Why wool groups are angry with another attempt to sell WoolQ

Millions of dollars have been invested in a wool selling system the industry did not want. Now uses are still trying to be found for it.

A wool industry group created to improve traceability of the fibre has hit out at claims that WoolQ is critical to its success.

WoolQ was launched in 2018 as a means of improving returns by offering an alternative to the auction system.

But its uptake was low and it was reinvented as a traceability program – albeit at the cost of millions of dollars of wool levy payer funds.

But members of the Australian Wool Traceability Hub have taken umbrage to claims WoolQ is an important part of what they do.

WoolQ has failed to deliver on a number of fronts, with few growers using it and has been largely regarded as a failure. One industry source told The Weekly Times that WoolQ, originally designed to offer wool online and developed as a panacea to low wool prices, was “a dead duck”.

Industry is still trying to find a use for the costly WoolQ.

A spokesman for Australian Wool Innovation said the organisation was “now focused on supporting the Australian Wool Traceability Hub concept which will see the end of investment in WoolQ”.

The spokesman said $323,000 had been spent on the WoolQ platform in the past year.

National Council of Wool Selling Brokers Australia president Rowan Woods said the traceability hub involved key industry players including Australian Wool Exchange, Australian Wool Testing Authority and AWI.

But its success was not dependent on using the costly WoolQ framework.

“The Australian Wool Traceability Hub is not WoolQ,” Mr Woods said.

“WoolQ has been an abject failure, through a lack of consultation with wider industry and an attitude of “we’ll build it, they’ll come”.

“The wool industry did not embrace WoolQ, and it is clear they won’t.”

Mr Woods said the industry “could have chosen to leave AWI to explain to shareholders where the reported $7.5 million of wool levy funds had gone and is still going”.

“The hub members elected to see what could be done to utilise funds already spent,” he said.

Mr Woods said he was frustrated that AWI was claiming that what the hub was trying to achieve was “basically WoolQ”.

In his report as chairman of Australian Wool Innovation to the Australian Superfine Growers Association, AWI chairman Jock Laurie said the failure of WoolQ was because “brokers would not supply data to it”.

“The reported data industry hub is basically WoolQ – it would be better to work with the industry service providers to drive data through it,” Mr Laurie wrote.

Mr Woods said the traceability hub was delivering leadership and change, and should not be hijacked by trying to “prop up a failed concept”.

“Through the good will of brokers and exporters, this traceability hub initiative will provide real value to producers and downstream processors,” Mr Woods said.

“It would be unfortunate if some poorly chosen patch protection and lack of leadership were to derail this process.”