John Clarke will be missed

Press, 29 August 1980, Page 15

John Clarke will be missed

; Last week a Canterbury farmer, Mr R. H. M. (Richard) Johnston, of Oxford, was elected to the Wool Board and because a Sitting member, Mr J. B. (Bruce) Chrystall, from Hawke’s Bay, was also elected, Mr Johnston takes the place of Mr J. (John) Clarke, of Clinton in Otago, who has served on the board for a total of 15 years, including the last eight as chairman.

• There will be a great deal of genuine regret in the farming industry at Mr Clarke’s decision not to carry on. At the age of 48 years he is retiring when many others would only be contemplating producer board membership. He was certainly a very young man when he came to the board table, and has always had a youthful image, which at times may have been a disadvantage to him in Circles where normally older men may be regarded as fitting in more easily.

' But it can be said quite unequivocally that if Mr Clarke seemed youthful it was. in reality no handicap, for he acquitted himself well and it was a •striking tribute to his ability and integrity that he .earned the high regard of many who, at some stage 'did not share his views. ( It can. be said with certainty that he was one of the most eloquent and able speakers who have jield producer board leadership. His grasp andof complex 'issues was quite notable. Jt is not hard to believe (that his . negotiating' skills were considerable. HO possessed ' great diplomacy ahd’tact. Mr Clarke weathered a storm that would have overwhelmed many lesser mem

In writing about John Clark? it is unhappily necessary to go back to the ■Hays in the early 1970 s -when the Wool Marketing Establishment came down with recommendation that '3the Wool Marketing Corvporation should speedily ;%e given the powers to

proceed with the acquisition of all shorn wool. Mr Clarke was a member of a board that for a long time had lived with studies and investigations ■■ of wool marketing, and the move to acquisition and the marketing of the clip by a single authority seemed to its members only a logical development, and one in which they felt that growers would go along with them.

Unhappily that-was not the case, but it was sometime before the board became fully conscious of the extent of the opposition at grass roots. In 1972, when. in the face of farmer opposition to the move, the National Government at that time amended the Wool Marketing Corporation Bill then before Parliament to provide for a referendum, Mr Clarke reluctantly agreed to that course.

Then following the accession to power of the Labour Government later that year, in response to the question from new Minister of Agriculture, Mr Moyle, whether the board still regarded full marketing powers, including acquisition, as being necessary, Mr Clarke was quoted as saying “our final answer was unqualified and unanimous agreement that the concept of full, powers for the corporation is in the national interest and that of the woolgrower.” That unquestionably set. the cat among the pM geons. It is now history that as the Labour Party did not favour holding a referendum on the issue a grower group organised their own, which showed some two-thirds of farmers to be-opposed to acquisition; a majority of members opposed to acquisition were elected to the committee which elects members to the Wool . Board; and gradually new members were elected to the Wool Board ‘ to thwart acquisition and the issue gradually faded into the background. In the midst of all this in 1974 Mr Ciarke came up for re-election on . the

board and in a tense contest in which Sir Ronald Scott, of Christchurch, was one of the candidates, Mr Clarke retained his shat by a single vote.

It did not seem so at the time to Mr Clarke, but in reality it was a striking triumph for him. The electoral committee then included some 18 members opt of 25 who were understood to be opposed to acquisition, and on that basis Mr Clarke should have stood no chance, but enough of those members had had time to make up their minds that there was no other person better able to be at the helrn of the board than Mr Clarke and so they voted for him in spite of differing from him on . the acquisition issue.

He had, of course, given an assurance to the committee beforehand that no further move would be made to acquisition unless it welled up from grass roots level and was at first manifested through the committee.

The public are not to know what goes on behind the board room doors, but

one mild criticism of his chairmanship that has been heard has been that he has refrained from pressing his own views while allowing the rest of the board members to debate an issue. This, however, can be seen in the light of the acquisition controversy in that he wanted new board members with differing views to his own to be able to formulate board policy. It says much for Mr Clarke’s tact and ability that had he been a candidate again last week he would have “flown in.”

In more recent times he has presided over the board at an important time when the Wool Marketing Corporation has been amalgamated with the board and the board stands today as a strong and influential organisation held in high regard by growers.

Mr Clarke has made a valuable contribution to the industry and it is to be hoped that in the future his undoubted abilities will not be lost to the nation. ,