Fourteen months for this review by the panel, a lot of work, at what expense ?  Which has just started, and has a long way to go before it is operating.

   Disapointing the large number of "expressions of doubt", i.e. could, should, expects, may, believes, anticipate, envisage.

   Could, was used seven times in one paragraph on page 5 . No confidence there.

   The selling system is described as resistant to change, why?  You cannot reinvent the wheel! Because the auction system is a great system, which is admitted on page 6, when described as a " gold plated " or " Rolls Royce system ".

   On the same page. Some types of wool " could " be sold without appraisal or price penalty.  

   Absolute rubbish, never at a decent price. Then dragging in the disposal of the wool stockpile as a comparison, when no one knows what it was sold for is misleading.

   There is a good recommendation on post sale charges on page 36. 

    In about 90 % of reviews of this type wool classing / preparation is ignored, in the rest the classer cops a bashing, the latter in this review.

    On page 48 it is stated in a chart.- Wool preparation. -1 classer and 1 shed hand costs 23.32c  per  kg  -  Extent to which cost can be reduced through selling alternatives " High". - The only one in 9 activities in the selling chain that is " High". - Under the comments column,- unskirted or minimal skirt orders present significant in shed savings.

    Hello.  Chart on page 45 indicates unskirted wool at 765c greasy against 800c for properly skirted. That is far bigger loss overall than the 23.32c. Even though it is not comparing apples with apples.

    It would be more, unskirted wool does not appeal to most buyers so less competition. More competition is the means of getting top prices. If the W E P helps in that regard, terrific. But the complexities will be enormous, ie. If wool is sold through the W E P what commission does the broker get where the wool is stored ? Buyers will use it looking for " cheap " wool.

   Too much effort has been put into saving costs and not enough into getting higher prices which have far more room to move than costs.

   Wool is the only commodity that I know of that has gone backwards in preparation standards, almost solely in skirting practices.

     We don't know how much the  W E P will cost, probable $ millions . It will make money for the promoters , that is positive, if they use growers money. But will they use their own? if they don't it means it is guaranteed to fail. 

   And they got away with it, with lies and the use of the Federal Court of Australia. Learn how this was accomplished, a major expose as told in " THE WOOL STING".  Comprehensibly explained as an ebook, now available.  Link  Top Left of this Page.

    I believe it is morally wrong to encourage gullible 12 to 17 year olds into any industry with misleading information. In this lnstance, with the  S.A Sheep Expo, to be held  April 27-29 2016.

    I hope the instructors make the students aware that the Australian sheep population has dropped over 100,000,000 in the last 25 years. If there was a good future for anyone, the sons and daughters of current farmers wouldn't be heading off farm, and there would be no need for this Expo. 

    They know their parents begrudge paying any wages at all.( even if they can afford it). Many farmers proudly state that they pay, " full award wages", without  realising that " full award wages" are the minimum you can pay, not the maximum.

    All the prospective occupations mentioned in the Expo preamble are not very secure, with lots of unpaid down time, which is not good for anyone. The first one mentioned  - wool preparation -   is typical. With 19,200 Wool Classers registered with the Australian Wool Exchange they can only average four days work each ! per year !. Even Master Classers only average thirteen weeks work per year, on AWEX,s own figures.

    Students should watch the 1975 film " Sunday Too Far Away", a film set in the Wool industry, where the actor playing Mr Dawson, the property owner, gives a good  portrayal of the contempt for employees in this industry.

   If The Federal Court of Australia can be fooled as told in " The Wool Sting", by a large rural company, what hope have 12 to 17 year olds got.

  PETAs latest video on alleged cruelty to sheep in the Wool Industry, is a fraud just like the one from July 2014 which was allegeredly  filmed in 19 shearing sheds which they couldn't name, as they did not exist. As it was all filmed on film sets.

  This latest video although filmed outdoors, is noteable for the obviously " canned laughter ".    

 With any sheep worth at least $ 100.00 each, the whole idea that this video is true, is ridiculous.

    With the 1st anniversary on the 10th Dec 2015 of the release of the issues paper for the Wool Selling Systems Review, it might be a good time to look at what a complete waste of time, and Australan Wool Inovation money, it has been. As not one sensible word has come out of it.

    The original reason for the review, " to save costs from shearing shed to ship ", was never going to save more than a few cents per bale, if that.

    That should have been understood by all in five minutes. Then this gravy train should have been stopped. But it wasn't, there was the shift to the Wool Exchange Portal, another convoluted waste of time, pushed by people who don't know much about wool.

    The. W.S.S.R.received only  68  submissions, compared with 633 by The Wool Taskforce in 1999. Which must mean something ? Of which the most memorable to me from 1999 was from, R. Billings of  Broken Hill. N.S.W..woolgrower, under main points," No justification for wool classing, but wool preparation needs to be improved ". Anyone who doesn't laugh at that must be dead.  

    The Wool Taskforce said on page A 6.1 of it's  report. "  The following list is far from complete, but it contains the major reports starting with the Phillip Report in 1962. It contains 55 reports ". Then lists them over three pages till February 1999. Nearly all accomplished nothing.

     There is nothing basically wrong with the current selling system, just how it operates.

     Wool is the only product where preparation standards have been allowed to fall, while all other products, agriculural and non agricultural that I know of, have been improving their quality control for many years.

     Historically 1% to 3% of all wool presented for auction was poorly prepared. When the Department of Primary Industry had an inspector on the show floors in Victoria, he did nothing. Then when the Code of Practice booklet for the Preparation of Australian Wool Clips came out in July 1986 and 1989, with an example of a classers specification showing 54 bales of fleece, 5 bales of pieces, 4 bales of bellies and 2 bales of locks ! What genius drew that up, I don't know.

     This was an invitation to get a bit rougher. Then came the push for not skirting at all, an absolutely stupid idea. But two major Wool Brokers pushed it through. So now possibly 20% of wool is not properly prepared.

     SOME ANSWERS.

   1. Read the Wool Buyers submissions to both the W.S.S.R. Issues Paper, and the Discussion Paper, they are the ONLY ones that are worth reading, and really matter.

    2. To obtain the highest possible price, the highest possible standards must be applied to wool preparation 

    3. To restrict a large number of buyers from inspecting your wool is stupid,

    4. Sale by description, or without sample and on farm testing are all ridiculous ideas. No Wool Buyer will pay top money for wool presented in any of these ways.

    5. We need to return to the method of displaying pieces and bellies after the fleece lines of the clip, if available. This really shows how a clip has been classed.

    6. I hope I never again see or hear the phrase " Self Regulation ", if that worked we wouldn't need a Police Force.