have no decision over how one is applied.

FWIW.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the email from JH and APINZ said today ...."Smart beekeepers plan for the future, and a YES vote is a vote for the future".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Can you elaborate on the issues Trevor?

No.  This is between ApiNZ and SNI and is not part of the levy discussion.  

It was bought up only to point out the rift between ApiNZ and SNI.

I will also point out the the SNI is not 100% against and as such we have members who are also members of ApiNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Trevor Gillbanks said:

No.  This is between ApiNZ and SNI and is not part of the levy discussion.  

It was bought up only to point out the rift between ApiNZ and SNI.

I will also point out the the SNI is not 100% against and as such we have members who are also members of ApiNZ.

There is no rift between APINZ and SNI, SNI decided on its own to become independent. APINZ can not stop anyone starting up a new beekeeping group, nor can any other group.

If anything we thought it may have been a bit  sudden and would have thought that waiting to see how the vote was going to go before making that decision. 

  • Good Info 1

Share this post


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

 

Unless constitutional law has suddenly changed, "newly elected board members" only become official seat holders at the end of an AGM, so any vote held at the AGM will be carried out under the watch of incumbent board members.

Unless there is something I am really missing, it will be impossible for new captured levy payers to vote for 2019 board members, as they are not members until levy money is paid.

 

Apinz rules state, levy increase can only happen at AGM by majority vote. If you are now stating today, Apinz have changed your written rule to now include a weighted proxy vote for that AGM, then great, but dont pretend it has existed prior to now. Hey I don't write your rules, I just read whats in front of us to try and make intelligent voting decisions.

Bushy, a rough timeline, If we get a yes vote March 2019 it then goes to govt to ratify/put in law, that can take up to 6 months so say Oct 2019 at that point we have a levy in place. We then have the 2019-2020 honey season to harvest, so around June 2020 we will have the levy invoices to go out for payment by Oct 2020 at the latest. For board member elections we can at 

2019 APINZ AGM pass a rule change that due to having a  levy in place that we are calling for all commercial board members seats to be put up for re-election at APINZ 2020 AGM conference. That vote will be 1 man 1 vote as it is not a levy money spend vote.

We hope to have the levy in place Oct 2019, we have chosen thet the funds wont be collected untill Sep-Oct 2020

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... as the voting comes down to the wire,we are getting bombarded with emails ad to why we should’nt.

As they say , ‘in love and war’.... 

The latest email was from NZ Beekeeping inc. It made me chuckle ad I have had run ins withe some of these guys, so i found this photo.... if u look in the bottom left it says UGBC.

United Grumpy Beekeepers Club

E6EA620E-5CA8-4C7C-954E-2433B6A00713.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sign was originally made when us blokes up this valley were the United  Grumpy Batchelors Club.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is no rift between APINZ and SNI

Thanks you.

Share this post


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

@ApiNZ Levy Proposal this explanation is more honest I think. When someone says a 'majority vote of levy payers' most expect it is a majority of registered beekeepers who qualify for the levy payment.

This is patently not the case as you have explained. 

@Ali your post here is full of #### - it's like all democracies, a majority of the voters who choose to vote. Same with NZ government..

you are now perpetuating lies and mis-truths. I was heavy on @ApiNZ Levy Proposal avoiding questions, most of those are now answered but you persist in claiming they haven't been.
I recommend you do as i have, and pull out now. Nobody who reads here has missed your posts, everyone knows your position, i doubt you're doing anything other than alienating everyone with your repetitive ranting. You have posted nothing new or of value to the debate in days.

 

Also, why are you ignoring the question about whether you were a beginner seeking experience and advice a couple of years ago. I don't believe you didn't see it. I've got a lot of respect for those such as @Trevor Gillbanks and @Frederick who are open about their skin in the game as well as their position. You do nothing on that front.

Edited by tommy dave
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Bushy, a rough timeline, If we get a yes vote March 2019 it then goes to govt to ratify/put in law, that can take up to 6 months so say Oct 2019 at that point we have a levy in place. We then have the 2019-2020 honey season to harvest, so around June 2020 we will have the levy invoices to go out for payment by Oct 2020 at the latest. For board member elections we can at 

2019 APINZ AGM pass a rule change that due to having a  levy in place that we are calling for all commercial board members seats to be put up for re-election at APINZ 2020 AGM conference. That vote will be 1 man 1 vote as it is not a levy money spend vote.

We hope to have the levy in place Oct 2019, we have chosen thet the funds wont be collected untill Sep-Oct 2020

This post was to assure people that we have time to get the right people on board before the levy funds become available, the levy time line is about right, the process to set up board elections may vary a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I attended the local consultation meeting but it was a long time ago. I have just gone back and reread the bit in the email that was sent out with the voting form, about weighted voting and which of the board members can vote et cetera. This whole section is poorly worded and open to interpretation. This is not a comment on whether anyone should vote yes or no, it is just a question. Weighted voting has been explained but I am still unsure whether a majority weighted vote will carry the day when it comes to how the money will be spent or will the board members have the final say. Both systems have good and bad points but I would like to know .Most of the information seems to be set out clearly and concisely which is how it should be.

Can't somebody please sit down and write out all the facts in one post covering everything on how and when and by whom voting and decisions on those votes will be made if we get a commodity levy. Hopefully that would save me having to read through endless questions and answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2019 at 11:26 AM, Beeman1 said:

will tell if ApiNZ fulfill everyone dreams

Thing is, its not up to ApiNZ to fulfill everyone's dreams'.
The only person who can fulfill your dreams is you.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 10:03 AM, Sailabee said:

I knew Paul Martin had not done jack zip as a hobbyist rep as always FF BIG orientated, but his glossy CV when he stood for the position on the executive didn't mention working for Comvita, and in my world,  if he then took the job, was morally obliged to resign his position on the executive as a clear conflict of interest. Bet he won't come up for re-election anytime soon.

Now tell me again how the corporate sector are fine upstanding business people and all our friends who don't seek to overpower the family businesses cheaply?

I don't even know Paul Martin but fairs fair folks those involved with this mis-information (and cheep shots) should urgently forward their personal apologies directly to Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emissary said:

I think there is more heat than light in this discussion.  Some historical perspective might be useful - we've been here before!!

  • We had an apiary levy that followed a hive levy (applied under The Hive Levy Act). 
  • The apiary levy was one of the first commodity levies under the new Commodity Levies act.
  • We had many good things come from these levies including research, marketing initiatives and industry planning.
  • Without a levy most of these would not have been done.  "Manuka" was a significant initiative from the work funded by these levies. The AFB management programme was another.
  • The NBA executive was taken over by a faction whose politics discouraged many from standing for election, so we ended up with appointed executive members (no elections) and the whole lot descended into a morass of nepotism and political infighting. 
  • The Apiary levy failed to be renewed at a vote of the levy payers.
  • The vote against the levy mostly reflected the desire to get rid of the NBA incumbents and their appalling behaviour.
  • Many of the names that were part of that NBA are now against the levy....
  • These divided politics today are likely to cause the levy vote to fail again.
  • If you want good things to happen, you need money to do them. You need a levy. 
  • If you vote no for the levy, then another proposal and vote will be years away.
  • If you think the industry is going well and doesn't have a need for collective action requiring funding, vote no.
  • If you disagree with the politics, efficiency, application of the levy etc, stand for election and fix those issues.

Disclaimer:

As a marketer (no hives) I have no levy to pay, but will also have no decision over how one is applied.

FWIW.

 

 

It would be a good idea to first read this post and then watch the utube video.
The Dangers of Tribalism  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y-b7f6CK2M

Edited by Philbee
  • Like 1
  • Good Info 1

Share this post


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

The sign was originally made when us blokes up this valley were the United  Grumpy Batchelors Club.  

Before anyone else gets in and seriously asks!  Is this a break away group from the NBA, Beekeeping Inc, BIG, FF or ApiNZ?    Or was the prob resolved with some good breeding stock?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

@Ali your post here is full of #### - it's like all democracies, a majority of the voters who choose to vote. Same with NZ government..

you are now perpetuating lies and mis-truths. I was heavy on @ApiNZ Levy Proposal avoiding questions, most of those are now answered but you persist in claiming they haven't been.
I recommend you do as i have, and pull out now. Nobody who reads here has missed your posts, everyone knows your position, i doubt you're doing anything other than alienating everyone with your repetitive ranting. You have posted nothing new or of value to the debate in days. .

 

Haters gonna hate Dave . . . . and trolls are gonna troll. 

However i dont think the “you are now perpetuating lies and mis-truths” is fair . . . ie, at least the word ‘now’ - as I pinged AliNZ on that quite some time ago and reiterated it a few days ago. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clash, "Should I Stay or Should I Go"  - Legendary in circa 1989 

 

https://www.whosampled.com/sample/6349/Big-Audio-Dynamite-The-Globe-The-Clash-Should-I-Stay-or-Should-I-Go/

 

Listen only on MAX  volume.

 

Some Lyrics:

.".....
This indecision's bugging me
If you don't want me, set me free 
Exactly whom I'm supposed to be 
Don't you know which clothes even fit me?
Come on and let me know
Should I cool it or should I blow? 
Split
 
Should I stay or should I go now? 
Should I stay or should I go now? 
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double 
So ya gotta let me know 
Should I cool it or should I blow?
......"
Edited by CraBee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be advised that this topic is currently being actively monitored by moderators and it may be locked at any time.

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...