News 
 National Rural News 
 Wool 
 General 
 AWI board "poisonous, strange and nasty" 

AWI board "poisonous, strange and nasty"

03 Mar, 2010 04:23 AM
BRENDA McGahan has become the third head of Australian Wool Innovation to leave in four years.

''It's been a matter of public record that we have had a divided board,'' she said.

''The situation I have found myself in the business is untenable. On a number of occasions, I have put my hand up and said this needs to be remedied and this is the ultimate putting my hand up.''

Her main problem was governance, as some board members tried to intervene in operational decisions, the Herald understands.

Kevin Bell, a former director who left three months ago, described the board politics as poisonous and said its members included ''some very strange and nasty people who are very powerful and they seem to have time and money and ego''.

Using woolgrower levies, the organisation conducts research and markets wool, particularly overseas where consumers are increasingly joining animal activists' boycotts over the Australian practice of mulesing.

As synthetics rise and the flock falls, it is a tough job and Ms McGahan was a popular choice.

''The people on the AWI board used Brenda. They used her to con Australian woolgrowers to support them,'' said Professor Bell, a Murdoch University veterinary science academic.

There was an ''old brigade'', from wealthy sheep farming families, who thought they could continue to grow wool the same way and use marketing to raise the price, he said.

Greg Weller, the executive director of WoolProducers Australia, which represents 10,000 woolgrowers, said some directors had garnered votes by making ''outlandish populist'' claims, unrealistically promising to increase the wool price.

''We have had concerns about AWI for some time. When the new CEO is appointed after Brenda, that will be the fourth CEO in four years - which is pretty amazing. You wonder how they could achieve results. They had three separate chairmen in that time as well,'' Mr Weller said.

Because the system was flawed, directors without the skills necessary to run a company were elected in ''a popularity contest'', he said.

Some directors won votes by telling farmers they would fight for their right to continue mulesing, a practice the organisation said in 2004 it would phase out.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I am sure these people would have been very well paid to run the AWI board into the ground!
Posted by tigerdicky, 3/03/2010 5:28:29 AM
Of course bitter and angry people like Dr Bell, and Greg Weller are going to criticise the board they love to hate.
Posted by jim hawkins, 3/03/2010 6:07:57 AM
When the road is hard, a hard old dog is needed. When the boys bite, kick them (metaphor coming, duck) in the jatz crackers.
Posted by THE FARMER, 3/03/2010 6:40:57 AM
When life gives you lemons, make vodka - it beats lemonade.
Posted by THE FARMER, 3/03/2010 6:42:45 AM
Ewe prices rising, wool prices rising, lamb prices rising, AWI costs coming down. Well done, now we move on.
Posted by Maverick, 3/03/2010 7:22:30 AM
It now seems we are all expected to await the final report of the Productivity Commission's review before the minister will consider doing anything about the incompetance of AWI Ltd. That's a reasonable expectation given no one else seems to be able to resolve this debacle. However, prepare yourselves for disappointment. The final report is not due until 12 months time. Further, the review is only looking at funding policy of all Rural Development Corporations (RDCS), funding models and cost benefits of government funding arrangements of RDCs. It is not within the terms of reference to consider the overall competance or efficiency of the AWI board, executive or internal operations. The fact is that growers will continue to lack effective governance of their industry until they collectively do something about it.
Posted by Steve, 3/03/2010 8:29:33 AM
Gee Jim, you've been a great supporter of Brenda McGahan (justifiably) and the current board (not so) yet all you can do is criticise people who have expressed misgivings about corporate governance issues within AWI. Please remember, all the current board members were in place when the board appointed Brenda McGahan as CEO only 12 months ago. Yet it is now apparent that within 6 months several board members had basically made her position untenable. The chairman decreeing that he wouldn't gag any board member from saying their mind only further destabilised the situation. Sadly it is now time for the Government to step in before the whole AWI structure implodes, to the detriment of the wool industry.
Posted by Duncan Fraser, 3/03/2010 9:33:19 AM
So the chairman says the board is dysfunctional but the CEO has to leave? Will we see the AWI board confect some sort of peace treaty and continue on doing nothing or will we see some integrity? If the latter, the entire board should resign.
Posted by Sir George, 3/03/2010 10:07:07 AM
Jim, the WPA position in regards to bringing the governance at AWI into line with the rest of the community has been consistent since 2005 when we first raised this with the then Minister - and believe me, it annoyed then Chair McLachlan as much as it does Wal Merriman now. So our position is not about personalities, it is about good practice. We hear much about the current system being democratic, but ask yourself how well that model has gone since 2001? The fact is that growers originally asked for a 'commercial board' for AWI and this is what it says to this day in the statutory funding agreement - but it is not what we have. The current system is a political one, because it is 'democratic' and requires prospective directors to campaign for their jobs - and this is where the trouble starts.
Posted by Greg Weller (WPA), 3/03/2010 10:33:16 AM
Jim, your comments about Greg Weller go to the heart of the problem of how woolgrowers relate the governance of AWI and their industry R & D companies. To attack the CEO of a company shows complete ignorance of governance. Greg an excellent CEO of WoolProducers, and only carries out the policies that the board of WPA decide upon. While ever some woolgrowers cannot differentiate between: i) management and the board; ii) between management and governance; iii) between executive directors and non executive directors; iv) and what constitutes a conflict of interest for directors, our industry research and development companies are always going to to run into difficulties in the future. The performance reviews of AWI have pointed out these problems at AWI, and likewise WoolProducers have highlighted these problems over a number of years.
Posted by Don Hamblin, 3/03/2010 11:39:00 AM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Former AWI chief executive Brenda McGahan.
Former AWI chief executive Brenda McGahan.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: What do you think the outlook for your commodity will be this year?

Highly positive
(6.1%)

Positive
(24%)

Neutral
(34.5%)

Negative
(23.3%)

Highly negative
(12.1%)

Total Votes: 429
Poll Date: 28 February, 2010
SPECIAL FEATURES

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC

Irwin Hunter 160x160
 
Banjawarn Station


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...