Wool Board elections

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33626, 30 August 1974, Page 6

Wool Board elections

After the election of two grower members to the Wool Board last week it was suggested that the balance of power on the board would now rest with the two Government-nominated members. This was based on the supposition that the six grower members would be equally divided between those favouring and those opposed to compulsory acquisition of the clip by the Wool Marketing Corporation and that there might be a confrontation between them. This, however, is a superficial conclusion and one that could be quite wrong.

Interest in the election this year was heightened by the fact that Mr J. Clarke, of Clinton, South Otago, who has been a member of the board for the last nine years and chairman for two years, was up for re-election and that his return was by no means a foregone conclusion. Mr Clarke was a member of the board, of course, when it endorsed the Wool Marketing Corporation Establishment Company’s plan for the establishment of a corporation to move quickly into the acquisition of all shorn wools, and subsequently as chairman he reluctantly agreed to the holding of a referendum to determine the acquisition issue when the former Government decided to amend the Wool Marketing Corporation Bill, then before Parliament in 1972, in the face of an obvious sharp division of opinion among growers on the issue. When the Labour Government came to power the new Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Moyle, immediately asked the board whether it still regarded full marketing powers, including acquisition, as being necessary, and on December 21 that vear the Press Association reported Mr Clarke as saying “our final answer was an unqualified and unanimous agreement that the concept of full powers for the corporation is in the national interest and that of the woolgrower.” Because the Minister then indicated that in line with his party’s policy it was his intention to amend the legislation so that the corporation could seek acquisition powers without, a referendum, growers op-

posed to acquisition organised their own referendum, which showed two thirds of those voting to be on their side, and they subsequently secured a majority of seats on the Wool Board’s electoral committee, which elects grower representatives to the board. Even then Mr Clarke was reluctant to go along with the new regime.

Mr Clarke’s re-election last week, by even a margin of one vote, for the second of the two seats up for filling was in the circumstances something of a triumph for him and an indication that he has changed his position considerably.

That there is unlikely to be any clash on the board on the acquisition issue at borne out by Mr Clarke’s own words of only last week.

"The only way that acquisition can be considered again.” he said, “is for it to well up from the grass roots — that is if farmers desire it. This would in the first place be manifested through the electoral committee system and would have to be ratified by a properly constituted referendum.

“In my opinion no board of the future would spend time and effort working on some such plan unless it has been clearly shown that it is the wish of the farmers.”

The chairman of the electoral committee. Mr T. P. Lowe, of Windermere, Mid-Canterbury, said this week he personally did not think that a situation would develop where the Government representatives would hold the balance on this issue — that was if Mr

Clarke was true to the statements he had made to the committee. Mr Lowe recalled that earlier in the year, when it became clear that the committee would again include a majority of members opposed to acquisition, he had said then that Mr Clarke’s re-election would depend on his attitude to the “free competitive marketing” of wool. Mr Clarke’s attitude now was such that he had won enough support of members of the committee, who had been elected in opposition to acquisition to be returned to the board. Consequently he would be very surprised if the chairman saw fit to oppose the three anti-acquisition members now on the board.

If board members wished to retain their seats, he j said, it was essential that: they took notice of, the I composition and views of the committee, which had been elected by growers.

Mr Lowe said that during the past year the board had not pursued the acquisition aspect of marketing and Mr Clarke had said very clearly that they would not seek it so long as the majority of the members of the committee were opposed to it.

Mr Clarke had given the committee his personal assurance of that, and that any improvements in the marketing of wool would be looked at without acquisition.

The suggestion that the Government members now hold the balance of power on the board, of course, also overlooks the fact the election really did not change the position that already existed — that is if it is assumed that in a vote the Government members would vote in favour of acquisition, as the board also previously included among its grower members four who might have been expected to be sympathetic to acquisition. It also overlooks the fact that farmer leaders now, in particularly the meat and wool industries, recognise the vital need to have positive grower backing before ' embarking on any causes, and their proof of grower ’ support must amount to. more than a hunch. The other factor that; helped Mr Clarke to get! back on to the board was bis experience in the i industry.