The various parties attending Thursday's meeting were reluctant to say what might be decided, but there appears to be some soul searching as the implications of the rejection by farmers of a wool levy become apparent.
A tussle has also developed between those who want management of the sector to return to a centralised body as in the past and those wanting commercial entities to take over.
Mr Carter declined to discuss what he hoped would come out of the meeting, but confirmed about 25 people who had participated in the wider wool debate in recent months had been invited to Wellington.
"I am prepared to host a meeting behind closed doors to find a commonality of purpose, but I don't have any idea how the meeting may go," he said.
He declined to say who would be attending but, based on his criteria, those invited would include representatives from Wool Equities, Meat and Wool New Zealand, Wool Partners International, Elders Primary Wool, those against a levy, Federated Farmers and the Council of Wool Exporters.
There is talk of having farmers vote on a new levy proposal to fund activities considered essential for the wool industry, with sources saying the implications of the no vote had become apparent.
Some have described as incredible an $800 million export industry not having a body representing it or ensuring the running of activities such as shearer and wool-hand-ling training and market access.
Private companies say they could perform both of those roles, but sources say promoting market access required the credibility of a recognised body linked to government.
Council of Wool Exporters executive manager Nick Nicholson declined to say what ideas he was taking to the meeting other than his long-held belief wool-producing countries had to band together and promote initiatives which created demand.
"The only way the wool industry is going to recover is by being market-led," he said.
That required unity, and he hoped the focus of the industry would move away from selling raw wool to looking at all market opportunities.
"For the industry to survive, it has to be market-led, and until we get the industry round the table and co-operating not just internally but internationally, it's not going to."
He also reiterated his view farmers' rejection of a levy on wool was positive as it would allow the wider wool industry to look after the future of all sectors, not just growers.
"We have been dictated to by levy payers for 50 years and the reason wool is where it is is due to the past and the past has been influenced by a statutory organisation which has the right to a statutory levy."
Wool Partners International chief executive Iain Abercrombie said his goal was to create a path to ensure activities previously undertaken by Meat and Wool New Zealand were maintained.
That included the training of shearers, wool-handlers and classers, along with research and development to ensure the genetic knowledge which made New Zealand wool superior was not lost.
Market access was an issue he believed commercial companies could manage, and he hoped there would not be a push to create a new entity similar to the Wool Board as farmers had sent a message it was something they did not want.
He believed farmers had unfairly singled out Meat and Wool New Zealand as being responsible for low wool prices, saying the whole industry was struggling from spinners to manufacturers and retailers.
"I think we are over the worst of it and the future is looking a bit brighter and that will filter through the market. But it will take time."
Mr Abercrombie said it was time animosity between the various parties was put to one side, and he hoped Wool Partners International would not be seen as a threat but a company that was contributing to the industry.