Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

Dal last won the day on August 13 2016

Dal had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

About Dal

  • Rank


  • Beekeeping Experience
    Bee Breeder


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/bylaws/Documents/animal-management-bylaw-2015.pdf
  2. Hi Dave, We can do it. Based in Otahuhu. Professional honey extraction. Call me on 022 5974218, or look up Dals Pollination under beekeepers in the yellow pages if they remove my number ... cheers Dallas
  3. I'm not sure if this has really been talked about - but I don't think it's acceptable to even suggest this level of extra paperwork .... Not to mention the inevitable honey extracted which can't be sold, so the beekeeper has no money to pay the levy, but it's being demanded from the extractor .... boy oh boy .... what a nightmare idea this is from start to finish! Also extractors have to effectively do an audit every quarter on honey extraction. GST returns are bad enough .... I would suggest that those suggesting that proposal have never done a GST return .... So I do see it being a major problem - more paperwork, more compliance, more overheads, more bureaucracy. Which will lead to more rules, more loopholes, more complaining, less returns, lower pay, and then .... ultimately .... some bright spark will decide to bring in a new levy to 'fix' it all and the cycle will repeat
  4. yeh true .... seems like they were pretty fast to slap on an extra $175 tax after no one really cared about their vague request for submissions back in November. I'm sure if they were honest about wanting to duplicate a beekeepers register and charge for it then they would have gotten some sharp submissions, and some very grumpy ones about trying to do it in November! Smoke and mirrors indeed.
  5. I have been sent more information regarding the submission process for this. Proposals to strengthen the regulatory framework for export bee products Proposals to strengthen the regulatory framework for export bee products So back last year MPI put out a fairly vague proposal asking for beekeepers views on introducing more regulatory measures on bee products. What's being proposed? We are proposing to introduce the following regulatory measures: Mandating electronic traceability of export bee products through MPI's Animal Products Electronic Certification System. Mandating the listing of beekeepers who supply honey to premises operating under a risk management programme for the purpose of export to countries requiring official assurances. Requiring unlabelled retail packs and bulk honey to be indelibly marked with information enabling effective product identification. Expressly requiring compliance with the labelling provisions of the Food Standards Code. Strengthening the verification framework in relation to export bee products. So I don't see anywhere in here where it suggests that beekeepers be required to register in order to supply. In fact someone should have pointed out to them that technically all beekeepers are already listed as they supply the information in their Harvest Declaration form. 'Listing of beekeepers' implies some general data collection, not a registration process. I can't see any reason for them to be dishonest about their proposals - so why do they choose to publish misleading, and vague information? If they were straight up then an honest discussion could be had. Instead they've just managed to generate a significant level of suspicion about their purpose, and existence as a ministry. Someone at MPI needs to be demoted to the mail room over this. Funny thing is that if they wanted to save face they should have withdrawn their notice first thing Monday morning. It'll be interesting to see the repercussions as beekeepers will remember this for a long time.
  6. Hey @tristan How does the 'MPI Beekeepers listing notice' address any of the points you've raised? Can you at least acknowledge that it doesn't? Can you acknowledge that point of origin tracking already exists?
  7. I have tracked down the following ministers to contact about this. National: Primary Industries Associated Ministers Nathan Guy - Minister Jo Goodhew - Associate Minister Labour: Damien O'Connor MP for West Coast Tasman Spokesperson for Primary Industries Meka Whaitiri MP for Ikaroa-Rawhiti Associate Primary Industries Spokesperson Email addresses as follows: n.guy@ministers.govt.nz j.goodhew@ministers.govt.nz damien.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz tairawhiti@parliament.govt.nz For the record - this 'notice' doesn't directly affect our company, as we are already involved in the RMP process. It only directly affects those who are supplying honey to an RMP. However it will indirectly affect us when we have to make sure compliance is achieved in other areas. I don't think that this 'notice' is fair to those beekeepers who just want to make honey and supply it to the honeyhouse. Every honeyhouse will demand RMP compliant honey. Moves like this also make it harder for those trying to get started in business, and this is a duplication of government databases anyway. Please email these ministers to request an immediate retraction of 'the notice'. We need to make some noise about this at a high level, and fast if we hope to get this notice sorted out. Feel free to use this standard text I have put together here, and modify it to suit or just send it as is. Dear Nathan, I write to you today as you are listed as the Minister of Primary Industry. You may or may not be aware of the completely unnecessary red tape that your ministry has introduced this week. I urge you to immediately order the MPI to retract the 'MPI Beekeepers Listing Notice' due to inadequate consultation. I suggest to you that the gross negligence shown by the MPI throughout this process is at best incompetent, and at worst unlawful. MPI claim to have subject the proposals to 6 weeks public consultation from 5 November 2015 to 17 December 2015. 36 submissions were received from industry, which is embarrassingly low. Please consider the following points: 1. Putting forward new rules aimed at beekeepers for submission during the busiest time of year was not wise, and by itself invalidates the process. Most beekeepers would be working 80-hour weeks at this time of year and would not have anticipated such underhanded timing. 2. I do not know of any beekeeper who was consulted with respect to this notice. This is a complete surprise to the industry. 3. How many of the 36 submissions were from beekeepers who would actually be affected by this notice? 4. MPI have not disclosed who decided to sign off on this notice. 5. Beekeepers are already required to be registered with Asurequality. All apiary sites are by law required to be registered with Asurequality, and this information is already used to track all hive products. 6. It is already possible to track all honey products in the RMP system back to their origin. MPI should not have the power to force such a major change on an industry with just 6 weeks consultation at the wrong time of year, and with inadequate levels of submission. This is a gross over reach and I formally request you retract the 'MPI Beekeepers Listing Notice' immediately and order an investigation into how this over-reach was able to occur. Kind Regards
  8. @Kiwifruiter - well done on side tracking the issue here. I made a mistake in responding to your bait question of the difference between kiwifruit and honey. Let's just stick to the facts. Fact still remains that point of origin tracking for all honey products within the RMP system exists already.
  9. Why would you present such an argument? Are you serious? It is not fair to bring other industry to the table in this discussion as it's just not relevant, nor should beekeepers be expected to understand the quirks of other industry. It just so happens that I also have worked in kiwifruit, and have experience in a number of primary industries ... so I am astounded at your question. Reading between the lines - you are primarily a kiwifruit grower, and want other industries to have as much nonsense to put up with as you have had in the kiwifruit industry? @Kiwifruiter - I like you ... but the kiwifruit industry problems are not our fault ... please don't try to punish us. Please join with us to fight this MPI over-reach Growing kiwifruit involves the use of a lot of toxic sprays, and is in itself a medium where pests, bacteria, and disease can grow. Sprays are applied directly to the product within a short time before harvest. Honey is naturally preserved.
  10. I corresponded with MPI as soon as I received notification of this 'notice' this week. The information that I am sharing here comes direct from MPI. They have addressed 7 points that I have raised initially. Of particular bemusement is that apparently this was put out for consultation for 6 weeks in November when beekeepers are way too busy to look at this sort of thing. Not surprising they only got 36 submissions. This raises some serious questions about their competence and understanding of the industry to start with. 1. Your link to forms does not actually take you to a form. Please see the link below for direct link to forms: Forms & templates 2. Beekeepers are already required by law to be registered for good common sense reasons. Are you now duplicating this system? There is no duplication. There is no existing requirement issued under the Animal Products Act 1999 for beekeepers to be listed for the purposes of official assurance. Currently, registration is only for AFB management purposes under the Biosecurity Act 1993. It does not serve official assurance purposes under the Animal Products Act 1999. The AFB register has restricted access and is not freely available for verifiers and honey businesses to check against. 3. Beekeepers already pay a significant registration fee to keep bees. The purpose of keeping bees is to make honey. New Zealand honey exporters make money by exporting to overseas markets. MPI is entrusted under the Animal Products Act 1999 to facilitate access to overseas markets. The governments of most of these overseas markets have an agreement with the New Zealand Government for the provision of official assurances that honey being exported to them are fit for purpose, meet domestic standards and any additional market-specific standards. They want regulatory oversight of the movement of products in the supply chain so they can be confident that our government is not blindly handing out assurances for products it cannot trace. Auditors from overseas markets regularly audit New Zealand’s regulatory system for export. 4. The form that I did eventually find is basically just asking for address details and a declaration regarding criminal activity. Regulatory oversight for market access purposes (as explained above) requires MPI, as the regulator, to have a level of oversight of players in the export chain. Knowing a beekeeper’s name/business name, and address is important for that purpose. 5. If you just need a declaration of criminal activity - why not just do that as part of the beekeepers' annual disease return and use the same system? Refer to answer in 2 above. 6. What is the problem that 'the notice' is trying to fix in the industry? Refer to the answer in 3 above. 7. When was this change proposed, who proposed it, and why was it proposed? The proposals were subject to 6 weeks public consultation from 5 November 2015 to 17 December 2015. 36 submissions were received from industry, the majority of which supported the listing requirements.
  11. OK - so read the harvest declaration and you'll quickly see it's not just a name and address. Comparing the honey industry to other industries like kiwifruit, livestock, etc is not relevant or helpful. It's apples and oranges mate ... or in this case honey and kiwifruit ... btw @Kiwifruiter I love your optimism about how much the government is here to help, and they must need this information for something right? I think it's great to have a high opinion of your fellow man. Because these nameless and faceless bureaucrats must know better than those who do the real work right? How about that Harbour bridge? It's shiny
  12. 1. You take your honey to the honey house (which holds an RMP). 2. You fill in the harvest declaration with your information and sign it. Harvest Dec: http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/Apiarist_Beekeeper-Provides_Information.pdf 3. The honey house extracts honey, returns wets. 4. Honey house presents you an offer to buy the honey, or you have a buyer that picks it up from the honeyhouse. If you want honey for your own use it's not on the RMP. If you are extracting honey for local market you don't need RMP.
  13. 1. All they would have to do is put a waiver on the Harvest Declaration form to allow access to site information if they need it. It's standard privacy act stuff i think. 2. This notice is only asking for beekeepers address and criminal record. So actually it's irrelevant in this case if they actually have access to that database. Your name is on the Harvest Declaration form - so all this is doing is making people declare their criminal history - which could go on the harvest dec as well if they wanted. I think it's pretty obvious that if they really needed to figure out where a batch of honey was made they would just go to the Asurequality records which are ALREADY BEING USED. 3. OK @Kiwifruiter - I like you. So here is where you just volunteered to guarantee us a 30% premium on our honey. Are you prepared to personally guarantee NZ beekeepers a minimum of 30% premium on our honey? Alternatively feel free to find the government worker who will make this guarantee in writing and present it here. And while we're pulling numbers out of the air - I've got a harbour bridge to sell you .
  14. point 1: It's not the amount of money involved @tristan, it's value for money - or in this case the clear over the top bull charge. Also why do you even post this to support a duplicated system? Do you work for MPI? point 2 - your claim that people always choose cheapest and easiest: Easy to disprove your statement - please prove your thesis or retract. point 2b: If you are aware of illegal activity then report it. Since you say there is so much happening then it should be easy to show some examples and deliver proof to relevant authorities. point 3: again - no examples of how this makes cheating harder. Can you show how this notice will make cheating harder? Keep in mind that beekeepers are already registered, so the systems already exist to track hive products.
  15. @Kiwifruiter and @tristan please reconsider your approval of more regulation here. Just because other industry have tried to 'close ranks' and demand government interference does not make it right, it just makes their industry less profitable and less productive with more overheads. I challenge you to present examples of government interference that do not involve increased costs for the taxpayer. I would like to see all beekeepers submit emails of protest to the relevant government people over this issue and demand an immediate stand down by MPI. History shows that the cost of regulation is borne by the people. It is very clear in this case with this MPI money grab. Let me be clear. MPI is demanding $178 PER YEAR for the 'privilege' of being able to supply our product to the RMP process for export. The only information they are collecting here is your address, and declaration of criminal activity. This is a duplication of an existing system, as all sites are required to be registered, and beekeepers are required to be registered also. If MPI do not already have access to registration info at Asurequality - then all they need to do is include a waiver clause in the Harvest Declaration form to get permission for access as part of a beekeeper supplying honey to the RMP system. @tristan - as long as there is no fraud in the paperwork all honey can be traced to a site and potentially samples already. This new notice to register beekeepers is just a money grab. If someone wants to cheat or game the system then there is always a way. It's up to the buyer to choose a reliable supplier. If people choose to cheat others then word spreads and a bad reputation will cost the opportunity of building a more profitable venture.
  • Create New...