The bees came first, long before the letters from the tax office. On still mornings, when the mist clung low over the paddocks and magpies tuned their throats, you could hear them—a low, steady hum rising from the hives lined up along the boundary fence. To 72-year-old retiree Alan McKenzie, that sound had become part of the soundtrack of his quiet life on a small patch of land outside Bellingen, on the New South Wales mid-north coast. He didn’t own the hives. He didn’t jar the honey. He didn’t make a cent. But he liked that his land could be part of something buzzing and alive.
Which is why, when the notice from the state revenue office arrived—informing him that his property would now be treated as “primary production land” and subject to a different category of land tax—he sat at the kitchen table and read the letter three times. “Primary production?” he muttered, running a finger along the faded Formica. “I’m a pensioner with a mower and a thermos. Where’s the farm?”
The Day the Letter Arrived
The envelope had that unmistakable official look—thin, unforgiving paper, address printed a little too straight, a logo that makes your stomach tighten before you even know what it wants. Alan opened it with a butter knife, half expecting it to be another rates reminder or an update about roadworks down the lane. Instead, it was a classification notice and a warning about possible reassessment of his land tax and local council charges.
According to the letter, because his land was being used for an agricultural purpose—specifically, hosting commercial beehives—it might no longer qualify for the category he’d been under for years. The language was bureaucratic, dense, and coolly precise: “use of land,” “primary production,” “beneficial occupation.” Somewhere in there was the implication that his casual agreement with the local beekeeper had turned his peaceful block into a farm in the eyes of the state.
“I earn nothing from this,” he told the woman on the phone at the tax office, his voice shaking between anger and disbelief. “He puts the hives there. The bees wander about. I sit on the veranda and drink tea. That’s it.”
The woman was apologetic but firm. The law, she explained, looked at how the land was used, not who earned what. If commercial activity was happening, the land itself might be treated as farming land. Rules were rules.
A Gentle Favour Turns Into a Legal Tangle
The whole thing had started as a favour. Two years earlier, a local beekeeper named Sam had knocked on his gate one warm afternoon. Sam was in his thirties, all sunburnt forearms and quick smile, with a battered ute that smelled faintly of smoke and honey. The bushfires had wiped out many of the flowering trees he relied on. He was trying to spread his hives out, find safe sites with good forage that would keep his bees alive through tough seasons.
“Would you mind a few hives along your fence line?” he’d asked, cap in hand. “We’ve lost a lot of country. I can’t pay much, to be honest. But I can drop off some honey now and then.”
Alan had laughed. “Mate, I don’t want your money. You’re doing it harder than I am. Put them where you like—as long as they don’t chase the grandkids.”
They shook hands over the deal. No contract. No formal lease. Just a mutual understanding between two country people, the kind that used to carry its own weight long before the world started counting every blade of grass in dollars and cents.
In practical terms, nothing much changed. Sam came by in his ute every couple of weeks, checking on the hives, sometimes lighting his smoker, sometimes leaving quietly before sunrise when the air was still cool. The bees came and went, dipping into the clover in the paddock and the flowering gums along the creek. Every so often, a jar of dark amber honey would appear on Alan’s doorstep with a simple note: “Thanks, mate.”
The Law Meets the Landscape
What Alan didn’t realise—and what many Australians are now discovering—is that the law often sees the land in harsh, black-and-white lines where life sees nuance and generosity.
Across Australia, state laws around land tax, council rates, and primary production concessions are a dense patchwork. Some states give generous tax breaks to farmers and primary producers, but only if the land is actively and continuously used for commercial purposes. Others treat small-scale or low-income rural holdings differently from bigger agribusiness operations. Sitting awkwardly in the middle are people like Alan: retirees, hobby landholders, and families who might lease out part of their property or lend space for things like beehives, agistment, or seasonal crops.
On paper, “primary production” can include grazing livestock, growing crops, and, yes, commercial beekeeping. To regulators, if your land is part of a commercial honey operation—even if your only benefit is a couple of jars of honey a year—it might be considered as being used for an agricultural purpose.
But when that classification flows through to tax bills and local rates, the impact can be very real. Some landholders find themselves pushed out of concession categories, or into higher tax brackets, simply because they’ve allowed someone else to make use of their land in a way that supports food production and biodiversity.
“It’s madness,” Alan says, holding the letter in one hand and his modest pension statement in the other. “If they think I’m a farmer, they should come and see me trying to reverse the trailer.”
A Debate That Reaches Beyond One Fence Line
As word spread—first through the local community Facebook group, then into regional newspapers, and finally onto talkback radio—the story struck a nerve. It wasn’t just about bees anymore. It was about what kind of country Australia wants to be in a time of climate pressure, land stress, and rising costs.
On one side were those who saw the ruling as absurd, a perfect example of overreach. “We should be encouraging people to host beehives,” wrote one listener to a Sydney station, “not punishing retirees for helping keep pollinators alive.” For these voices, the idea that a pensioner could face higher land-related costs for doing something that seemed, on its face, environmentally beneficial felt like a moral and policy failure.
On the other side were those who defended the letter of the law. “If the land is supporting a business,” one commentator argued, “why shouldn’t it be classified as such? Otherwise you’re just creating loopholes. What if people start calling everything a ‘favour’ to dodge proper land taxes?”
The debate quickly widened, pulling in farmers, environmentalists, lawyers, beekeepers, and everyday Australians who had never thought twice about the difference between “residential” and “primary production” land. In an era where bees are under threat from disease, pesticides, and habitat loss, and where the price of food is climbing, was this the moment to discourage the quiet partnerships that underpin regional resilience?
What’s Actually at Stake?
To understand why this hit such a national nerve, you have to appreciate how intertwined bees are with Australian life, and how fragile that relationship is.
- Bees—both managed honeybees and native pollinators—are crucial for crops from almonds and apples to canola and cucumbers.
- Commercial beekeepers often depend on access to a patchwork of public and private lands to move their hives with flowering cycles.
- Many small landholders offer space for hives not for profit, but out of a sense of stewardship and community.
For people like Alan, it’s not just about rules; it’s about culture. “I grew up in a time when you just helped each other out,” he says. “If someone needed a bit of ground for their sheep, you said yes. Now it feels like everything has to go through the accountant first.”
A Quiet Ecological Partnership
If you stand beside the hives on a mild autumn afternoon, you can feel the air vibrate. Bees drift in and out, their tiny bodies dusted with pollen, their flight paths criss-crossing like invisible highways. The scent of warmed wax and honey hangs lightly, blending with the eucalyptus and the sharp, grassy tang from the paddock.
For Sam the beekeeper, this block isn’t just another stop on his circuit; it’s a vital buffer in a changing climate. Heatwaves, droughts, and shifting flowering seasons mean that beekeepers are constantly searching for reliable forage and safe, chemically low-risk locations. Private landholders—especially those with a mix of pasture, creeklines, and trees—are often the difference between a hive surviving or failing over a tough summer.
“We can’t just park all the bees in the national parks anymore,” Sam explains. “There’s competition, there’s fire risk, and sometimes access rules change. We rely on blokes like Alan. A couple of hives on his place can take pressure off another site. It’s like having a spare paddock when the rains don’t come.”
It’s a quiet partnership: he cares for the bees; the land offers them safe passage; the bees, in turn, pollinate gardens, orchards, and scattered wildflowers up and down the valley. It’s not a transaction in the traditional sense. It’s an exchange woven into the landscape itself.
When Goodwill Meets Red Tape
Yet somewhere in the maze of legislation, this kind of goodwill has slipped between the cracks. Regulators, understandably, often have to draw hard lines: a lease is a commercial arrangement; an ongoing activity is a use of land; a business is a business even if it’s small. But when those lines are applied without nuance, they can have a chilling effect.
Local beekeeping groups report that, since stories like Alan’s surfaced, some landholders are rethinking their willingness to host hives. “I can’t afford to risk a tax issue,” one small acreage owner outside Brisbane remarked. “I love the bees, but I’m on a knife-edge with my own costs.”
➡️ Banana peels in the garden: they only boost plants if you put them in this exact spot
➡️ Banana peels in the garden: they only boost plants if you put them in this exact spot
➡️ A simple kitchen ingredient slipped down the drain and fixed everything : the plumber found nothing, skeptics call it luck while others say it’s proof
➡️ Psychologists suggest that people who feel “too much” often developed heightened perception as a form of emotional protection
➡️ Place your jade plant in this exact spot: the simple Feng Shui positioning trick said to boost wealth, harmony and lasting happiness at home
➡️ People in their 60s and 70s were right all along: 7 life lessons we’re only now beginning to understand and appreciate
➡️ Put A Lemon Slice In Your Cold Oven : Why People Are Doing It And When It Actually Helps
Environmental advocates worry that, while each case might seem marginal, the cumulative effect could be serious. If scattered, low-cost hosting opportunities dry up, beekeepers may be forced to cluster more hives into fewer sites, increasing stress on bees and pressure on local ecosystems. At a time when varroa mite outbreaks and biosecurity scares are already rattling Australia’s honey industry, every lost patch of land matters.
Counting the Cost: Bees, Bills, and the Bigger Picture
In the swirl of public debate, the practicalities can get lost. What does a ruling like this really mean for someone like Alan, and for others in similar situations?
Not every retiree with bees on their land will face a sudden tax spike. Outcomes depend on state rules, property size, land value, past classifications, and whether any written agreements exist between landholder and beekeeper. In some cases, the classification as primary production can even reduce certain land tax liabilities, though it might affect other concessions. The problem is less the specific dollar figure in any single case, and more the uncertainty and fear it creates.
Here’s a simplified look at what can change for a landholder when their property is treated as “primary production” rather than just “residential rural” or similar, using Alan’s story as a jumping-off point:
| Issue | Before Beehives | After Beehives Classified as Primary Production |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use Category | Rural residential / non‑commercial | Potentially primary production land |
| Tax & Rates Treatment | Stable, predictable concessions for retirees | May change thresholds, concessions, or categories |
| Income to Landholder | None (pension only) | Still none, despite possible new obligations |
| Environmental Benefit | Low, mainly passive land stewardship | Higher pollination, support for local food systems |
| Emotional Impact | Sense of security and simplicity | Stress, confusion, second‑guessing future generosity |
Alan sits at his kitchen table and shakes his head at the irony. “They keep talking about helping nature, about saving the bees,” he says. “Then they make it harder for the one thing I can actually do to help.”
Rethinking the Rules for a Changing Country
Legal experts who’ve weighed in on the debate say there are options. States could, for example, create clearer exemptions for low-value or non-monetary land use agreements, particularly where there’s demonstrable environmental or community benefit. Guidance could be rewritten to distinguish between full-scale commercial leasing and small, goodwill-based arrangements like hosting a few hives or allowing informal agistment.
Some suggest that councils and state governments could introduce simple notification schemes: landholders would register that they’re hosting beehives or similar low-impact uses, and, so long as no significant income flows to them, their tax and rate status would remain unchanged. In turn, authorities would gain valuable data about where bees are and how land is used, without punishing those who help.
These tweaks wouldn’t solve every problem in Australia’s strained relationship between land, law, and livelihood. But they could send a signal that cooperation between retirees, small landholders, and primary producers is something to be encouraged, not feared.
Listening to the Hum
Back on his veranda, as the late afternoon light turns the paddock a soft gold, Alan watches the bees trace bright, impossible lines through the air. The magpies pick at the grass. A distant truck groans down the highway. Somewhere behind him, on the kitchen bench, the notice from the tax office lies face down, as if it, too, is slightly embarrassed to have turned up here.
“I’m not trying to dodge anything,” he says softly. “I just thought, if I’ve got a bit of land and he’s got some bees, why not help each other out? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?”
Whether the law will bend to make room for that simple instinct remains to be seen. But the debate his story has sparked is bigger than one letter, one beekeeper, or one retiree. It’s about how Australia counts what matters—and whether, in the rush to quantify, we forget to listen to the quiet hum at the heart of our shared landscape.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is hosting beehives on my property considered “primary production”?
In many Australian states, commercial beekeeping is treated as a form of primary production. If a beekeeper is running a business and using your land for their hives, authorities may consider that your land is being used for primary production, even if you personally earn no income. The exact implications depend on your state or territory and your property’s current classification.
Could I really face higher taxes or rates if I let someone keep bees on my land?
It’s possible, but not automatic. Reclassification can affect land tax and council rates, yet in some cases primary production status may reduce certain charges. The problem is the uncertainty and the case-by-case nature of decisions. If you are considering hosting hives, it’s wise to check with your state revenue office or a local adviser before formalising any arrangement.
Does it make a difference if I don’t receive any money from the beekeeper?
From a tax perspective, authorities often look at how the land is used rather than who receives income. Not being paid may help demonstrate that you’re not carrying on a business yourself, but it doesn’t always prevent the land from being seen as part of a commercial operation. Written agreements that clearly outline the nature and purpose of the arrangement can sometimes help clarify your position.
Why are bees and beekeepers so important in Australia?
Bees are vital pollinators for many crops and native plants. Commercial beekeepers support agriculture across the country by moving hives to follow flowering patterns. Without bees, yields of fruit, nuts, and many vegetables would drop substantially, pushing up prices and threatening food security. Access to diverse, safe sites on public and private land is critical to keeping bees healthy.
What can policymakers do to avoid situations like this?
Governments could clarify legislation and guidance so that small-scale, low-income or non-monetary land use arrangements—particularly those with environmental benefits—do not unintentionally penalise landholders. Options include clear exemptions, simple notification schemes, and more nuanced definitions of “commercial use” that distinguish between major agricultural enterprises and modest, goodwill-based collaborations like hosting a limited number of beehives.
