Ivan Dickinson and the NBA in 1973

This might all be seen as “history”, but that is not to say that it has gotten old… As I wrote this article in middle 2025 I was somewhat surprised at the number of issues that still have relevancy today.

In the early 1970s the National Beekeepers’ Association (NBA) had a doubtful future. As well as facing regulatory changes (and a prime example of governmental interference in marketing) the NBA needed to address significant organisational change. To remain viable the NBA needed to be seen to be advocating for beekeepers generally, and provide them with some sense of “input” to the policy positions of the industry.

The 1973 NBA Annual Conference was held in Nelson. Ivan Dickinson (Milton) gave the President’s Report, after his first year as President. The report was later described by Ted Roberts (Pohangina) as a plan that “…would form a sure basis for the development of a unified industry.”

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1973_08_NZBkpr.pdf#page=10
https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1973_09_Ted_Roberts_stands_for_HMA.pdf

This article will describe the range of events that faced the industry. It will address four main subjects, discussing how they arose to be “major issues” for the industry at that time.

Marketing upheaval, with the Minister refusing to allow the full realisations of honey provided to the Honey Marketing Authority (HMA).
A need to change the funding method for the NBA
Changes to the NBA voting system at the Annual Conference
The question of who should be “part” of the NBA, and especially the relationship of the NBA to marketing and the NZ Honey Packers’ Association.

All of these came together in that 1973 Conference, and most aspects of Ivan Dickinson’s “plan” for the future of the NBA were articulated at this conference, and ultimately realised. This article will look to the following years to see how the NBA’s leadership, and the leadership of the NBA, made these years of dramatic change into a positive experience for beekeepers and the NBA.

Minister limits the payout to HMA suppliers

The money received for the export of honey (the sole prerogative of the HMA) had exceeded that of the local market for several seasons. As the 1972/73 crop came in, suppliers to the HMA were looking forward to a good final payment for their crops given the sales that had taken place.

However, in April 1973 the Minister of Agriculture unilaterally directed the HMA to restrict the expected final payment. He constrained the HMA’s payout to 20 cents per pound, an increase of only 1 ½ cents over the previous season ‐ in spite of the fact the honey had been sold for about 28 cents per pound. Considerable funds were put into reserves as a future stabilisation fund, but honey producers were severely impacted and disappointed.

The HMA and the NBA presented a coordinated and consistent message to the Minister. What was described as “Government interference in a Producer Board, namely the limiting of their payout” was, ultimately, a Ministerial decision. The Government was concerned about the impact of a higher payout on the retail price of honey to the consumer/voter, and to the honey packers who would generally be expected to “meet” the HMA’s payout but had not had the opportunities of the export market.

Looming changes to NBA funding

Since the formation of the HMA in 1954, the NBA had received a grant from the HMA for a considerable proportion of its operating costs.

In 1972 a Government Caucus Inquiry into honey marketing recommended that the grant from the Seals Levy to the NBA be discontinued. The argument was that “those who are required to pay the levy should not be put into the position of being forced to support an organisation of which they may not approve.”

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1972_03_Caucus_Inquiry_Report.pdf

The NBA went through perilous financial times as it tried to develop a means of funding the organisation. Subscriptions for the NBA were historically collected at a branch/district level, with some sent on to the national office and some retained by the local branch. Finances got so bad that the Executive was forced to call up funds held by branches to keep the national association afloat. That in turn led the Executive to then propose a more “hands on” role for the NBA Head Office in terms of subscription collection.

Knowing that there were too many ways of evading the Seals Levy, some legal, some not, the HMA and the NBA worked closely together to replace the unpopular Seals Levy with a new levy payable by all beekeepers, created using the HMA’s legislation. The NBA hoped that it could in that way provide the continuation of a broad‐based levy to help support its own association.

Changes to the NBA’s voting system

Since its formation in 1913 the NBA had a history of Annual Conferences, held in varying locations, with the President, Vice President and the Executive all elected from the floor at the AGM held as part of the Annual Conference. Another recommendation that came from the 1972 Caucus Inquiry was that the NBA should change its voting system to ensure that conference decisions were not overly influenced by the location of the conference. The Caucus Inquiry recommended that voting be by delegates only “as in most other national organisations.” With such a long history of enthusiastic oration and lively voting at conference, the NBA would ultimately need to find a way to involve both conference attendees but also the beekeepers who were not there to hear the arguments put forward.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/elections-for-the-national-beekeepers-association/

Changes to the rules included the Head Office collection of subscriptions, which then meant Head Office had to notify branches of beekeeper voting strength. Dickinson defended the change, saying “If members were aware of the amount of correspondence from the General Secretary to Branch Secretaries sorting out the problems of membership payments I am sure they would appreciate the reason for this change.”

NBA representation

At times in the past there had been some “alternative” national associations, but never any that would seriously challenge the overall role that the NBA had set itself. The NBA still wanted to see itself as capable of representing all aspects of the industry. The NBA had always had a close relationship with the HMA, often having some members in common. The Minister took policy positions from the NBA (and conference) seriously. On several occasions the NBA’s support for the HMA was apparent and clear. To some extent this relationship with the HMA put the NBA at odds with honey packers.

In the late 1960’s the HMA had bought three large honey packing plants in the South Island. While it was at least in part a move to ensure honey stocks for the HMA it was seen as unwanted competition on the local market by the other honey packers. In 1967 the NZ Honey Packers Association was formed. When Bruce Forsyth (Ohaupo) delivered the 1972 President’s Report he was concerned that:

Our industry is too small to be fragmented into two administrative bodies and I would appeal to the Packers’ Association to consider amalgamating with the National body. Some packers and beekeepers have resigned, others signify their intentions to do so. This simply weakens all sections, and it would be more beneficial for everyone to rejoin the N.B.A. and strive to overcome the existing crisis.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1972_08_NZBkpr.pdf#page=15

The NBA was concerned at the potential for confusion and ultimate inaction by the Government when it had multiple groups presenting independent opinions. Ivan Dickinson wanted to somehow bring all these groups together and gave members the opportunity “… to discuss the formation of subcommittees operating under the National body.”

The 1973 Nelson NBA Conference

By 1973 Ivan Dickinson was well‐acquainted with the honey industry. He had been a member of the Executive for two years as the 1960’s ended, under President Don Barrow. He had been Vice President for the following two years when Bruce Forsyth (Ohaupo) was President. But Nelson would be Dickinson’s first time in the chair for an NBA conference. Given the range of events, and changes and circumstances already described, the stage was set for a robust debate of the options facing beekeepers.

Dickinson’s President’s Report covered all of those and more. As if all the other changes were not enough to unsettle the NBA, the report added that the General Secretary had recently resigned, joining the magazine Editor who had quit earlier in the year. Dickinson started his report with clear financial warnings to the conference:

July 1973 brings to an end another year in the life of the National Beekeepers Association Incorporated although at various times of the year that life was very much in the balance because of the financial situation which had arisen at the beginning of the year. Nevertheless your executive were determined to see that the Association remained a viable and active organisation of the industry it represented.

Dickinson made the dire situation of the NBA’s finances clear, telling beekeepers that “If you reject the substantial increase in subscriptions proposed then the incoming executive will have no alternative but to call a General Meeting to wind up the affairs of the Association.”

Dickinson explained that the NBA was also relying on an amendment to the Honey Marketing Authority Regulations to change the basis of the Seals Levy (the sale of honey) to a new levy on honey produced, with a declaration by beekeepers. That new levy would be intended to “…meet the administrative needs of the Authority [HMA] and the Association [NBA].” Dickinson’s proposal to the Minister involved a levy, paid to the HMA, on all honey produced (after the first ton, which was not levied). But at the same time, Dickinson described a new NBA subscription scheme based on a declaration of hive numbers. In an elegant move, Dickinson described the (voluntary) NBA subscription would be automatically deducted from the levy payment on honey production due to the HMA. It would give, effectively, “free” membership to the NBA when the compulsory levy was paid to the HMA for a stabilisation fund.

It was a conference that required a number of rulings from the chair regarding the NBA rules, as this was the first conference in which they were applied, as the NBA came to grips with a somewhat complex voting system, involving branch delegates but also the members present at the conference. Dickinson reserved one ruling overnight, wanting to fully consider the issue of proxy voting before making a decision.

The issue of the NZ Beekeeper magazine that came out the month following contains an excellent record of the conference, including the reports that were presented. In particular, the reporting of the arguments from the conference floor are compelling and revealing of the strength of feelings that some beekeepers displayed.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/1973_08_NZBkpr.pdf

And after the conference…

In a meeting just a few months after the 1973 conference, in December, Ivan Dickinson made a proposal to the Minister and to the HMA for a way to avoid situations like producers had experienced when the Minister made such a dramatic limitation in the payout. Dickinson proposed the concept of a “base price” that would give the HMA more autonomy to decide the final payout when realisations were high. Any realisations beyond this base price would be split between additional payout to the producer and to contribute to a stablisation fund for the future.

The introduction and use of the base price concept gave producers, packers and the honey consumer some necessary stability. The base price became a powerful determinant for the amount that packers were willing to pay producers. Though meeting a higher payout might ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers and for honey packers, the Minister felt the new approach might at least give plenty of warning of price changes.

The NZ Honey Packers Association remained a separate organisation for many more years, before joining in with the NBA to create ApiNZ. Dickinson’s initiative, encouraging the Packers Association and other such specialty groups to meet during the time of the NBA conference, worked well, however. Communication and cooperation between the two representative organisations reduced the chance of mixed messaging to the Minister.

The concept that Dickinson described as a levy based on honey production did not proceed in 1973. Two years later, however, the HMA Regulations were amended to create a new levy based on hive numbers to replace the Seals Levy. Any beekeeper with 50 or more hives would make a declaration of hive numbers and pay a levy to the HMA. From that money the HMA would give the NBA an operating grant, the level of which would be decided by the Minister. The HMA could also use part of this levy to put money into the stablisation fund.

Even with the new levy, no one was all that happy. The HMA did not like having to be the levy collector and the NBA felt somewhat stifled, feeling something of a loss of control in having to rely so much on the HMA and the Minister. It only took three more years, 1978, before the Hive Levy Act gave the NBA more of the responsibilities of collection and levy setting.

https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/num_reg/hmar1975409

Ivan Dickinson served four years as the NBA President, with his last conference as President being at Taupo in 1976, when Percy Berry (Havelock North) replaced him as President. He was successful in seeking election to the HMA when he stood aside as President of the NBA after the 1976 conference. By the time he fully stepped down from the NBA Executive following the 1978 Hastings conference, the NBA had stabilised significantly both financially and in terms of future planning for levies.

The responsibilities of the Hive Levy Act also required major changes to the NBA’s rules and voting procedures. As it was a levy rather than a voluntary subscription, the NBA was constrained to some extent. The new rules provided for a postal vote for the Executive, something the NBA had never utilised. President and Vice President would still be elected “in person” from the six Executive during the NBA’s AGM.

Remits were still put forward by branches. Refinements were made to allow for a splitting off of the Conference of Branch Delegates from the AGM itself. It provided several means for a member to reasonably assure that their voting was effective, even if they did not attend the conference. The rules and voting system developed primarily by Ivan Dickinson and Mike Stuckey (Auckland) remained basically the same for more than 20 years to follow.

Final thoughts…

Times change, oh yes they do…

The regulation of marketing changed dramatically following the disestablishment of the HMA in the early 1980’s. The Government’s willingness to have a “bespoke” levy for beekeepers has since been replaced with the generic approach of the Commodity Levies Act.

But the need to maintain a widely acceptable representative association for the beekeeping industry is still relevant. The need to ensure that the organisation can effectively represent all the various aspects of the industry, even if the relationships are more of cooperation rather than compulsion.

Ivan Dickinson provided the NBA with a much needed plan through some very troubled times. Had he not provided that leadership when he did, the industry would surely have been the loser. His ability to clearly articulate a complex issue to the industry, and his honesty and integrity, meant he was trusted to do the best he could for all aspects of the industry.