... but conflict grows over Wool Board's future role

By Philippa Stevenson

The chance to chart the course of the stricken wool industry and determine the fate of the Wool Board is drawing growers from the back blocks to the board's annual meeting tomorrow.

In his first foray into industry politics, King Country sheep and beef farmer Bill Woolston has provided a lightning rod for opposing views with a remit that calls for the board to ditch the proposed McKinsey & Co industry study.

The Mokauiti farmer said he had been driven into the industry limelight "by declining returns and the gross mismanagement problems."

"They're getting worse and worse and farmers need to rear up and correct them."

Mr Woolston, who has proposed three other remits, including one of no confidence in the board, said he did not believe that the McKinsey report would be independent of board influence, nor that it could be completed on time and to the $1.7 million budget.

"If you look at the people doing the report, they will never get through the job in the time proposed.

"I'm picking by month three they will be saying they need extra time - at $310,000 a month. That will deplete the [board's] reserves."

Mr Woolston said that after around 20 previous industry strategy reports which had not been acted upon he had no faith the latest would be implemented.

The cheapest and most promising plan ever produced was the Wool Corporation proposal by former board director Phil Verry.

It needed some fine-tuning but incorporated the essential elements of quality control and controlled marketing. It would be very easy to replace the Wool Board with a Wool Corporation, he said.

On his Te Akau farm in the Waikato, another first-time entrant into farmer politics, Graeme Black, is a trustee of the Business Development Group, which proposed the industry study.

He said Mr Woolston's remit was "totally negative and would not achieve anything".

"The wool industry needs a plan because it doesn't know where it's going."

Mr Black said $1.7 million equated to $120 a grower "and if they renege on an effort to do something positive for the industry for the sake of that amount of money each, it's sad."

Mr Black defended the independence of the Business Development Group, which was also "sick of reports, tales of woe".

"We've got this project commissioned; the next part is [that] whatever is decided we will get it implemented. That's a major plank of the group."

Like his opponent, Mr Black sees some merit in aspects of the Wool Corporation plan, and does not believe that the Wool Board has a long-term future.

However, he believes it would be unwise to dump the board immediately.

"Before you ditch what you've got, you have to put something in place, or come up with a structure, and know that you can implement it."

Both men believe they have good backing for their views.

"I'm picking it will be a close result," said Mr Woolston.