The AWI slogan for WoolPoll 2024.

AUSTRALIA’S wool industry levy-setting mechanism, WoolPoll, is under review, but there is concern many growers might not be aware or have not had an opportunity to give feedback.

​​The regulations that enabled the wool levy poll were repealed on 1 January 2025 with the commencement of the modernised agricultural levies and charges legislative framework.

​The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is seeking to reestablish the wool levy poll framework.

​To collect industry feedback, the department initially circulated a discussion paper and then a modelling paper with Australian Wool Innovation’s Wool Industry Consultative Panel and Wool Consultative Group members, urging them to share it among their members, but with a feedback deadline of COB Friday 27 February 2026.

The wool poll levy instrument is anticipated to be in place before the next WoolPoll, which is currently due in 2027.

Sheep Central has been told the department welcomes feedback from WICP and WCG members and individual growers about future policy settings for WoolPoll. However, Sheep Central has spoken with growers who are not members of WICP/WCG nor state farmer bodies but are wool levy payers, yet were not aware of the review and had not seen the discussion papers.

When asked if grower submissions would be accepted and considered after the 27 February deadline, DAFF told Sheep Central that growers can share their views via email at [email protected]

However, Sheep Central has been unable to get a written commitment that DAFF will consider any grower submissions after 27 February nor has DAFF given a date after which grower submissions will not be received.

“The process has been undertaken to reinstate the framework to conduct Woolpoll and the department will continue to accept submissions,” Sheep Central was told this week.

Click on these links to read the WoolPoll review discussion paper, the DAFF modelling paper, WPA’s WoolPoll review submission and the WICP Communique.

Growers need more time

WoolProducers Australia chief executive officer Jo Hall said she is sure the majority of wool growers aren’t aware of the consultation process on the WoolPoll levy policy settings review.

“But in terms of WoolProducers consultation on this matter, our state farm organisation (SFOs) members were given opportunities to provide input into our submission, which would be based on their grassroot grower membership views.

“SFOs were also strongly encouraged to provide their own submission into the process,” she said.

Ms Hall said there needs to be clarity on feedback deadline for individual growers.

“We have worked on the 27 February deadline as directed.

“The department would be working towards a broader deadline to have this issue resolved and finalise the regulatory instrument to be able to conduct the next WoolPoll.”

New South Wales wool grower Martin Oppenheimer said he was sure that many growers did not have a clue that the WoolPoll review process was going on.

Mr Oppenheimer said although it seems logical that AWI run WoolPoll, the body always tried to influence the result to ensure its survival.

“They want more money.

“It raises some real issues that if they are going to change the rules, what are we going to end up with, because it seems that AWI has got it their fingerprints all over this (review),” he said.

“Who knows if that’s the case, but I just think growers are totally in the dark.”

Mr Oppenheimer believes there needs to be a feedback extension for growers.

“And if they went to the WICP on the 11^th of February that’s not much time either.

“It’s interesting if this process has been going on since early last year, I don’t think growers knew that,” he said.

“So many fronts there are some real problems here.

“If they’ve sunsetted the original regulations governing it, I’m not sure how they are (legally) collecting wool tax at the moment, how does that work?”

Mr Oppenheimer said there had always been the complication of AWI running the WoolPoll.

“They have always manipulated the WoolPoll panel because they basically choose the panel (members).

“They’ve manipulated the information that goes out with the voting papers, because they are always looking for more money,” he said.

“Even though in the last few years the industry and wool grower numbers have been going backwards they’ve been wanting more money every time.”

Mr Oppenheimer said industry forces behind WoolPoll have been working toward maintaining AWI rather than always acting in growers’ interests. He said while AWI represented its shareholders, it also received income (levies) from all levy-paying wool growers, but did not have to represent non-shareholders. Mr Oppenheimer said the disparity between the number of AWI shareholders and the number of growers paying wool tax nationally has been growing.

WICP communique outlines key questions

On February 20, Australian Wool Innovation published a communique from the WICP meeting on 11 February that outlined the WoolPoll review and the department’s distribution of a discussion paper.

The communique listed key areas for discussion and feedback as:

1) The current minimum threshold is $100 of levies, paid over 3 years. This figure was set in 2003. Should this be adjusted to reflect CPI, or should there be a minimum at all? (which may be even more cost effective)

2) The 2024 WoolPoll cost $400,000, what changes can be made for it to be more cost-effective?

3) Should the current 3-year poll cycle be continued, or should a different poll cycle be adopted?

4) Is the preferential voting system the best or are there any other voting systems which should be considered?

5) Should the WoolPoll panel continue to be used?

6) What rates should be shown on the ballot paper, if any at all? The department is seeking feedback by the 27th February 2026.

WoolProducers is seeking WoolPoll changes

Peak grower body WoolProducers Australia has made a submission to the review, repeating many suggestions made to the last review in 2020 that haven’t been implemented.

WPA’s recommendations have included extending the frequency of WoolPoll to five years and aligning it with Meat & Livestock Australia’s five-year strategic cycle; a mechanism to trigger a poll outside the prescribed timeframe; making WoolPoll independent of AWI; increased WoolPoll powers, including to set levy rate options and an industry-appointed WoolPoll chair.

In its submission to the latest WoolPoll review, WPA has said it would only support a five-year WoolPoll cycle if it can be aligned with MLA’s strategic cycle. WPA has supported retention of the preferential voting system. The peak body also supports the removal of the AWI director position on the WoolPoll panel and wants the skill requirements of panel nominees to be addressed.

“Making the WoolPoll panel completely independent of AWI will remove any real or perceived claims of interference from the AWI board, which is of benefit for all stakeholders, particularly AWI,” WPA said.

Only 18.5 percent of 39,762 eligible wool growers voted in WoolPoll 2024 and there are estimated to be fewer than 50,000 growers in Australia.

DAFF has modelled lifting the $100 levy threshold for WoolPoll eligibility to save costs. However, Ms Hall said if the threshold for eligibility to vote in WoolPoll was increased to $200 over three years, 49 percent of currently eligible voters would be ineligible, because of the number of voters that have small entitlements.

But despite the relatively insignificant saving in cost of about $50,000, Ms Hall said given that smaller voting entitlement cohort were less likely to exercise their vote and coupled with the inflationary increases since 2003, WoolProducers supported an increase in the threshold.

WPA has also proposed reviewing the method of voting entitlement to make levy payers value their vote more and leading to a more democratic process.

WPA supports the capping of the number of WoolPoll levy rate options at four, retaining a nil rate option and with no provision for AWI to recommend an additional rate. WPA is also seeking the removal of the requirement for AWI to make a recommendation on its levy rate preference, and ministerial or government oversight to ensure the WoolPoll ballot process is run according to regulations.