Jump to content

Powers needed/used by the AFB PMP...


Recommended Posts

I heard something of a complaint, a cry to "this should be wrong", regarding the powers being used by the AFB Pest Management Plan...

 

The issue was that some of the powers being used were specifically spelled out in the AFB PMP order, but that other powers were being used that were authorised by the Biosecurity Act.

 

"This type of thing is not under the AFB PMP but under the Bio Security Act. They seem to be switching things around to suit their agenda to target beekeepers."  (Source: Waikato Branch of New Zealand Beekeeping Inc., AGM and General Meeting,  25 May 2019)

 

The implication was that "This should be wrong!". 

 

Can someone clue me in on the actual issue?  It seems to me that if there are powers available to the AFB PMP Management Agency to achieve the goal of AFB elimination, then they are legitimate powers, and why would NZ Beekeeping Inc call these into question?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just to let you all know I have been appointed onto the AFB Board as the APINZ Board member rep.  

I may be completely wrong on this Nick but my understanding is  that under the AFB PMP destruction can only be ordered on hives that have clinical symptoms of AFB. It appears that the management agenc

Yes, indeed.  The powers of compulsory inspection of beehives on private land go back to the Apiaries Act 1906.  And yes, it is a serious power, and one that the Govt does not let loose of easily.  Th

Posted Images

10 hours ago, john berry said:

outfits that are hopelessly compromised by their own incompetence

It is hard to know how that could ever happen, it is hard to define a line in the sand where it HAS happened and secrecy/privacy means that none of those 3 are transparent so it is not easy to report it or find out about it. It is all foklore and legend, however clearly it does happen and there is lots of it. I expect the full extent of the information could not be put in NZB minutes without privacy being breached and I don't really want to know nor care to be honest because it is not near where I operate. If it did happen here, then I imagine I'd be super pleased if a rampant source of AFB was snubbed out, but I don't how or what is actually done and fear mongering isn't helpful.

 

It would be good to have a small insurance policy premium we all pay so that there are funds to allow a graceful wind-down of such outfits. A little bit like when a petrol station is closed down and they have to dig out and remove any poisoned earth from leaky tanks. Not to reward the errant beekeeper but avoiding bankruptcy to accept that mental illness,  illness, breakdowns and all kinds of things happen in the real world. Such a situation needs to be handled right. I think that would be a legitimate use of extra AFB rego fees and a reason to increase AFB rego fees, but sadly it is an unlikely development looking at the culture of MPI and its minister. Maybe it is something that the insurance companies like FMG already offer or maybe it is something they could offer. Like public liability, company director insurance and professional indemnity insurance there are a lot of similar policies in all sorts of industries. In such a situation the policy holder will pay an excess say $30,000 and then the insurer will appoint lawyers, beekeepers and loss adjustors to take care of the whole thing so that the beekeeper can get on with his life, to avoid a metal breakdown and maybe get another job and definitely wont have to deal with the AFBPMP. The job of the AFBPMP would be a great deal easier working with professionals that have no emotional nor irrational demands, but the insurer also has deep pockets to legally challenge any funny business.

 

At the moment if a beekeeper feels poorly treated there is nobody except maybe the ombudsman(?) he can complain to. The parties are not of equal size. I'm not suggesting anything is awry or amiss with any AP1-AP2 staff member but as we have seen with police, members of parliament and DHB every now and then somebody gets it wrong or a kind of gang mentality can pervade an organisation or one member even goes clean off the rails such as one case of a National MP. If NZB starts to ask some hard questions I think that they should be answered and that there is very definitely a place for them. There does NEED to be someone holding the other to account. We all know the proverb about absolute power. The fact that very little of it will appear in minutes doesn't bother me, the privacy requirements mean I would not expect it to be reported in breathless detail. Asking to know the actual detail seems a bit tabloid. If there is genuine concern from the OP then volunteer to stand on their committee so you are in the appropriate privacy bubble. I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is or why it was even started by a member of NZB. If someone joins a group like  NZB they should do so in good faith and they should raise any questions or problems they have with NZB directly and not here. If they don't like the answers then they should resign. At the moment this thread is a bit like one from facebook.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AFB PMP now has an in-house AP1 which is a huge change from only having government employees in the role.

The decision to do this has a lot of ramifications mostly I think for the good. In the past AP1 s have done an excellent job but have had to work with their own bureaucracies which has caused problems at times especially when it comes to things like prosecutions.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I take an interest when I hear statements that can potentially undermine the efficacy of the AFB PMP.  I know that if those statements get repeated often enough with no one challenging them, that some people can end up believing they are true regardless.

 

In this case - asserting that the Mgmt Agency should not use powers from both the PMP and the Biosecurity Act - it simply leaves a taint on the PMP, even though what is being done is fully being done with the legal powers available. 

 

I recall something in the original drafting of the OIC relating to us having to spell out all of the specific powers relating to beehives, and the specifics of beekeeping and AFB.  But if a general power was already spelled out in the Biosecurity Act itself, we did not have to repeat that in our PMP.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With Assure-quality no longer supplying the AP1  the checks and balances  that the upper management of Assure quality are no longer in place.  The AFB PMP needs someone or a group to keep it in check.  Since ApiNZ are the management agency its not them.  So that leaves NZBeekeeping as nobody else has stepped forward .  Levy payers dont have the right to change the governance of the AFB PMP when they feel a change is needed.   So we end up with frustrated people hiring lawyers.         

Edited by morporks
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, morporks said:

With Assure-quality no longer supplying the AP1  the checks and balances  that the upper management of Assure quality are no longer in place.         

Do you really believe that the upper Management of AQ had ever had anything to do with what the AP1s did........ I strongly believe that Upper Management never had a clue of what was going on

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, morporks said:

The AFB PMP needs someone or a group to keep it in check.  Since ApiNZ are the management agency its not them.  So that leaves NZBeekeeping as nobody else has stepped forward .  Levy payers dont have the right to change the governance of the AFB PMP when they feel a change is needed.  

 

The concept of "needs someone or a group to keep it in check" strikes to the heart of it, IMHO.  This is a PMP developed by beekeepers for beekeepers.  It was not imposed from 'the outside'.

 

My understanding is that APINZ has offered NZ Beekeeping Inc the opportunity to have someone join the Mgmt Agency Board.  If NZ Beekeeping Inc is serious about a positive contribution to the elimination of AFB, surely this should be a step forward?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume an AP one can go onto private land to inspect beehives. They absolutely can direct an AP2 to go on to private land to inspect a beehive.Except in unusual circumstances it's normal to try and get the beekeepers permission but they cannot be stopped and if necessary can use the police to ensure access is granted.

My experience tended to be that the worst offenders were the least happy about having their hives inspected but I never had any real problems .

Hopefully in the future new methods of detection such as honey samples will pretty much mean that only beekeepers that need to be targeted ,will be targeted.  One of the biggest problems with the current system is the large number of healthy hives that have to be inspected to find the few beekeepers that aren't up to the job.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NickWallingford said:

 

My understanding is that APINZ has offered NZ Beekeeping Inc the opportunity to have someone join the Mgmt Agency Board.  If NZ Beekeeping Inc is serious about a positive contribution to the elimination of AFB, surely this should be a step forward?

My personal feeling which I have stated before is that board members should be elected, not appointed.

I did try unsuccessfully to get on the board a few years ago. I am a member of both organisations and far more interested in how existing methods and new technology can be used to further the goal of elimination than in any political machinations.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, john berry said:

I may be completely wrong on this Nick but my understanding is  that under the AFB PMP destruction can only be ordered on hives that have clinical symptoms of AFB. It appears that the management agency has been using other legislation to order the destruction of stored gear with a high likelihood of being infected with AFB.

Depending on how you see things this is either a  clever use of legislation to help clean up AFB in outfits that are hopelessly compromised by their own incompetence or an attack on individual beekeepers rights and who are they going to target next.

Given the number of AFB infections that have hopped the fence into my hives from incompetent beekeepers over the years I am a bit inclined to go with the clever use of legislation hypothesis.

i'm on board with the good idea crew. And suspect that there are a few tinfoil-5G-causes-covid-but-covid-doesn't-even-exist-borders-shouldn't-be-closed-switching-to-border-closed-too-late types in the bad idea wagon

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nab said:

do the AP1 inspectors have power to go onto private land. 

 

 

The AP2 guys do have that power if needed. 

 

And it has to be that way. Or the whole thing wouldn't work soon as some disease spreading person decided to say "no you can't come on my land".

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, @Dennis Crowley.  A bit over 20 years ago we set off on the *possible, practical and preferred* option for dealing with AFB.  The introduction of varroa into the mix only a few years later took the focus away, I feel.  But with the ownership of the beekeeping industry, and confidence that if you want to eliminate AFB in your own outfit, you can, the goal of the AFB PMP can be achieved.  The knowledge that a combination of more and better inspections, and some degree of equipment quarantining, can cost effectively eliminate AFB - that is what it takes...  I look forward to your contributions to the work, Dennis...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

AP2s have the power to come on to land and inspect hives, but only as directed by an AP1. 

Standard procedure is to make contact with the beekeeper beforehand. 

The cases where supers have been destroyed all relate to beekeepers that have a very high infection rate and no traceability of supers

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The change from only ordering destruction on clinically infected hives to ordering destruction on both clinically infected hives and stored gear is a pretty radical change to the status quo and such changes are always going to raise questions which need to be answered . It is my understanding that at least some of the beekeepers who had their gear burnt felt somewhat aggrieved by the process .

Quite a few things have changed under the new management,mostly for the good but some of the changes like an AP2 wanting to inspect my friends hives in the middle of winter are not so desirable.Personally I don't go near my hives in winter except for fixing up stock damage and would be pretty unhappy if someone inspected them at this time of year. It's also pretty much a waste of time as a lot of them would have no brood.

It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis of what time of year beekeepers found the most AFB and I would put my money on October November.

Dennis. Perhaps you could suggest this to the board as that would not only be interesting but also potentially very useful information.

  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john berry said:

some of the changes like an AP2 wanting to inspect my friends hives in the middle of winter are not so desirable.

 

Wasn't that an exotic inspection and nothing to do with the AFB management agency?

 

Some AP2's do some work for both. What happened this year was the time that exotic inspections are done coincided with the covid lockdown. Some beekeepers wanted to respect the lockdown, so refused exotic inspections during that period (exotic inspections are voluntary, not compulsory like AFB inspections). That meant that not enough exotic inspections were done, and some beekeepers had to be contacted after lockdown was over to arrange an inspection, and so some inspections were done later than normal.

  • Good Info 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend certainly has the impression that it was an AFB inspection . I know the AP2 who wanted to do the inspection  and I don't have any problem with his abilities, just the time of year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, my bad. 😮

 

I recalled a little while ago you (i think it was) complained about a friend of yours being contacted in winter by an AP2 wanting to do an exotic inspection, I thought that must be what you were referring to here.

Edited by Alastair
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I found your post I was thinking of John in the Of Things Wintering thread, you mentioned the request to inspect, but didn't say it was for exotics, I must have just thought at the time that was probably what it was. Probably because the guy was able to refuse it, which is not normally an option if it is for AFB.

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

 

Quite a few things have changed under the new management,mostly for the good but some of the changes like an AP2 wanting to inspect my friends hives in the middle of winter are not so desirable.Personally I don't go near my hives in winter except for fixing up stock damage and would be pretty unhappy if someone inspected them at this time of year. It's also pretty much a waste of time as a lot of them would have no brood

It could well be that this inspection was planned for the Autumn, but got delayed by Covid19.

 

I was told once that the afb inspections are not exclusively to find AFB, but more importantly to verify that the beekeeper is managing  afb effectively.

 

In the middle of the winter you can still find robbed out rotten afb hives from bad beekeepers that have been like this since the Autumn or even earlier on. 

I am sure the inspector can delay the inspection until the spring.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...