Jump to content
Frederick

Commodity Levy / Fight for the Industrys future?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JohnF said:

In short, you’re a troll.: provoking response just to say ‘ won’t work, don’t trust you’, ad nauseum. 

Now I'm a "Troll" per the APINZ supporters post. 

Others are called various other things by APINZ supporters.

There really is only one view permitted isn't there! The view of APINZ and/or it's supporters or suffer personal attack and labelling from them. 

@Frederick I admire you for thinking you can achieve any change with this lot.

The only responses I am looking for @JohnF are those that directly address the issues and questions raised.

If the answers received so far are the best APINZ can muster than we are all deep in it, for the most part they are hollow, inadequate, smack of lack of effort, lack of vision (there does not appear be to be one aside from setting up APINZ in control) and lack of competent management.

Again @JohnF your response does not address in any fashion, in this forum, any of the issues/questions raised. 

I would be grateful if you could put aside the personalised name calling/labelling @JohnF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ali said:

Now I'm a "Troll" per the APINZ supporters post. 

Others are called various other things by APINZ supporters.

There really is only one view permitted isn't there! The view of APINZ and/or it's supporters or suffer personal attack and labelling from them. 

@Frederick I admire you for thinking you can achieve any change with this lot.

The only responses I am looking for @JohnF are those that directly address the issues and questions raised.

If the answers received so far are the best APINZ can muster than we are all deep in it, for the most part they are hollow, inadequate, smack of lack of effort, lack of vision (there does not appear be to be one aside from setting up APINZ in control) and lack of competent management.

Again @JohnF your response does not address in any fashion, in this forum, any of the issues/questions raised. 

I would be grateful if you could put aside the personalised name calling/labelling @JohnF.

While reiterating my support of Johns appraisal of your postings I'd like to point out I'm not so much a supporter of APINZ as a supporter of the way forward under a YES vote

Share this post


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

Ali following a YES vote an election of APINZ board members will take place with 5 of the 8  seats in the new board going to the Commercial sector: This will facilitate the new board having ability to re-tweak (for want of a better word) APINZ in the manner in which they wish.

Voting NO to both express dissatisfaction and somehow achieve change to APINZ when a YES vote delivers what you asking for, is simply naïve balderdash. 

Naive balderdash @Frederick? Perhaps that finger points both ways in this case. We will know in the future I expect.

A no vote may or may not effect any change. However a yes vote will reinforce their position to an enormous extent. It is improbable that there is any way back from there for any of us.

Take over from within will be an incredibly difficult task to achieve given the vested interest of some current participants. 

Oh...the new board? I understand it will simply be a slightly expanded one rather than a 'new board'? 

Do you see all the incumbents as giving up their seats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ali said:

Naive balderdash @Frederick? Perhaps that finger points both ways in this case. We will know in the future I expect.

A no vote may or may not effect any change. However a yes vote will reinforce their position to an enormous extent. It is improbable that there is any way back from there for any of us.

Take over from within will be an incredibly difficult task to achieve given the vested interest of some current participants. 

Oh...the new board? I understand it will simply be a slightly expanded one rather than a 'new board'? 

Do you see all the incumbents as giving up their seats?

I stand by my opinions regarding your input and further more wonder 'are these the ramblings of a new entrant to the industry or the tired input of old protagonists using a front'?

Regardless I answer your question as follows:

  • A no vote will deliver precisely that, nothing!
  • A YES vote is positive as outlined previously and OK if it doesn't work vote it out in 6 years
  • Vested Interest of current participants; well most people have vested interests; I do! you or the people pulling your strings do!
  • New Board: Well turning a 9 seat board into an 8 seat board (plus Ind. Chair) while rejigging the representation from 4 to 5 commercial and 4 to 3 market reps respectively prior to the instigation of the levy gives the incumbents very little choice! Albeit my preference is that all board members bar the independent chair put themselves up for re-election prior to the instigation of the levy asap practical following a YES vote.
  • As to your incumbent comment: Well as with all people putting themselves forward in public endeavour there's always a percentage of armchair critics who are content to see them as negative influences regardless of their motives and actions. Ali welcome to the armchair critics club although I suggest you and the people pulling your strings have undoubtedly been members for quite some time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frederick said:

I stand by my opinions regarding your input and further more wonder 'are these the ramblings of a new entrant to the industry or the tired input of old protagonists using a front'?

Regardless I answer your question as follows:

  • A no vote will deliver precisely that, nothing!
  • A YES vote is positive as outlined previously and OK if it doesn't work vote it out in 6 years
  • Vested Interest of current participants; well most people have vested interests; I do! you or the people pulling your strings do!
  • New Board: Well turning a 9 seat board into an 8 seat board (plus Ind. Chair) while rejigging the representation from 4 to 5 commercial and 4 to 3 market reps respectively prior to the instigation of the levy gives the incumbents very little choice! Albeit my preference is that all board members bar the independent chair put themselves up for re-election prior to the instigation of the levy asap practical following a YES vote.
  • As to your incumbent comment: Well as with all people putting themselves forward in public endeavour there's always a percentage of armchair critics who are content to see them as negative influences regardless of their motives and actions. Ali welcome to the armchair critics club although I suggest you and the people pulling your strings have undoubtedly been members for quite some time!

 

Been away two days and see you have racked up some serious colum inches on this topic.

 

Got a serious question for you.

You continually state you are not happy with ApiNZ but change will only happen from within on a yes vote.

 

What are the issues or areas you are not happy about with ApiNZ and want changed.

 

Not arguing wether your method is right or wrong, just wondering if we have the same issues.

Share this post


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

Been away two days and see you have racked up some serious colum inches on this topic.

I have been wondering the same thing.  Who is pulling your string @Frederick and I wonder if you are getting a bonus for every time you saw "Yes" vote.  (Joking Keith)

 

26 minutes ago, Frederick said:

urther more wonder 'are these the ramblings of a new entrant to the industry or the tired input of old protagonists using a front'?

I think it is quite disingenuous to accuse @Ali that someone is pulling her string.  Do you think you are the only one who is allowed an opinion.

And we must remember that all the ramblings on any forum are just opinion.

 

Vote NO.  

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Naive balderdash @Frederick? Perhaps that finger points both ways in this case. We will know in the future I expect.

A no vote may or may not effect any change. However a yes vote will reinforce their position to an enormous extent. It is improbable that there is any way back from there for any of us.

Take over from within will be an incredibly difficult task to achieve given the vested interest of some current participants. 

Oh...the new board? I understand it will simply be a slightly expanded one rather than a 'new board'? 

Do you see all the incumbents as giving up their seats?

Before we all get inundated with a heap of theorist postings on questions and comments as to when and how the restructure of the board would take place, let's hear the answer from ApiNZ and whether there is guidance in the Commodities Levy Act. 

 

I cannot understand why people are already complaining about the new board.  My understanding is, that under the Act any levy payer can stand for the commercial seats.  If you want a specific sized beekeeping operation or ideology on the board, then you stand for board, or you find a candidate that fits your prescription. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Margaret Anne said:

Before we all get inundated with a heap of theorist postings on questions and comments as to when and how the restructure of the board would take place, let's hear the answer from ApiNZ and whether there is guidance in the Commodities Levy Act. 

 

I cannot understand why people are already complaining about the new board.  My understanding is, that under the Act any levy payer can stand for the commercial seats.  If you want a specific sized beekeeping operation or ideology on the board, then you stand for board, or you find a candidate that fits your prescription. 

The voting for excetive members is hive number related - once again a few biggies get what they want. Even if every owner/operator voted for the same people, would have a snowflakes hope in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Margaret Anne said:

Before we all get inundated with a heap of theorist postings on questions and comments as to when and how the restructure of the board would take place, let's hear the answer from ApiNZ and whether there is guidance in the Commodities Levy Act. 

 

I cannot understand why people are already complaining about the new board.  My understanding is, that under the Act any levy payer can stand for the commercial seats.  If you want a specific sized beekeeping operation or ideology on the board, then you stand for board, or you find a candidate that fits your prescription. 

 

Of all the things I am not happy about, board elections are not one of them. It will be the 2020 election before levy payers could put their name forward, but democratically everyone can throw their hat in the ring.

That is healthy, but sad reality is getting people willing to put their hand up after initial hype wears off is very difficult. Eventually the balance often then swings to larger players who have extra staff or finances to cover time away at meetings.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

 

Of all the things I am not happy about, board elections are not one of them. It will be the 2020 election before levy payers could put their name forward, but democratically everyone can throw their hat in the ring.

That is healthy, but sad reality is getting people willing to put their hand up after initial hype wears off is very difficult. Eventually the balance often then swings to larger players who have extra staff or finances to cover time away at meetings.

The sad reality is, that all this bickering will put people off standing for the board

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

I currently farm 1300 hives with my two sons and two workers and have invested in 4000 acres of backcountry to solidify our future: I’ve had old family friends/associates screw us over for a handful of wintering and manuka sites and some new entrants to the industry show even less respect.

 

I spent 3 years helping Manuka Health establish their supplier network and bought honey, mentored new entrants and old hands wanting new perspectives.

 

 

As I have previously said, manuka, manuka and manuka rule. It's Manuka that got us in a pickle.

And APINZ is going to be compelled  to keep those mad manuka beeks happy.  I imagine Frederick is wanting to protect/enhance his investment and he's a big player friend. Lots of lobbying for pro manuka producers... 

Hardly any representation for pollination, queen, non manuka beekeepers.  Open your eyes folks. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

That is healthy, but sad reality is getting people willing to put their hand up after initial hype wears off is very difficult. Eventually the balance often then swings to larger players who have extra staff or finances to cover time away at meetings

boy that is so true.  There won't be many small operators who have the resources/time to become a member of the board,  Not sure how Dennis does it 😊

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

The sad reality is, that all this bickering will put people off standing for the board

 

No the current "healthy debate" will have no effect on people standing or not. What is at stake is designing the structure that allows effective and inclusive participation right from local groups/branches/regions through to your board rep. 

Your Hub might work, but generally there is a complete disconnect from ApiNZ to most regions.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2019 at 5:05 PM, Bushy said:

 

Been away two days and see you have racked up some serious colum inches on this topic.

 

Got a serious question for you.

You continually state you are not happy with ApiNZ but change will only happen from within on a yes vote.

 

What are the issues or areas you are not happy about with ApiNZ and want changed.

 

Not arguing wether your method is right or wrong, just wondering if we have the same issues.

I prefer to say 'were' unhappy with; the majors being itimised in depth in the fllowing forums:

  • Honey industry like 'wild west', minister says   By Frederick, July 28, 2018
  • ApiNZ Commodity Levy Proposal   By ApiNZ Levy Proposal, August 6, 2018             

  • Back the truck up APINZ    By Frederick, August 17, 2018                                                                                                                                                                                               

  • APINZ and the Commodity Levy: The great leap forward?  By Frederick, September 3, 2018

             (Basically Lack of commercial sector strength in the organisation, communication issue's and the way the Levy was presented as a fait accompli from the outset)

However following the consultation phase APINZ adjusted things enough for me to see my way through the issues I had and honestly I've changed to the affirmative: I just see it as an opportunity to good to turn down and an absolute godsend for the commercial sector!

 

On 16/02/2019 at 5:15 PM, Trevor Gillbanks said:

I have been wondering the same thing.  Who is pulling your string @Frederick and I wonder if you are getting a bonus for every time you saw "Yes" vote.  (Joking Keith)

 

I think it is quite disingenuous to accuse @Ali that someone is pulling her string.  Do you think you are the only one who is allowed an opinion.

And we must remember that all the ramblings on any forum are just opinion.

 

Vote NO.  

 

 

 

Thanks for finally showing your colours Trevor: Be good to see some constructive SNI Group input as well

 

On 16/02/2019 at 5:16 PM, Margaret Anne said:

Before we all get inundated with a heap of theorist postings on questions and comments as to when and how the restructure of the board would take place, let's hear the answer from ApiNZ and whether there is guidance in the Commodities Levy Act. 

 

I cannot understand why people are already complaining about the new board.  My understanding is, that under the Act any levy payer can stand for the commercial seats.  If you want a specific sized beekeeping operation or ideology on the board, then you stand for board, or you find a candidate that fits your prescription. 

I've spoken to Dennis Crowley on this and suggested they need to define the situation asap: I'm pushing for all board members (bar the Ind. Chair) putting themselves up for re-election following a YES vote prior to the instigation of the Levy.

Will hopefully be able to give APINZ's answer early in the week!

Edited by Grant
multi post merge
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

No the current "healthy debate" will have no effect on people standing or not. What is at stake is designing the structure that allows effective and inclusive participation right from local groups/branches/regions through to your board rep. 

Your Hub might work, but generally there is a complete disconnect from ApiNZ to most regions.

It is good to hear that "healthy debate" will have no effect on people standing or not. 

 

Our Hub is incredibly lucky.  Six of the 7 committee are under the age of 50, all different personalities, backgrounds and capabilities.  Very rarely do we have a problem getting member speakers or an annual visit to a honey house.  Once again, the Westland Field Day, and the Beekeepers' Day Out at Lincoln in May - we don't have problems getting speakers.  See the March journal for our Beekeepers' Day Out Programme.  We really would love to see beekeepers from other areas at this event. 

 

Some of our biggest issues are the geographic size of the Hub, and how we can cater for such a spread out membership, and trying to be inclusive of all sectors, and of course all the committee have really busy paid occupations.  In terms of our Hub increasing it's functioning and education, we envisage seeing major benefits from the Commodity Levy and quite frankly we can't wait to see these benefits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2019 at 5:22 PM, Sailabee said:

The voting for excetive members is hive number related - once again a few biggies get what they want. Even if every owner/operator voted for the same people, would have a snowflakes hope in hell.

Bullocks Sailabee the commercial sector will have more than enough representation to play it part.

Vote NO negative or give the sector a chance and vote TES for a positive future!

 

On 16/02/2019 at 5:43 PM, Gino de Graaf said:

 

As I have previously said, manuka, manuka and manuka rule. It's Manuka that got us in a pickle.

And APINZ is going to be compelled  to keep those mad manuka beeks happy.  I imagine Frederick is wanting to protect/enhance his investment and he's a big player friend. Lots of lobbying for pro manuka producers... 

Hardly any representation for pollination, queen, non manuka beekeepers.  Open your eyes folks. 

Crikey yes lets blame Manuka for all our ills: good luck with the negative stance!

Can't see any reason why pollinators, queen rearers and non manuka producers should sit on the board; any forward thinking rational and positive commercial beekeeper will be top on my voting list!

 

 

On 16/02/2019 at 5:29 PM, Bushy said:

 

Of all the things I am not happy about, board elections are not one of them. It will be the 2020 election before levy payers could put their name forward, but democratically everyone can throw their hat in the ring.

That is healthy, but sad reality is getting people willing to put their hand up after initial hype wears off is very difficult. Eventually the balance often then swings to larger players who have extra staff or finances to cover time away at meetings.

Its called apathy Bushy and I'm as guilty as the next person: Easy to sit back and let passionate volunteers (or paid corporate staff) slip into these roles.

Be good if the industry could change this aspect following a YES vote!

 

On 16/02/2019 at 5:38 PM, Margaret Anne said:

The sad reality is, that all this bickering will put people off standing for the board

Margaret I can't agree with you if we don't have these conversations before the vote there's no point afterwards.

 

On 16/02/2019 at 5:43 PM, Gino de Graaf said:

 

As I have previously said, manuka, manuka and manuka rule. It's Manuka that got us in a pickle.

And APINZ is going to be compelled  to keep those mad manuka beeks happy.  I imagine Frederick is wanting to protect/enhance his investment and he's a big player friend. Lots of lobbying for pro manuka producers... 

Hardly any representation for pollination, queen, non manuka beekeepers.  Open your eyes folks. 

What did I say earlier about putting your head up above the parapet and someone's going to nock it off for the simple reason they can!

In this Forum I'm unashamedly going out on a limb to passionately advocate for the future of a strong commercial sector and Gino recons I'm protecting and enhancing my investment and befriending the 'BIG' boys.

Gino read my history and posts then reappraise your attitude and you may well find positive thoughts (you never thought you could have) that lead you to a YES vote: But Gino quite bluntly I don't need APINZ to enhance and protect my investment in the industry I get off my backside and do that myself and where as I'm happy to talk to and associate with people from all parts of the industry I'm no more in the Big Boys pocket than yours or APINZ's!

Edited by Grant
multipost merge

Share this post


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

I've spoken to Dennis Crowley on this and suggested they need to define the situation asap: I'm pushing for all board members (bar the Ind. Chair) putting themselves up for re-election following a YES vote prior to the instigation of the Levy.

Will hopefully be able to give APINZ's answer early in the week!

 

This is pointless in 2019 as only existing ApiNZ members can stand and vote. 

If levy is passed, it will take to mid year for legal framework to be in place and levy payers will only become official members when money is paid which has the first deadline of March 31st 2020.

 

Newly elected board members under a new levy voter system will only become official after the 2020 AGM, which incidentally is about an hour after ApiNZ can officially take their first vote on increasing the levy from 10to 15 cents

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

What did I say earlier about putting your head up above the parapet and someone's going to nock it off for the simple reason they can!

ditto,. I use my name on here.  Putting it out there;  Gino de Graaf.  Go on knock it off....  You are so passionately for it, that I can only share my thoughts to bring some balance/ideas. 

 

Share this post


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

boy that is so true.  There won't be many small operators who have the resources/time to become a member of the board,  Not sure how Dennis does it 😊

To true Gino

What's the answer: Maybe an honorarium for board members? Or maybe we're all happy to be out there earning coin while the volunteers run around after us for free?

That's why I'm happy to vote yes and install a commercial dominated professional organisation in place to represent the sector and industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Frederick said:

Crikey yes lets blame Manuka for all our ills: good luck with the negative stance!

Can't see any reason why pollinators, queen rearers and non manuka producers should sit on the board; any forward thinking rational and positive commercial beekeeper will be top on my voting list!

You deny it then? No issue with manuka... 

And, Why should Pollinators, queen rearers, non manuka producers 'not' sit on the board? I think you might have wrote your message backwards, as in you were pro, but reads as con. 

Share this post


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

 

This is pointless in 2019 as only existing ApiNZ members can stand and vote. 

If levy is passed, it will take to mid year for legal framework to be in place and levy payers will only become official members when money is paid which has the first deadline of March 31st 2020.

 

Newly elected board members under a new levy voter system will only become official after the 2020 AGM, which incidentally is about an hour after ApiNZ can officially take their first vote on increasing the levy from 10to 15 cents

Straight up good points Bushy but there must be a way around it?

As is obvious I'm pretty passionate about the whole thing but try and get a 10-15c rise out of me and I'll come out swinging!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gino de Graaf said:

You deny it then? No issue with manuka... 

And, Why should Pollinators, queen rearers, non manuka producers 'not' sit on the board? I think you might have wrote your message backwards, as in you were pro, but reads as con. 

Thanks for the correction Gino should read  'not' sit on the board as you envisaged!

Share this post


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

Straight up good points Bushy but there must be a way around it?

As is obvious I'm pretty passionate about the whole thing but try and get a 10-15c rise out of me and I'll come out swinging!

 

Well you had better be organising a posy for the 2020 ApiNZ AGM as I am sure you know from reading their rules that they only need a majority vote at that AGM to pass cost increase

Share this post


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

 

Well you had better be organising a posy for the 2020 ApiNZ AGM as I am sure you know from reading their rules that they only need a majority vote at that AGM to pass cost increase

Hey life's full of hurdles but with the commercial sector 'Co-operating' (unity might be stretching it!) I'm sure we can govern the bureaucrats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gino de Graaf said:

ditto,. I use my name on here.  Putting it out there;  Gino de Graaf.  Go on knock it off....  You are so passionately for it, that I can only share my thoughts to bring some balance/ideas. 

 

Firstly I sign major posts Keith Rodie (Fredericks my middle name) and I'm not knocking your head off for anything other than unsubstantiated comments on me personally.

 

I love the fact you're engaging and I hope you have a successful commercial future albeit there's more chance of that following a YES vote!

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...