Jump to content

Powers needed/used by the AFB PMP...


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, ChrisM said:

My feedback is simply that collecting data for AFB elimination and use by the management agency then using it for ApiNZ projects isn't ever going to be willingly accepted by a lot of beekeepers. 

 

Another storm in a teacup, it seems to me. 

 

Going back to the original vote for an NBA Commodity Levy, back in 1996, it was the same situation.  MAF (MPI of the time) held and maintained the apiary register.  In order to conduct a reliable ballot for support/non-support of a levy proposal, an attempt has been made to ensure that any beekeeper who would potentially have to pay a levy would have the opportunity to vote.  In that case (and with this?) the ballot papers were sent out by a third party.

 

Remember, a Commodity Levies ballot is for the Minister to be convinced that those who would have to pay a levy should have the opportunity to vote on it. (Interestingly, this is not the case for PMP or the PMP levy - these do not face a 'support' ballot...)

 

The NBA (and now APINZ) worked through the issues of privacy - they are not insurmountable.  During my time with the NBA, when the magazine was to be sent out to all beekeepers, rather than just NBA members, it was sent using the apiary register.  The NBA did not send them, did not receive the database or mailing labels - that was all done under bond by the printers.

 

I am not aware that anyone is suggesting that APINZ should have access to the apiary register for its projects.  But I'm sure you can continue to repeat that claim...

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.  

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

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

Posted Images

I am more concerned about getting my own information out of API web than someone else getting it .

I got one of those all-too-familiar emails this morning telling me that two of my sites have had AFB found within 2 km of them.

I use my own site numbering system which is different from API webs so I went online to find out which sites have been affected.

All my personal details  were their but there is nothing where my apiarys details should be. I checked with their help system to make sure I was doing the right thing and I was. Logged out, log back in, exactly the same result.

It was all there when I did my ADR except for two sites which I had attempted to register during the year and two AFB hives which I had also attempted to register during the year. Why the AFB and two sites didn't work I don't know and it may well have been my fault as I'm not that computer literate . Mind you  I have done it  in the past with no problem .

Any ideas. Am I doing something wrong or has my apiary information disappeared into the ether.

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

Any ideas. Am I doing something wrong or has my apiary information disappeared into the ether.

 

Mine appears OK.

 

Log in.

Go to Apiary Report.

Left hand side has heading  MAF ID

Then under that is your Apiary numbers.

Then to get the actual ID number you add your Reg number in front of the MAF ID number 

So in my case.

H4485/5  etc

 

Hope that helps

 

 

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

My feedback is simply that collecting data for AFB elimination and use by the management agency then using it for ApiNZ projects isn't ever going to be willingly accepted by a lot of beekeepers. 

I'm quite sure the Management Agency would fail an audit from the Privacy Commisioner. Principle 10 of the Act applies here regardless of what beekeepers may think. I can find no statements about the information collection, retention, etc. that relates to the registration form provided. However, let's wait to hear where the mailing information comes from.

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

It is a fact that MPI requires registration fees for NP1 and RMP and for exporting beekeepers to be registered too. Possibly they have other registers too (?). WHY wasn't that data used?

 

If I recall, another organisation did indeed use that list for a prospective membership list and that also created some angst ?  Also, there are non-commercials and semi-commercials who might have been part of any levy

 

2 hours ago, ChrisM said:

My feedback is simply that collecting data for AFB elimination and use by the management agency then using it for ApiNZ projects isn't ever going to be willingly accepted by a lot of beekeepers. 

 

At risk of being glib, are you on Facebook? Do your kids have Tik Tok ? Yes ? Then you have bigger issues at play . . .

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

there are non-commercials and semi-commercials who might have been part of any levy

Really? 

How can a non-commercial pay a commodity levy if they have do not use commercial extraction from a registered extraction facility?

How can a semi-commercial avoid being registered for RMP/NP1 and also avoid using a registered extraction facility?

You can't be semi-registered with MPI. You are either comply to the food act 2014 or you are not selling any honey.

The point of commodity levy is to extract a tax based on the amount of that commodity.

If there is no commodity produced by a specific beekeeper then the levy amount is zero.

13 minutes ago, JohnF said:

At risk of being glib, are you on Facebook? Do your kids have Tik Tok ? Yes ? Then you have bigger issues at play . . .

That is certainly a risk, but in that case I am the master of my own demise.

In this case there is a law that demands data is provided in confidence for the purposes of AFB elimination. It might be that what the NBA did back in the day was legal, but the government  has since made a number of laws that need to be considered. We can't pick and choose. The management agency is doing a lot of great stuff, but they need to have proper control of their database and they need to be able to police its use with regards to who used it when and where.

 

Regarding this database, I think there is a strong case to be made for it being totally open and transparent instead of totally closed it could have a lot of advantages. But that is not the debate here; either way there are issues and challenges to have everyone onboard with it. The inbetween situation where use of the database is allowed for non-management agency purposes is messy. If this is to be the way it is, then WHY do we need to have separate registers for commerical beekeepers that those guys have to pay money toward?

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

Regarding this database, I think there is a strong case to be made for it being totally open and transparent instead of totally closed it could have a lot of advantages.

 

LOL, I can remember you getting fired up about that a while ago. Demanding to know why the database is secret and we can't all see it.

 

Human nature is a funny thing, now you are complaining cos the data got used to create a mailing list, and you don't think the data is secret enough. 😄

 

End of day Chris it may be some legalities need to be tidied, although I wouldn't really know. But the effect on the ground will be zero. Lists of beekeepers and where all their hives are simply cannot be made public to all and sundry for very obvious reasons. And should there be another, duplicate list, for mailing or other purposes? Just a waste of resources. The current system is the most practical, if it is operating in some loophole of law, the best solution is change the law.

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

 

Mine appears OK.

 

Log in.

Go to Apiary Report.

Left hand side has heading  MAF ID

Then under that is your Apiary numbers.

Then to get the actual ID number you add your Reg number in front of the MAF ID number 

So in my case.

H4485/5  etc

 

Hope that helps

 

 

I have done all that Trevor and the  apiary report page still remains blank. Perhaps it is just one of those days.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made inquiries and it is a fault with the system. They were very helpful and I'm sure it will be fixed in due course.

Hopefully the new system will be up in January and will run a bit more smoothly.

  • Like 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChrisM said:

Really? 

How can a non-commercial pay a commodity levy if they have do not use commercial extraction from a registered extraction facility?

How can a semi-commercial avoid being registered for RMP/NP1 and also avoid using a registered extraction facility?

You can't be semi-registered with MPI. You are either comply to the food act 2014 or you are not selling any honey.

The point of commodity levy is to extract a tax based on the amount of that commodity.

If there is no commodity produced by a specific beekeeper then the levy amount is zero.

My understanding is, and of course I may be incorrect, if you have 25 or more hives you are regarded as a commercial beekeeper.  Not every operation requires an extraction plant and not every outfit produces honey.  That is not to say there will never be variances in product produced yearly in an operation.  

 

Everybody producing honey, not for their own use has to comply with the Food Act.  There are three forms of trade - sell, barter or donate and all come under the Food Act.

Edited by Maggie James
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new system will have a better "front end" (the bit we see), and will be easier and faster to use. But it will also have a better "back end", which is the way the data us beekeepers enter will be used, instead of a lot of manual data transfer as happens at the moment a lot will be automated, which saves time and therefore money, and eliminates mistakes.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ChrisM said:

It should not be for the whim of ApiNZ to use it for every proposal they might come up with,

Rest assure Chris, it is not used and cannot be used for any whim of APINZ, for the 10th time APINZ does not have access to the data base. End of discussion.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 9:36 AM, ChrisM said:

Really? 

How can a non-commercial pay a commodity levy if they have do not use commercial extraction from a registered extraction facility?

How can a semi-commercial avoid being registered for RMP/NP1 and also avoid using a registered extraction facility?

You can't be semi-registered with MPI. You are either comply to the food act 2014 or you are not selling any honey.

The point of commodity levy is to extract a tax based on the amount of that commodity.

If there is no commodity produced by a specific beekeeper then the levy amount is zero.

That is certainly a risk, but in that case I am the master of my own demise.

In this case there is a law that demands data is provided in confidence for the purposes of AFB elimination. It might be that what the NBA did back in the day was legal, but the government  has since made a number of laws that need to be considered. We can't pick and choose. The management agency is doing a lot of great stuff, but they need to have proper control of their database and they need to be able to police its use with regards to who used it when and where.

 

Regarding this database, I think there is a strong case to be made for it being totally open and transparent instead of totally closed it could have a lot of advantages. But that is not the debate here; either way there are issues and challenges to have everyone onboard with it. The inbetween situation where use of the database is allowed for non-management agency purposes is messy. If this is to be the way it is, then WHY do we need to have separate registers for commerical beekeepers that those guys have to pay money toward?


there was the mention that hobbiests could also volunteer to pay the levy as contribution to science and biosecurity. 
I can’t remember the details of that long-ago event now. 

  • Good Info 1
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...