Australian Wool Innovation: Review
If Agriculture Minister , David Littleproud believes another review is needed into Australian Wool Innovation for reasons of governance, who votes and who holds proxy’s and Wal Merriman looking through a two way mirror, so be it. But it will be another waste of time and money:
. The Wool Taskforce Diversity and Innovation Report of July 1999, lists 55 Major reports, starting with the Philp Report in 1962 through to 1999, and it states it is far from a complete list. ( see page A6.1). With many more reports since.
All of them accomplished next to nothing. The usual panel for all these reports is two C.E.O,s from anywhere. Someone from a university, an accountant or banker and one or two quasi politicians/ farmers. All of whom would know that wool comes from a sheep, but not the argot of the wool industry.
They will talk about educating consumers and processors. Consumers don’t need educating,they need money. Processors are already educated, they admit wool is a wonderful fibre, that is why European Processors have their Mega Yachts floating around the Mediterranean Sea.
The only reason for a review should be obtaining higher prices. Which would be brought about by better preparation, classing, testing and lotting, with the emphasis on the price relationship of Wool, Cashmere, Mohair, Angora and Alpaca, where a lot of super fine and fine wool finishes up.
Also a competitor for Australian Wool Testing Authority, which was discussed in the Diversity and Innovation Report ( page 78 ). So that wool growers could sell with whichever certificate they preferred.
Test results from two different testing companies would be very interesting. As historically any wool tested twice by Australian Wool Testing Authority, with different brands unbeknown to A W T A. has never duplicated its results. With the brand and lot number known to A W T A, It’s just confirmed if it’s reasonably similar to the original.