Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New listings
New media comments
New resources
New calendar events
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Calendar
New events
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Classifieds
New listings
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Disease & Pests
NZBeekeeping has launched a consultation for the AFB PMP 10 year review
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Welcome to NZ Beekeepers+
Would you like to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NickWallingford" data-source="post: 10383" data-attributes="member: 44"><p>Under the heading LEVY FUNDING, NZBI states:</p><p></p><p>This is not correct.</p><p></p><p>The hive numbers levy referred to was for the funding of the National Bkprs Assn, and lasted from the middle 1970s until 1996. At that point, the NBA successfully obtained a Commodity Levies Act levy based on apiary numbers. We chose to do that at the time, and for a variety of reasons. Every levying system the bee industry has *ever* developed has faced criticism, remember. For some reason, people don't like to be levied. Go figure...</p><p></p><p>Toward the end of the hive levy, the NBA recognised the deficiencies in the particular regulations. There could be no concept of "a fine". It was not at all easy to turn any debt collection over to an agency - as that *particular* levy legislation did not "establish" a debt. We often had to resort to legal rather than civil actions.</p><p></p><p>But remember, too, that the Privacy Act had just come into place - that probably had more impact on the choices and design of a levy system back then. And until the NBA had a Pest Management Plan in place, the 'ownership' of the apiaries database was with the Govt - not the NBA, remember...</p><p></p><p>When the NBA was unsuccessful in 'renewing' the Comm Levy when it expired, the Minister responded by allowing for a levy (using the Biosecurity Act) - and it was based on apiary numbers, as it had been for more than 5 years prior.</p><p></p><p>"Following consulation led by the Management Agency that the Minister considered adequate and appropriate, the Minister agreed to the proposed changes to the levy collection methodology." </p><p></p><p>There. That says the same thing, but takes away the implication that this was an arbitrary, unilateral decision. Just saying...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NickWallingford, post: 10383, member: 44"] Under the heading LEVY FUNDING, NZBI states: This is not correct. The hive numbers levy referred to was for the funding of the National Bkprs Assn, and lasted from the middle 1970s until 1996. At that point, the NBA successfully obtained a Commodity Levies Act levy based on apiary numbers. We chose to do that at the time, and for a variety of reasons. Every levying system the bee industry has *ever* developed has faced criticism, remember. For some reason, people don't like to be levied. Go figure... Toward the end of the hive levy, the NBA recognised the deficiencies in the particular regulations. There could be no concept of "a fine". It was not at all easy to turn any debt collection over to an agency - as that *particular* levy legislation did not "establish" a debt. We often had to resort to legal rather than civil actions. But remember, too, that the Privacy Act had just come into place - that probably had more impact on the choices and design of a levy system back then. And until the NBA had a Pest Management Plan in place, the 'ownership' of the apiaries database was with the Govt - not the NBA, remember... When the NBA was unsuccessful in 'renewing' the Comm Levy when it expired, the Minister responded by allowing for a levy (using the Biosecurity Act) - and it was based on apiary numbers, as it had been for more than 5 years prior. "Following consulation led by the Management Agency that the Minister considered adequate and appropriate, the Minister agreed to the proposed changes to the levy collection methodology." There. That says the same thing, but takes away the implication that this was an arbitrary, unilateral decision. Just saying... [/QUOTE]
Verification
What type of honey is New Zealand famous for?
Post reply
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Disease & Pests
NZBeekeeping has launched a consultation for the AFB PMP 10 year review
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…