Over the years there have been a number of “reports on the beekeeping industry”.
Sometimes the reports were originated by the Government. Sometimes they were called for when the industry was asking for some sort of action or regulation, and sometimes it was in response to an inability of the industry to come to some clear viewpoint on a subject. The reports were primarily investigative and “summary” in nature.
The people selected by the Minister to carry out such a review would sometimes be public servants, sometimes elected politicians, sometimes an individual, sometimes a committee.
Some of the reports were not so general, but focussed on a particular situation. A good example was the Kay Report, intended only to address the issue of ownership of the Honey Marketing Authority (HMA).
In more recent times, there have been reports of a similar nature produced by the industry itself, or by outside academic interests. At least for the overview reports produced by the National Beekeepers’ Assn (NBA) the intention was to be informative. On the other hand the discussion paper from Malcolm Bale was directed specifically at the structures for the marketing of NZ honey.
This article identifies a range of these “overview” sort of reports on the beekeeping and honey industry.
The 1935 enquiry into honey marketing came about due to the level of criticism of the New Zealand Honey Co-operative Honey Producers Association (the HPA, by then in liquidation). The self-styled “Provisional Beekeepers Enquiry Committee” led the charge for a thorough investigation of honey marketing.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19330829.2.80
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19330830.2.26
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1933_07_Formation_of_Provisional_Comm_of_Enquiry.pdf
A delegation of beekeepers and others (grocers and merchants) had gone to Robert Masters, Minister of Industries and Commerce, with allegations of “gross mismanagement and malpractices” by the HPA and the Honey Export Control Board with which the HPA had worked closely before being placed in liquidation.
The Minister assigned someone from his department to investigate. The report was not signed with a name, but only “Advisory Accountant”. The report provided considerable detail for the 1920’s and 1930’s for the HPA, the HPA in liquidation and NZ Honey Co which formed to take over the operations of the HPA.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1935_01_Enquiry_into_marketing.pdf
Another report was presented to the Executive Commission of Agriculture about the same time. The Commission had the wide-ranging goal to “regulate the Marketing and Production of Agricultural Products”. The report was more of an “industry overview” rather than a focus on a particular problem. The Executive Commission of Agriculture carried out this same sort of overview for a number of primary industries. The author of the report, E.J Fawcett, would later become the Director-General of Agriculture, and have on-going involvement with the honey industry.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1935_06_Executive_Comm_Agriculture_report.pdf
In 1960 the Minister set up a Honey Marketing Investigation Committee to advise him on the suitability of the system of honey marketing in general, with a particular emphasis on the adequacy of the powers that were then available to the Honey Marketing Authority. It was also initiated by a series of calls for financial assistance to the industry in previous years.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1960_03_Ministerial_inquiry_into_honey_marketing.pdf
The NBA Executive made a response to the recommendations of the inquiry. They also made a point of circulating the entirety of a submission from Wallace Nelson (Otorohanga), who had been significantly involved in all of the variations of organised honey marketing in New Zealand.
The NBA disagreed with the Committee’s findings that the direct representation of the NBA on the HMA should cease. (As that left 4 producer representatives on the HMA, deadlocks in the future were almost inevitable.)
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1960_06_Responses_to_inquiry.pdf
In the late 1960’s there was a lot of turmoil in honey marketing. Critics of the HMA, spearheaded by Percy Berry (Havelock North), were persistent, patient and ultimately effective in dismantling the HMA’s powers in controlling the honey market. In August 1967, Berry commissioned a discussion paper from Malcolm Bale, Department of Agricultural Economics & Farm Management at Massey University. Bale had originally proposed the topic as a thesis topic. That failed due to lack of financial support. But Berry’s “enthusiasm and generosity” led to the discussion paper. As well, Berry paid to have the report sent out to all beekeepers.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1967_08_Marketing_of_NZ_Honey.pdf
The HMA was not happy with either the process or the content of Bale’s work… A confidential set of responses to the specifics of the Bale report (prepared by Manager Colin Gosse) were considered by the HMA.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1967_08_Commentary_on_Bale_report.pdf
Several years later in March 1972 a Government Caucus Committee led by A.D. Dick, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, produced a significant overview of the industry and of honey marketing. Again, the report’s initiation was related to dissatisfaction within the industry relating to the marketing of honey, and in particular the functions and roles of the HMA.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1972_03_Caucus_Inquiry_Report.pdf
The report considered the full range of the possible HMA involvement in honey marketing, including removal of all marketing functions, restricting the HMA to export of honey only, restricting the HMA to the local market only, allowing producer/packers to export or dramatically increasing the authority’s functions. One recommendation was that “There seems to be an inconsistency in the authority, as an exporter, having the sole right to decide whether a producer-packer should export honey.”
Another somewhat surprising finding related to instances of producers selling to consumers or local retailers at prices that would be uneconomic either for the authority or producer-packers. Rather than agreeing that this seeming price-cutting as a disservice to the industry, the report suggested it be allowed to continue, as it is “an operation that is satisfactory to both the producer and his customers”.
The next report into the industry was called for by the Hon Duncan McIntyre, Minister of Agriculture, and it had a narrow and specific purpose. In November 1980 he appointed David Kay, a Wellington accountant, to arbitrate between the various factions that had arisen as the HMA was being dis-established. Kay was asked to determine the ownership, effectively, of the assets of the HMA. With a proposed honey co-op forming, mostly in the South Island, there was a call to provide financial support to help it get established. Former producers who had supplied the HMA felt the assets should be theirs. Non-suppliers of the HMA, who had had to pay a Seals Levy, felt they had a share in the money, too.
Kay’s March 1981 report was absolutely significant in managing to span the range of the viewpoints within the industry at that time. It didn’t give any party a particular favour – but also managed to provide enough rationale that no one was too upset with the findings.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1981_04_Kay_Report.pdf
In 1987 the NBA’s industry planning process had identified the need “To publish an industry profile as a general awareness ‘backgrounder’ on the New Zealand beekeeping industry.” Andrew Matheson (MAF) and Nick Wallingford (Bay of Plenty Polytechnic) agreed to produce the report in 1988. Andrew took the lead, doing all of the writing, with Nick Wallingford handling production and layout.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1988_Profile.pdf
Several years later the Profile document was revised and updated, again by Matheson and Wallingford. The production quality was considerably improved.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1990_Profile.pdf
The final version of the Profile report came out in 1994. Cliff Van Eaton took the role of updating and re-writing much of the document. Nick Wallingford did the layout, with a sort of “flip book” action of a bee rising from a beehive on the lower right pages. (And I still think it was absolutely cool!) This last version of the Profile was extensively used in the 1990’s, as there were changes underway to many of the regulatory aspects of beekeeping. NBA Executive members were encouraged to hand the report out widely to help explain what the industry was about!
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1994_Profile.pdf
The last beekeeping industry report included in this article was authored by Andrew Matheson. Andrew had left MAF to become the Director of the International Bee Research Association, based in Cardiff. The overview appeared in the Bee World magazine in 1991, and provides an excellent snapshot of the industry at that time. It is very detailed and complete, discussing everything from nectar sources to disease threats.
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1991_Leading_Agricultural_Change.pdf