Who's in ApiNZ?
- Thread starter Gino de Graaf
- Start date
Misleading Content: Some or all of the content within this post contains information, which has been confirmed as false or misleading
How's that Alistair? NBA and BIG members voted to amalgamate (at request from the minister) and came together (or not) as ApiNZ, as I recall it ie there was no ApiNZ *and* NBA
Disputed Content: Some or all of the content within this post contains information the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility, of which is contested or unknown.
I've thought often about joining API-NZ. I won't though, if they won't disclose membership numbers and breakdown by category. I wouldn't be surprised if, during their various conversations with stakeholders and the Crown, they mis-represent clubs being aligned with/signed up to API-NZ as meaning all of the members of those clubs have opted to be members of API-NZ.
The question of membership breakdown has been asked often, and it has never been directly addressed - not sure what they're trying to hide, but it feels like something @ApiNZInfo
section 5.2 of their constitution is effectively a silencing clause, prohibiting members from saying or doing anything that may bring api-nz into disrepute
The question of membership breakdown has been asked often, and it has never been directly addressed - not sure what they're trying to hide, but it feels like something @ApiNZInfo
section 5.2 of their constitution is effectively a silencing clause, prohibiting members from saying or doing anything that may bring api-nz into disrepute
Last edited:
The NBA had a similar if not identical clause. It it is not an unusual or surprising part of the rules for associations such as this. I'm not sure why it should be that off-putting in the consideration of membership.
Was not at the request of the minister, they certainly voiced their opinion, but were one of many reasons as to why NBA and BIG saw the benefits of amalgamating.
You are correct Nick, in fact the NBA rule was way more open to interpretation by lawyers if it ever became necessary by either party, if there was ever a need to use it. APINZ just clarified what was the intent of that clause.
Tommy has forgotten to put in the clause properly, but I'm not surprised, it reads ;
5.2 All members shall promote the interests and object of the association and shall do nothing to bring the association into disrepute. Refer to clause 7.4.
7.4 Talks about giving the person who might decide to go against clause 5.2, after the board lets them know why they feel a breach has happened and also gives that person an opportunity in either writing or in person as to why, and then a decision will be made after that.
Nothing like a silencing clause, but you know what they say, never let the truth get in the way of a good put down, ah tommy.
John at grassroots level there was a lot of disquiet about the switch, or the need for it, and in particular the fact that commercial beekeepers would now be a minority of the vote.
Some people felt very strongly about this but the move was bulldozed through, without carrying a lot of the NBA members in agreement. The way that happened was cause for the division and opposition organisation that came about afterwards.
One of the arguments, and it is still a worry, is the amount of votes given to packers. Made sense in one way, we are all part of the same industry, and part of the same "team". But, maybe not.
Each sector will likely vote for what favours themselves. At the time, there was some pressure on government to legalise the importation of honey. This would benefit packers financially as they would be able to import 90 cent a kilo honey from Vietnam, put it in jars, sell it to the masses, and bank a tidy profit.
It would also be the final nail in the coffin for many commercial beekeeping operations, in fact it would be a disaster for the NZ beekeeping industry.
Packers though, would be laughing all the way to the bank, and would have no need for a NZ beekeeping industry.
Would that ever happen? Who knows. But enough people who actually keep bees were worried enough about being outvoted in an organisation that represents them to government, that they felt compelled to start an opposition organisation.
This whole scenario could have been avoided by setting up APINZ in a similar way to what it is, just, giving actual commercial beekeepers a majority of the vote. The opposition group would then probably never have happened, and, what would have been the harm?
Some people felt very strongly about this but the move was bulldozed through, without carrying a lot of the NBA members in agreement. The way that happened was cause for the division and opposition organisation that came about afterwards.
One of the arguments, and it is still a worry, is the amount of votes given to packers. Made sense in one way, we are all part of the same industry, and part of the same "team". But, maybe not.
Each sector will likely vote for what favours themselves. At the time, there was some pressure on government to legalise the importation of honey. This would benefit packers financially as they would be able to import 90 cent a kilo honey from Vietnam, put it in jars, sell it to the masses, and bank a tidy profit.
It would also be the final nail in the coffin for many commercial beekeeping operations, in fact it would be a disaster for the NZ beekeeping industry.
Packers though, would be laughing all the way to the bank, and would have no need for a NZ beekeeping industry.
Would that ever happen? Who knows. But enough people who actually keep bees were worried enough about being outvoted in an organisation that represents them to government, that they felt compelled to start an opposition organisation.
This whole scenario could have been avoided by setting up APINZ in a similar way to what it is, just, giving actual commercial beekeepers a majority of the vote. The opposition group would then probably never have happened, and, what would have been the harm?
Last edited:
The board votes, 2 votes for packers, 4 votes for commercial beekeepers and 1 for hobbyist, the board was made up for that very reason Alistair. Packers and hobbyist can not out vote the commercial beekeeping block.
thanks everyone who have responded to the Topic. Below a summary of forum individuals and their position. Some are in several groups. These are all the participants so far in the discussion. The last two groups will need clarification- can easily update. Anyone reading this, and want to let me know what position they are in/or not - reply. More that respond the better, so you ghosts just send a quick line!
APINZ MEMBERS
Dennis Crowley (com)
Nick Wallingford (retired)
John F (hob/research)
Maggie James (semi)
John B (com)
Jamo (com)
Scientia Sit Potentia (??) didn't say.
UMFHA
Scientia Sit Potentia (??)
SOUTH NORTH ISLAND BEEKEEPING GROUP
Trevor Gillbanks (Hob)
Maggie James (Semi)
Stephen B (com)
Nick Wallingford (retired)
NEW ZEALAND BEEKEEPING INC
John B (com)
Stephen B (com)
Dennis Crowley (com)
Nick Wallingford (Retired)
FEDERATED FARMERS
James
NOT IN ANY GROUP
Gino de Graaf (com)
Alastair (semi)
Southbee (com)
Frazzlefozzle (com)
NOT IN APINZ BUT MAYBE IN ANOTHER GROUP?
Bighands (hob)
Bron (com)
Morporks (com)
APINZ MEMBERS
Dennis Crowley (com)
Nick Wallingford (retired)
John F (hob/research)
Maggie James (semi)
John B (com)
Jamo (com)
Scientia Sit Potentia (??) didn't say.
UMFHA
Scientia Sit Potentia (??)
SOUTH NORTH ISLAND BEEKEEPING GROUP
Trevor Gillbanks (Hob)
Maggie James (Semi)
Stephen B (com)
Nick Wallingford (retired)
NEW ZEALAND BEEKEEPING INC
John B (com)
Stephen B (com)
Dennis Crowley (com)
Nick Wallingford (Retired)
FEDERATED FARMERS
James
NOT IN ANY GROUP
Gino de Graaf (com)
Alastair (semi)
Southbee (com)
Frazzlefozzle (com)
NOT IN APINZ BUT MAYBE IN ANOTHER GROUP?
Bighands (hob)
Bron (com)
Morporks (com)
Where do Comvita and Manuka Health fit in this mix? They are both packers and both commercial beekeepers?
From memory that change only occurred only when needed to allow the attempt to introduce a commodity levy? Good change regardless of cause though.
My post re 5.2 was about me thinking that I'd found the reason that API.nz is silent on membership.numbers and composition, meaning anyone answering might be bringing apinz into disrepute or acting against its best interests etc. Figured out a way to get that info for anyone who wants it, find a situation in which a minister or ministry states that apinz represents a majority of NZ beekeepers, then request on what basis that claim is made via the official information Act
Also, in relation to any excuse to insult or whatever it was. Apinz has done some great things already. Their guide to new beekeepers pdf, their advice on covid lockdown beekeeping, and their dissemination of info on tutin and similar, to name just three.
The afb levy management crew, not exactly sure how that fits in, but they've been doing great stuff too. Even successfully managed and implemented a software change, which I find impressive
Last edited:
That info is on their website: https://apinz.org.nz/our-people/
Comvita: market (Tony wright)
Manuka health: commercial (kate kember)
Last edited:
C and MH represent Commercial, but they buy a lot of honey from many other beekeepers. C has interests in Australia and South America plus in the share market. Their interest lies purely in the return to the share holders- (not the beekeepers) which is what's legally required in a listed company.
I think APINZ needs to clarify the positions the Board members choose to represent, because currently I believe C and MH are Packer and Marketers to the core- Maybe if the company has bees and primarily sells it's own produced honey... some measure say 75%...
C made huge losses running hives, what kept the ship afloat was Packing, Marketing and selling a whole lot of newly created Shares. Look at the shop on Queen Street...
The Commercials need to be like you Dennis. Keeps bees and sells honey wholesale. Preferably with Pasture/bush honey interests.
I would consider APINZ if I could see some change in the Board make up.
Another thought was, does C/MH buy other Board members honey? Does that need to be a consideration? Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it could show some bias.
How about a Queen/nuc/bee/cell producing representative. The Board is 4 Marketers/packers and 2 commercials, (Raymond Keys? says commercial but how many hives?? small is how many? is he semi? with a desire to Market/Pack and export his honey?
Ricki and you.
looking at that there are 3 commercial beekeepers who own their own business and rely on bees For an income.
The rest are either non beekeepers or corporates and one to represent hobbyists.
3 out of 8 board members are true blue commercial beekeepers.
This is our primary reason for not belonging to ApiNZ .
The NBA was a beekeeping organisation for beekeepers.
When ApiNZ was formed they included corporates, packers and landowners into the fold and that was it for us.
We all know the damage corporates have done to our beekeeping businesses.
The NBA was a beekeeping organisation for beekeepers.
When ApiNZ was formed they included corporates, packers and landowners into the fold and that was it for us.
We all know the damage corporates have done to our beekeeping businesses.
Ahhhh . .now . . I could have this completely wrong. But my understanding was the pressure to import honey was not from within NZ by packers or anyone in the NZ industry - I understood the pressure was from our trading partners to allow them to export honey to NZ ! !
Hmm well I have not taken a look how it is made up lately. But my memory from the time is that at that time, commercials could be outvoted.
How many votes for the board, cos you don't say. Even if it's only one, that with the others could equal the commercials, and if it's more than one (you say board votes - plural) the commercials could be outvoted. And that is how my memory serves me.
You do not have it wrong you are quite correct, perhaps I should have said that but it was moot from the point I was making.
However to clarify, the pressure at the time was not from packers, more something to do with a reciprical deal for NZ to get apples into Australia. Plus some other politics of the day. But regardless of where the pressure was coming from, the move would have benefited packers, and there was no reason to believe they would not have supported it.
Plenty of reason to believe Alistair. One large packer spent a lot of money to block honey from overseas, through legal action against MPI (if my memory is still holding up)
And we rode triumphant on his coat tails free loading all the way....