By the late 1970’s the Honey Marketing Authority (HMA) had been a dominant force in NZ honey marketing for nearly 25 years. It was also a polarising element to industry politics. This article will talk about the last few years of the HMA’s influence as the industry called for change.
Proponents of the HMA claimed the statutory authority was a positive and stabilising influence on the returns to beekeepers, whether they were HMA suppliers or not. Opponents claimed the HMA was inefficient and ineffective in sales, and should not have the sole right to export honey.
For several years there had been a focus on the elections for both the NBA and the HMA, with the same people standing for both bodies at times. Ivan Dickinson (Milton), Percy Berry (Havelock North) and Michael Stuckey (Auckland) had all been elected to both the NBA President’s office, but also elected as producer representatives on the HMA.
The beekeepers who supplied honey to the HMA had a vote for who would govern the HMA based on the quantity of honey they supplied. But because all the other honey producers had to pay the Seals Levy to the HMA for retail sales of honey, they too were allowed to vote. And to stand for the HMA, even though they were not HMA suppliers. Percy Berry and Michael Stuckey were both elected to the HMA, but were non-suppliers. With the more traditional HMA supporters of Ivan Dickinson and Russell Poole (Christchurch) elected as the other producer representatives, the deciding vote would regularly fall to Don Hayman, the Government representative on the HMA.
There’s certainly a bit of irony about that… When the HMA was set up in the early 1950’s, there was in fact one more member, an appointment by the NBA. In the early 1960’s the Minister deemed this extra member unnecessary and removed the NBA’s direct role in influencing the HMA. Many of the issues of “two against two” or “the Govt representative should not make the decision for the industry” became real.
And after the September 1978 HMA elections the balance changed even further. Percy Berry was re-elected and Jasper Bray (Leeston) was also elected, another non-HMA supplier. They defeated Kevin Ecroyd (Christchurch) and Fred Bartrum (Pleasant Point) who were both strong supporters of the more “traditional” HMA.
The 1979 NBA Conference was held in Christchurch. Several weeks before, Curtis Wicht, HMA Manager, along with Government representative Don Hayman, had produced a position paper to describe the HMA’s possible future. Percy Berry responded with a circular of his own, saying that the industry has enough marketing abilities among producers to enable it to work in any marketing direction it might choose to take.
https://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1979_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=6
But both of those important circulars were published after most of the NBA branches had held their remits meetings, precluding the “normal” manner for the industry to express its position. NBA President Michael Stuckey chose a different approach to obtain clarity and consensus , putting a series of questions to the conference to allow ideas to develop. Stuckey had described the approach to the other NBA Executive just before the conference – “The President pointed out to the meeting that handling the matter at Conference was not going to be easy – however, it could be that by allowing it to follow a “progression of action” the topic could be handled adequately”.
The questions he put were:
- “Does the industry want any form of export control?” (All but two members were in favour of having some degree of control.)
- “Should the industry continue to have an income stabilisation scheme?” (All but one member opposed having a stabilisation scheme.)
- “Is the industry happy that the HMA may not accept all honeys offered to it in the future?” (The meeting unanimously agreed that the HMA should not have to take all honey offered to it.)
- “Should the HMA continue with the sole right to export, with a hive levy to finance its operations or with a levy on either production or capital?” (Voting was not really conclusive for any of the options, as the HMA’s future was so unclear at this point.)
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/1979_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=11
https://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1979_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=6
Paul Marshall (Hastings) had been elected NBA President at the conclusion of the conference. (Percy Berry and Ivan Dickinson had not stood for re-election to the Executive. Several months later the HMA elections saw both Michael Stuckey and Ivan Dickinson returned to the HMA. Stuckey’s defeat of Harry Cloake left a clear 3-1 majority of non-HMA supplierts – Berry, Stuckey and Bray (all non-suppliers) and Ivan Dickinson (an HMA supporter and supplier). It certainly looked like the ultimate winding up of the HMA, or at least major changes to its policies and operations, with special interest in the opening up of private exports of bulk honey. (The HMA had allowed a small amount of packed lines by private packers, but would not allow private exports of bulk honey.)
Paul Marshall went quickly to work to try to resolve some of the tension and confusion in the marketing scene. He approached Hon. Rob Talbot, the Under-Secretary of Agriculture, with the idea of a joint meeting of all of the various beekeeping industry associations. It turned into quite a meeting…
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/1979_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=43
Following that first meeting on 1 November 1979, another “industry-wide” meeting was held the following 18 March. The focus of this second meeting was more to do with how the HMA’s assets might be distributed should it cease to trade. Most seemed to feel that the assets effectively belonged to all beekeepers, and not just the suppliers of the HMA. Percy Berry (HMA chairman) told the meeting that the HMA had decided to support the development of a (primarily) South Island-based honey co-operative that had been proposed as an alternative to the HMA. The HMA went so far as to commission an accountant, Noel Dellow (Timaru), to examine the feasibility of a co-op.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/1980_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=1
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1980_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=7
By the time of the July 1980 NBA Conference in Tauranga, the ideas for a honey co-op had progressed. There was a general acceptance of the fact that some form of arbitration might be needed, given the differences of opinion. Again, the Associate Minister agreed with this approach.
And Percy Berry was made a Life Member of the NBA.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_conferences/1980_NBA_AGM.pdf
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1980_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=9
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1980_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=13
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1980_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=15
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1980_07_Berry_and_HMA_winding_up.pdf
The magazine following the conference had an editorial that included “Let’s all hope that the last issue of the Beekeeper for 1980 will carry the tidings of an amicable decision about the HMA assets, made from within the industry, not from a bigger hive.” It was not to be, or at least not the amicable part.
With no firm agreement between the HMA and the honey co-op supporters, particularly over the availability of low interest money to help establish the co-op, the Associate Minister stepped in with terms of reference for arbitration.
Even before an arbitrator could be appointed, the wheels started to fall off of the idea of a smooth and orderly winding up of the HMA. When the HMA met in September 1980 the non-supplier majority – Berry, Stuckey and Bray – did not end up voting the way it may have been expected. The specific question that “caught out” the seeming coalition was whether or not the HMA should loan the emerging co-op a substantial percentage of the HMA’s assets aand reserves at less than market rates. That is, the co-op was hoping to establish itself with “cheap money”. The co-op proponents argued that its members, primarily former HMA suppliers, had a right to use the money. Other arguments asserted that since the assets belonged to all beekeepers, loaning it in such a way was both undeserved and risky.
Loaning to the co-op would certainly appeal to Ivan Dickinson. Not only was he a long-time HMA supporter, he was among the group who were proposing the co-op. Don Hayman, the Government representative, would have supported the idea, likely agreeing with his Minister’s viewpoint. Hayman had said that though the HMA assets might belong to the entire industry, that the HMA suppliers could be said to have a greater claim than the rest.
Both Percy Berry and Michael Stuckey were clearly against the idea of loaning the money before some mechanism such as arbitration gave a clear indication of who should benefit from the HMA assets. To make decisions about the assets even before clear “ownership” was established might prejudice later decisions.
Jasper Bray, a private producer/packer and never a fan of the HMA, cast his vote with Dickinson and Hayman. Why? There may have been several reasons. The producers behind the proposed co-op were Jasper Bray’s beekeeping neighbours. He would have bought, and hoped to be buying more honey from many of the co-op members at times, depending on the season and circumstances. He may just have seen the loan as a good means to ensure the co-op did get a fair chance to establish.
Percy Berry, as the Chairman, ruled that Ivan Dickinson’s vote should not count, as Ivan would likely become a member of the co-op if/when it formed. The meeting challenged and over-ruled the Chairman, allowing the votes.
And two days later it became more public – the High Court issued an injunction to the Manager of the HMA, and naming Percy Berry as Chairman and Ivan Dickinson as a producer representative, personally. It meant the HMA could not transfer assets or loan money to the new co-op. The injunction had been taken out by Arataki Honey (Percy Berry’s company) and R.P. (Ray) and E.R. Robinson (his wife), who were Waikato beekeepers. Percy Berry explained that the individual naming was done “for technical legal reasons rather than as a result of any personal motive.” Ivan Dickinson was hurt by the naming in this way, and was quite open about it in later years. He said it “was an unwarranted attack” on his position and integrity.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1980_12_NZBkpr.pdf#page=7
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800927.2.89
Paul Marshall as NBA President again took quick action. He telegraphed Percy Berry, saying that “in view of the apparent conflict of interests, Mr Berry should review his chairmanship of the HMA.” Marshall did think it proper that he should be taking such legal action while he was still HMA chairman. He saw it as playing on both sides at the same time, taking the action and defending the action.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/1980_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=55
But Percy Berry didn’t resign. Rather, he was replaced as HMA chairman by Ivan Dickinson at the following HMA meeting in November. At about the same time, the Associate Minister appointed a Wellington accountant, David H. Kay, to arbitrate and establish the “ownership” of the assets of the HMA. All the industry factions agreed with this approach, and were willing to be bound by the arbitrator’s findings.
The issue to Percy Berry and Michael Stuckey related to not wanting to loan the money to the HMA before the arbitration had taken place. But even after all the parties had agreed to hold off on any actions, the injunction remained in place.
In April 1981 the “Kay Report” was released.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1981_04_Kay_Report.pdf
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1981_06_NZBkpr.pdf#page=6
Kay found that the HMA assets should be attributed to the entire industry, including producers and packers. He supported a low-interest loan to the co-op, and saw that as part of the “industry cost to orderly restructuring” of the honey marketing in New Zealand.
He said “Attention must be given simultaneously to: (a) the dissolution of the authority, (b) the establishment of a co-operative, and (c) the orderly transition of the authority’s marketing function to the co-operative. The transition will obviously be a sensitive period and care will be required to retain the confidence and support of the suppliers and customers.”
And still the injunction remained in place.
It wasn’t until two remits from the Hawkes Bay branch were passed at the July NBA conference in Queenstown that it would be lifted. Both remits were moved by Percy Berry and seconded by his son Ian Berry. Both remits were intended to indicate complete support for the Kay Report and its findings, and both were passed by the conference by 14 to nil…
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1981_09_NZBkpr.pdf#page=34
Percy Berry was questioned by David Penrose (Christchurch) about when the injunction would be lifted, in the interest of providing a smooth transition from the HMA to whatever would come next. Percy Berry replied that he, too, was interested in having an orderly transition for the HMA, and that passing those last remits would allow it to be lifted.
Percy Berry, accompanied by sons Ian and Russell, went immediately to contact his solicitor to have the injunction lifted.
And it was over…
Or at least that part of it.