AWI stays neutral on sheep live export debate

Mr Laurie told about 40 woolgrowers at a meeting at Katanning last week and woolgrowers who approached him at the 50th Wagin Woolorama that he as chairman and Australia's prime wool marketing, research and development organisation were prevented from expressing a public view on live sheep exports because of clauses in a statutory funding agreement.

Section nine of the funding agreement signed in October 2020 for 10 years by AWI and the government, expressly states AWI "must not engage in agri-political activity".

It also states AWI "must not at any time, act as an industry representative organisation or reference or provide information which implies to stakeholders or trading partners that AWI is an industry representative organisation" and that it must "at all times, act in an apolitical and unbiased manner".

Mr Laurie, a past president of the National Farmers' Federation and the New South Wales Farmers' Association, said it was up to representative organisations to put the wool industry's views to government.

He cited WAFarmers, WoolProducers Australia, Stud Merino Breeders' Association, Australian Wool Growers' Association, Australian Superfine Woolgrowers Association, Broad Wools, ASheep, Merinolink, Pastoralists & Graziers' Association of WA and wool brokers and exporters as examples of representative bodies that should be advocating for woolgrowers on policy areas like live export.

"The live export ban is a policy area by the government and the woolgrower representative groups will have to deal with that and it is really important that they understand that and get in there and help and support the industry view," said Mr Laurie, who runs family wool, lamb, beef and grain enterprises across several central NSW properties.

READ MORE:

"We should be hearing from all of these groups every day on the issues facing the industry.

"I know people want us (AWI) to have a position, but we can't," Mr Laurie told Farm Weekly at the AWI stand at the Woolorama on Friday.

"When we signed the statutory funding agreement with the government it states we can't get involved in agri-politics and we must remain unbiased in all policy areas.

"We can't be in a position where we support one policy area against another policy area.

"If I want to make a comment as AWI chairman about the industry and industry politics then I won't be chairman of AWI anymore.

"I don't have a choice.

"So that's why I keep saying the industry representative groups - and I know The Livestock Collective and Steven Bolt have been doing a fair bit of work over here - have to step up."

Mr Laurie explained funds raised by the wool levy paid by woolgrowers went to the government and the funding agreement then allowed those funds, plus a government contribution, to flow through to AWI.

Last financial year the wool levy provided AWI with $43.75 million and the government contribution was $13.93m, together providing more than 88 per cent of AWI's total funding.

A clear breach of the agreement could put AWI's access to both the wool levy funds and government contribution in jeopardy, Mr Laurie said.

"We (AWI) are very confined in what we can do," he said.

"We can't operate the company defending something that we can't do.

"Judge us on what we actually can do and judge the woolgrower representative groups on the stuff that they are doing on your behalf - don't confuse the issue."

Mr Laurie said his talks with WA woolgrowers had revealed "a real level of confusion" about several changes expected to impact the sheep and wool industries.

"The combination of RFID (radio frequency identification - electronic ear tags for sheep and goats will become mandatory from January 1, 2025), ban on live exports and problems with shearing has people asking what does that actually all mean for us, what are we going to do?" he said.

"Land use is a big challenge and a very competitive market place across Australia and particularly in WA with options to go into the cropping space.

"People will look at all of their options when they are making decisions on an annual basis about what they want to do, they will look at what the ban on live export - if it actually goes ahead - will mean to them and their sheep operation, what the process of shearing will be and how they can make that more efficient.

"There's a lot of discussions going on between growers about their businesses, between growers and us (AWI).

"What we have to do as an industry is instill as much confidence as we can in the wool growing sector, show them what we are doing with our investments to make it easier for them, create markets for them so they can get a genuine return."

Shearing remained a major problem facing many woolgrowers across Australia because the shortage of shearers was not consistent across all areas for a variety of reasons, Mr Laurie said.

He said an industry move to pay over award rates in response to the shearer shortage exaggerated by COVID had "pitted farmers against farmers in regard to the urgency to do the job" and created further problems.

"What we (AWI) have to do is try and make sure we are getting enough (shearer) supply back in there through the training we do," Mr Laurie said.

"We've committed another $10.5 million for the next three years of (shearer and wool handler) training to make sure we are getting as many learners into the game as we can.

"We're providing support in shed to improve the quality of shearing and to make sure we're retaining increased numbers through that process."

He said AWI was also "investing with more urgency" around alternatives to manual shearing and pointed to the defleecing research being conducted for AWI at Adelaide University on a protein to create and manage a break in wool fibre.

"We'll continue to invest in that, it's looking very positive at the moment," Mr Laurie said.

"I think that will be another option we can provide to woolgrowers when it comes to shearing."

Mr Laurie said AWI would also continue to promote modular shearing stands with race delivery, both as a means of lessening the "labour" component and injury risk inherent in shearing, as well as minimising production costs by significantly cutting capital expenditure on maintenance and replacement of dedicated permanent shearing facilities used only "intermittently" throughout the year.