OIA request and reply from the AFB PMP

[StephenB]

Just came across this OIA request on the web site FYI, which is also an interesting web site to discuss.

Copies of Submission Request - a Official Information Act request to Apiculture New Zealandng-61862#incoming-61862

Normally these requests get a big fat no, which leads to the ombudsmen involvement and months if not years of letter writing from both
sides.

While not a bif fat yes it looks to me like progress is being made

 

[Alastair]

Jeesh. I woulda liked to think that the submissions were anonymous, not to be eyeballed by all and sundry, who may be able to also ID some of the submitters.

What is your reason for wanting to look at them?

 

[yesbut]

Submissions to almost every other govt or local govt are public documents.

 

[JohnF]

And the submissions will be made public in due course when they’re compiled into a report. This is like saying ‘can I get a preview on what everyone else will see in a couple of months’.
If people are complaining about levies, then stop wasting our money on these dumb arse requests.

 

[StephenB]

Submissions to almost every other govt or local govt are public documents.

This is correct and the same rules apply to ApiNZ when carrying out AFB PMP activities.including ApiNZ exec meeting minutes
(Made them accept this a few years ago after complaints to the ombudsmen)

But ApiNZ fight tooth and nail and and thing else they can find to prevent this from happening. I currently have a compliant with the ombudsman asking to get the submissions from 2 year ago. They have have tied every excuse you can think of to deny giving me copies.

The reason I find this recent reply interesting is Clifton has not used previous excuses and now claims he is too bus but might be able to supply something if the request is changed.

I see this as grasping at straws considering the AFB PMP has in the region of 30-40 people who work for for the AFB PMP. Most have MPI warrants, are give access to peoples hive holdings, land owner details, collect honey sample, carry out searches and so on. Dont see how sorting though a few submission is any less taxing than what they already do.

 

[StephenB]

And the submissions will be made public in due course when they’re compiled into a report. This is like saying ‘can I get a preview on what everyone else will see in a couple of months’.
If people are complaining about levies, then stop wasting our money on these dumb arse requests.

JohnF you disappoint me.
You know the procedure someone has to audit the auditors, Peer review the research papers etc . Any science group that is not open to peer review raises questions of incompetence in the science community. Any public body who opposes scrutiny as vigorously as ApiNZ in AFB PMP matters smells of wrong doing.

Just to be quite clear ApiNZ has no intention of releasing the full submissions. They have not released any to date.

Next thing to think about. Clifton uses the law to force people to have hives inspected, fill in ADRs ETC and if you don't comply quickly sends in the bully boys.

Why do you think ApiNZ is above the law?

ApiNZ use the law to force beekeepers to burn AFB infected hives. The Official Information Act is quite clear that ApiNZ must for-full reasonable requests for information.

ApiNZ is even very reluctant to release the minutes of the governance meetings. It took the ombudsmen to force them to do it. It still requires an occasional OIA request to get them published

These are not" dumb arse requests". Levy payers, as share holders have every right to see the governance minutes, see the information that is being used to develop policy on how their levys are used.

The only "dumb arse" people are ApiNZ, wasting levy payers money on lawyers fighting the Official Information Act

 

[StephenB]

Jeesh. I woulda liked to think that the submissions were anonymous, not to be eyeballed by all and sundry, who may be able to also ID some of the submitters.

What is your reason for wanting to look at them?

1) To force ApiNZ to be open and transparent
2) Understand how policy decision have been made and ensure the information used is correct
3)Understand what beekeepers are thinking and why.

good example has recently been discussed on the forum in regards to the Waipa beekeeping rules. Forget the the name of the bloke who was pushing for change, He was able to get hold of copies of the submissions, which one was mine, from the last round of changes to the Waipa beekeeping rules. He was able use this information to help with the recent up date

Now in ten years time for the next AFB review,if the submission are release in full submitters will be able understand why the decision was
made

ApiNz by withhold the information as acting like the Taliban, keeping everybody in the dark and suppressing free thinking

 

[Alastair]

The reason I find this recent reply interesting is Clifton has not used previous excuses and now claims he is too bus but might be able to supply something if the request is changed.

If you feel he is playing silly games with you, perhaps it is because you are playing silly games with him.

 

[Grant]

So why don't you put in a request to see how many they have replied to with a successful outcome for the respondent. Seems like you have enough time on your hands

 

[tommy dave]

irrespective of @StephenB 's motivation for seeking these documents from API-NZ, i find it appalling that API-NZ is taking a smoke/mirrors/avoidance approach rather than being open and transparent. My guess is they are not trying to hide something, so first response is why not come out and release everything rather than fuel the fire

40hrs doesn't seem an over-statement of the time it would take though, so maybe it is just as simple as that - apply Occam's razor and there probably isn't anything untoward

@Alastair submissions are often subject to the OIA, ideally those consulting make this clear up-front, here's one that i found from an open consultation on the ministry for the environment website after a quick google

"Publishing and releasing submissions
All or part of any written submission (including names of submitters), may be published on
the Ministry for the Environment’s website, environment.govt.nz. Unless you clearly specify
otherwise in your submission, the Ministry will consider that you have consented to website
posting of both your submission and your name. Contents of submissions may be released to the public under the Official Information Act 1982
following requests to the Ministry for the Environment (including via email). Please advise if
you have any objection to the release of any information contained in a submission and, in
particular, which part(s) you consider should be withheld, together with the reason(s) for
withholding the information. We will take into account all such objections when responding to
requests for copies of, and information on, submissions to this document under the Official
Information Act. "

 

[tommy dave]

ok - trying to be more constructive - i wonder if the OIA request could be tweaked slightly to simply request all answers to each of the questions asked via survey monkey. That might be easier to collate/extract? i haven't used that tool though, so maybe not?

i tried to switch out "appalling" for "unfortunate" in the post above, but too slow...

 

[Alastair]

Oh thanks for that. I had thought the submissions were confidential, perhaps I am wrong.

Re the delaying tactics, to understand, you need to look at it in the context of what has been going on for the last probably decade or so.

SB and one or two cohorts have been launching a 2 man crusade to obstruct, tie down in lawyers, and generally cost the AFBPMP as much money and aggravation as possible.

Having watched this for several years, seems to me this is the result of an obsession bordering on a mental health issue. There is no other explanation that works, for this continous, non sensical harrassment.

Cos most of SB's complaints are lies and half truths, and I have pointed them out several times in the past.

I think that SB believes that he should be in charge, and these constant destructive efforts are aimed to make the general public think there is some kind of problem, that only SB can fix.

Him taking over and running it his way would be a joke.

 

[NickWallingford]

You know the procedure someone has to audit the auditors, Peer review the research papers etc . Any science group that is not open to peer review raises questions of incompetence in the science community. Any public body who opposes scrutiny as vigorously as ApiNZ in AFB PMP matters smells of wrong doing.

Strictly speaking, the review of the PMP is for the Minister. He (his minions) may well both audit the consultation process and view the original. So what you're wanting to do is to audit the auditors.

Money spent by the Mgmt Agency either leads to a reduction in AFB, or not. I cannot really see how providing you with the original submissions is anything other than obstructive and unnecessary.

 

[NickWallingford]

If Mgmt Agency initiates review earlier than some expected: "They're trying to sneak it through before anyone else could initiate the review!" [To be honest, I don't know what that really means, and doubt the idea would have credibility with the Minister...]
If Mgmt Agency waits until later to initiate review: "The Agency is leaving it to the last minute and not giving us enough time to participate!"

If Mgmt Agency releases all submissions: "Breach of the Privacy Act!"
If Mgmt Agency refuses to release all submissions: "Secretive and non-transparent!"

If Mgmt Agency does review of consultation 'in house': "Afraid to let anyone from the outside see the data!"
If Mgmt Agency uses an external agent to review the consultation: "Agency is wasting our hard paid levy to hire these policy wonks!"

If Mgmt Agency concludes that the PMP should proceed: "Yeah, we knew they'd decide that, regardless of what the submissions really said!"
If Mgmt Agency concludes that PMP should not continue: Inspection by beekeeper for AFB would no longer be required. NZ would almost certainly face a catastrophic outbreak of AFB, making it almost impossible to keep bees. No inspections of hives of beekeepers possible unless a beekeeper specifically agrees and allows it. Can't make someone do anything about AFB deadouts. Immediate call for feeding of antibiotics. From a regulatory point of view, the industry would be where it was in 1906, before the Apiaries Act.

 

[Dennis Crowley]

the AFB PMP has in the region of 30-40 people who work for for the AFB PMP

Yes they have lots of AP2 and a couple of AP1 but there are only 2-3 office staff including Clifton. Ap2s dont have any access to names info etc, APINZ don't get involved in the day to day running of the plan.

The only "dumb arse"

Is you steven for all your ranting you still can't figure out, no matter how many times you are told, that AFB Board run the AFBPM on a day to day bases, the same as it has for years.

ApiNZ use the law to force beekeepers to burn AFB infected hives.

Not 1 hive in NZ has ever been burned on notice by APINZ.

Steven thinks that because he asks for something he should get it, there is no regard/responsibility to him asking questions, he can ask for any information he wants.(and I have no issue with that)But Steve likes to throw his toys out of the cot when he doesn't get all the info he asks for because he thinks he should be entitled to it. But there are rules that need to be followed.
A rough guide on how it works.
As APINZ as a voluntary private organization has lots of info that is not subject to OIA requests, except perhaps by their members.( and they can just call and get it, but it to is subject to privacy laws etc)
The AFBPMP is subject to OIA requests as it is a levy funded not voluntary organization.(there will be a better term for this but you get the picture)
Any time APINZ discusses AFBPMP business those parts are able to be requested under OIA.

With that said, any OIA request is subject to many reasons as to what can and can not be released, for many reasons, ie privacy act,
on going legal action, is it a malicious fishing exercise, is the info about to be made public in the near future, etc. etc etc
When a request is made, someone has to stop what they doing and go find the information, then check it against all the can I/cant I release it reasons etc. There is a process to follow and yes there is lots of time and money wasted because of lawyers interpreting what is and isn't allowed.
One request which the ombudsman said we should release everything about a a beekeeping business to another, now if the industry wants the data base and all its info to be open to anyone that's a different story, but we not there yet and no we didn't release it.
So the ombudsman sometimes even gets it wrong.
Another request was to provide all the names and info on all sites. They didn't get that info.
So the AFBPMP deals a lot with the OIA requests, and I'm sure we got some processes wrong or missed a few steps along the way and we correcting them as we are either informed (this is a better way to go or you should of done it this way)
Most requests to date where the AFBPMP felt the requested info was not in the best interest of the plan or levy payers to be released has been upheld.
But some people just like to stamp their feet and complain, here's a thought, put that energy into dealing with AFB in your own outfits and those around you, and then perhaps we won't need the AFBPMP.
So to help you all, when you want to request things under OIA as is your right, make it very clear as to what info you after, not as some have done in the past wanting more generalized info.

 

[JohnF]

JohnF you disappoint me.

JohnF you disappoint me.

 

[JohnF]

You know the procedure someone has to audit the auditors

And that person should be you Stephen?

Next thing to think about. Clifton uses the law to force people to have hives inspected, fill in ADRs ETC and if you don't comply quickly sends in the bully boys.

Stephen, being on the AFB board means you were also part of this. As you well know, the PMP is owned by beekeepers and so to suggest it is solely Clifton borders on paranoia.
AP2s are bully boys?? What, are you 90 years old if you think that?? Sorry that you find them intimidating. But as you know (once again), given they target people who are not reporting or not dealing with their AFB issues - the normal and sane beekeepers have nothing to be concerned about (except those aforementioned beekeepers who may neighbour them.

The only "dumb arse" people are ApiNZ, wasting levy payers money on lawyers fighting the Official Information Act

Crikey, I hope you don't spread misinformation like this about COVID ?

It doesnt take a psychologist to see you have an intense dislike or mistrust of ApiNZ and any associated body. Have you thought of taking up a new profession?

 

[Grant]

40hrs doesn't seem an over-statement of the time it would take though, so maybe it is just as simple as that - apply Occam's razor and there probably isn't anything untoward

This is the one part of their argument I don't agree with and I have no vested interest in the outcome as I am not a beekeeper at present, but I use the system they use and the system they use exports to CSV. Chuck that in a spreadsheet and delete the columns related to personal information. Max 10 mins. 60 mins to a complete computer illiterate.
Then its a case of reading though any text reply entries and removing said comments that identify people. Nothing major, a morning tops.

However whilst I can see your passion and obsession with this topic @StephenB you are in a public space and you are making a number of accusations where you are identifying people/their position/ a company. They have rights too and I do recall you being banned for similar behaviour on the previous forum, so if you want to have your say then reign in the terminology.

 

[StephenB]

1) To force ApiNZ to be open and transparent
2) Understand how policy decision have been made and ensure the information used is correct
3)Understand what beekeepers are thinking and why.

good example has recently been discussed on the forum in regards to the Waipa beekeeping rules. Forget the the name of the bloke who was pushing for change, He was able to get hold of copies of the submissions, which one was mine, from the last round of changes to the Waipa beekeeping rules. He was able use this information to help with the recent up date

Now in ten years time for the next AFB review,if the submission are release in full submitters will be able understand why the decision was
made

ApiNz by withhold the information as acting like the Taliban, keeping everybody in the dark and suppressing free thinking

Can someone explain why my reasons for wanting to see the submission are misleading ?
You might not like them but they are my reasons and they are valid

 

[Dennis Crowley]

This is the one part of their argument I don't agree with and I have no vested interest in the outcome as I am not a beekeeper at present, but I use the system they use and the system they use exports to CSV. Chuck that in a spreadsheet and delete the columns related to personal information. Max 10 mins. 60 mins to a complete computer illiterate.
Then its a case of reading though any text reply entries and removing said comments that identify people. Nothing major, a morning tops.

That may be your system Grant, don't assume you know every way someone else's system works.