Wool-levy vote data spurs review bid

Meat and Wool New Zealand is seeking a review of the Commodities Levy Act after research showed votes from those who were not full-time farmers could have been responsible for scuttling the wool-levy referendum.

Farmers have two votes, but board chairman Mike Petersen said he would like production-based votes - where the number of votes reflected the number of animals run - to have greater significance than the second vote - the farmer vote - which allots each farmer a vote.

Mr Petersen said in an interview the board estimated about 14% of voters in the referendum did not rely on farming as their primary source of income, but their farmer vote had the same influence as those who did.

Any person who owned sheep as at June 30, 2009, could vote, but a majority was needed in both votes for the referendum to succeed.

Agriculture Minister David Carter said in an interview, while he was happy to look at it, it would be premature to respond immediately to the failed wool vote.

He said the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had just completed a review of the Act which concluded, while onerous on its promoter, the system was fair.

However, he had received comment that giving the farmer and production votes equal weighting was something that needed addressing.

Voter turnout for last month's meat and wool-levy referendum was just 39%.

The results of the two wool votes were almost diametrically opposed.

Opposition to the levy in the farmer vote came in at 54.24%, while those in favour was at 45.76%.

In the production vote, however, support for the levy was at 55.13%, while those opposing registered 44.87% of the vote.

Mr Petersen said it appeared those not reliant on farming for their primary income, estimated at 14% of those who voted, could have skewed the farmer vote.

The voting structure needed to be changed, he said, because the sheep and beef industry had changed since the Commodity Levies Act was passed, with fewer full-time farmers and those who remained being larger.

"I think it is timely for the Act to be reviewed, not to change the outcome of the vote we have just had, but just to make sure we have the right mechanism for the future," he said.

In a commercial company, those who held the majority of shares had the greatest say, and that should be the case with the levy referendum, Mr Petersen said.

Farmers had told him since the referendum they were unaware of the repercussions of a no vote, and had voted based on the Wool Board's previous activities.

In other developments, Mr Carter has called a meeting of key people in the wool industry, set for October 1, to discuss the state of the industry, which he said had been left in a vulnerable state since the dumping of the wool levy.

"This is an opportunity for all of us to get together and see what our differences are and see if there is not a way forward," he said.

In further fallout, Mr Petersen said the board was looking at cuts to its sheep and beef research programmes because income from the wool levy had dried up.

At risk was research into forage, grasses, internal parasites and beef programmes which relied on wool levy funding for forage research.

Mr Petersen warned the fallout could be greater as the Government could conclude if farmers were not prepared to fund their industry, then taxpayers should not contribute.