The National Beekeepers’ Assn was successful in its first attempt to obtain a levy using the Commodity Levies Act in 1996. The levy was used to fund the NBA’s activities, including disease control and marketing. The levy was set to run for six years, and it needed to be re-affirmed by the end of 2002, including a new ballot to indicate support of the levy payers.
The levy was based on apiary numbers, with an exemption for a beekeeper with “10 beehives or less, and keep[ing] them on more than 3 apiaries sites”. Collecting unpaid levies under the Hive Levy Act had been problematic at times regarding “establishing a debt” for collection. The change to apiary numbers gave a tangible basis for the collection of the levy, rather than relying on a declaration by the beekeeper.
The intent of the levy was similar to the Hive Levy Act levy. It did, however, take the level at which one stopped being a hobbyist from 50 hives down to 10 hives. It was felt that those beekeepers should contribute to industry management, including disease control.
Using the Commodities Levy Act for funding the NBA’s Pest Management Strategy (now called Pest Management Plan) avoided having two sets of compliance, reporting and auditing, which would have been the case if the PMS was funded by a Biosecurity Act levy.
During the six years of that levy’s collection the NBA Executive agreed to taking a different approach for a new set of levies when the Commodity Levy expired.
The NBA Executive decided to put forward a more complex proposal, as developed by its Compliance Committee. It described:
- The “base levy” – a Biosecurity Act levy “per beekeeper” for the administration and management of the PMS, the membership to the NBA and the
NZ Bkpr magazine - The “hive levy” – a Biosecurity Act levy “per hive” for education, training, compliance and management of the PMS, as well as “association management”.
- The “commodity levy” – a Commodity Levy Act “per hive” levy. It was only changed to a “per hive” levy during consultation. Initially it was to be based on a declaration of sales for the previous year. It was to be spent on a range of activities including “marketing, lobbying, industry management”.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/2001_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=4
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_03_NZBkpr.pdf#page=4
The NBA undertook consultation with those who would be required to pay the levies through April and May 2002. It was acknowledged that no vote was actually required for the Biosecurity Act levies, but the NBA would need to provide results of the consultation and full proposal to the Minister of Biosecurity for the Biosecurity Act levy request.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_04_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/2002_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=19
Both the March and April issues of the NZ Bkpr magazine, sent to all beekeepers, were to have descriptions of the “public good” activities that were to be funded by the levies that were proposed. Instead, an article appeared in the May issue, describing the “industry good” activities that the NBA expected to undertake with the levy. While disease control and the PMS were significant in the article, marketing aspects were omitted.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_05_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
There were letters and responses from the NBA in the February, March and April issues of the magazine.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_02_NZBkpr.pdf#page=20
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_03_NZBkpr.pdf#page=8
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_04_NZBkpr.pdf#page=14
The letter in June, from former NBA Exec members Bruce Stevenson, suggested that some beekeepers might be voting NO in the ballot as a rejection of the change back to “per hive” levy, or as a means to call for re-organisation of the association.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=15
The NBA contracted with AgriBusiness Group Ltd, along with Federated Farmers support, to put on a “road show” to explain the proposed levies to beekeepers.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/2002_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=25
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_04_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
There was some NBA Executive discussion about the staffing of the road show, with some disappointment that the Executive Secretary had been part of the roadshow, rather than the Federated Farmer’s policy advisor who had been doing more of the work on the levy process.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/2002_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=44
The ballot for support was conducted in June 2002, with an expectation that the final application to the Minister would be presented in Ausust..
Even before the ballot had closed the NBA was aware of a typographical error on the ballot paper, referring to a rate of 90 cents per hive, rather than the intended 72 cents.
While the NBA felt it was not significant, the repetition of the “90 cents” in the May magazine would not have been helpful.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/2002_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=41
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=10
There was also some confusion about the closing date/time for the ballot, with a clarification appearing twice in the June magazine..
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=14
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=18
When the results of the ballot for support were announced in the July magazine the NBA did not have a clear idea of the Commodity Levy Act processes. The ballot is based on participants (“bkprs”) in the ballot, those that are counted as YES, NO or abstain. The NBA wrongly included a range of informal/invalid voting papers that should not have been part of the tally, though it did not impact on the overall results. The announcement headline refers to the fact that there were “too few [votes] for [the] ballot to count.” Again, that was not a correct understanding. The vote was successful in terms of participant numbers (“bkprs”) but failed because those supporting the levy did not control more than half of the commodity being levied on (“hives”).
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_07_NZBkpr.pdf#page=13
That significant error was not corrected in the magazine until two months later. The last sentence of the correction makes it apparent that the NBA had gone through the entire ballot process without having a clear understanding of the Commodity Levies Act.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=23
In October the NBA made changes to the proposed Biosecurity Act levies. (The ballot for support was directed only at the Commodity Levies Act levy.) While the proposed disease control budget was reduced, the change was made to the financial detriment of hobbyist beekeepers.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_10_NZBkpr.pdf#page=7
A letter (and response from the NBA) appeared in the next (November) issue of the magazine.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_11_NZBkpr.pdf#page=5
Executive Vice President Lin McKenzie came out swinging with two broadsides in the last magazine of the year.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_12_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2002_12_NZBkpr.pdf#page=12
Following an explosive meeting on 19 December 2002, the issues of notice, resignations, co-option, quora and industry association viability were questioned, as the NBA transitioned to become an entirely voluntary organisation.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_02_NZBkpr.pdf#page=8
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_02_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
The NBA also learned that MAF personnel had deemed the NBA’s consultation process for the Biosecurity Act levies as “inadequate and flawed.”
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_03_NZBkpr.pdf#page=4
The NBA was still the Management Agency for the PMS, but without secure funding, an approach had been made to the Minister to bear some of the costs of running the PMS for 2003.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_05_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
The Minister agreed to funding for mailing out the Annual Disease Returns and for the updating of the register.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
The Minister let the NBA know that the levy consultation had not met the requirements of the Biosecurity Act, but that a further letter to beekeepers, sent along with the 2003 Annual Disease Return and a period for submissions was needed.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_05_NZBkpr.pdf#page=7
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_05_NZBkpr.pdf#page=12
The consultation resulted in about 50 submissions to the Minister, considerably more than the 8 or so that had been received during the Commodity Levy ballot process (that was the consultation considered “inadequate and flawed” as it related to Biosecurity Act levies).
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_07_NZBkpr.pdf#page=3
By spring, the NBA had hopes that the Minister might approve a levy (for the PMS) in November.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_08_NZBkpr.pdf#page=17
An announcement of the new levies came from the Minister, and appeared in the September magazine. The approved proposal involved a “per bkpr” levy and a levy based on apiary numbers, as had been the case with the previous Commodity Levies Act levy that had expired.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=18
By November, though the PMS Order in Council was not completed, the NBA prepared to send out invoices for the new levies to support the PMS.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2003_11_NZBkpr.pdf#page=25
The NBA had made it through its first full year as a voluntary association, without the security and sustainability that accompanied about 25 years of a levy-funded beekeeping association.