Standstill on wool merger

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33934, 29 August 1975, Page 7

Standstill on wool merger

In spite of its obvious advantages it does not seem that the amalgamation of the Wool Marketing Corporation and the Wool Board will go ahead in the meantime.

The electoral committee of the Wool Board decided last week that a document on the subject should lie on the table till the next meeting.

The document set out the board's views following a detailed examination of the question by a subcommittee. The paper said that the corporation’s function was that of raw wool marketing while the board’s was that of production. promotion and research. These functions could not be divorced in day-to-day operations, it said, and to be implemented efficiently should be integrated at policy, management and staff levels.. A merger of the two bodies would also ensure that the wool growing industry had one identity and one voice in dealings with growers, the Government, partner boards, the International Wool Secretariat and the trade. The new organisation would be known as the New Zealand Wool Board and would be directed by six directors elected by the Meat and Wool Boards’ electoral committee to represent woolgrowers, two directors appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for their special Qualifications, the DirectorGeneral of Agriculture or his nominee, and the directors of the board might appoint a further director for his special qualifications. The chairman of the existing board. Mr J.

Clarke, said that the result of amalgamation would be to bring the whole organisation closer to the industry. but after a board member. Mr -P. T. Barry, had said that he wanted part three of the present Wool Marketing Corporation Act removed from the legislation setting up the new organisation. Mr Clarke said that if there was a division of opinion of any significance on the proposed move it should be left entirely alone. Part 111 of the existing act is the section relating to compulsory acquisition of the clip, powers of which have been restored to the corporation by the present Government without recourse to a referendum of growers.

Mr Barry was very critical of the way in which these powers had been reinstated.

The meeting was. however, told that it was board policy for a referendum of growers to be held before a decision was taken on this step.

Mr J. D. Mcllraith, a board member, said he remained opposed to acquisition. but he believed that it was no use putting any amalgamation proposal before the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Moyle, without that section.

However, the benefits of the amalgamation would not be worthwhile if it split the industry, he said. Another member of the board. Mr J. B. Chrystall, also said he did not believe that the Minister would be prepared to see part HI removed, but he added that the new organisation under the proposed directorate would be more under grower control than the existing organisation.