Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Mr PASIN (Barker) (17:28): I speak to the Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 at a time where the Australian wine industry is facing its greatest challenge of all time. I do not seek to catastrophise the situation, but if you're at home listening to this broadcast type the words 'vineyard removal' into your search engine. You will see video after video after video of front-end loaders and backhoe adapted bobcats removing vineyards across this country.

No region, not even exalted areas like the Barossa in my electorate, is safe from this scourge of vine removal. In terms of Barker, let me just set a few things straight. As the member for Barker, I often think that I have responsibilities for wine in this place, or at least that I'm the member for wine!

And that is because Barker produces more wine by volume or value than any other division in this place. Producers from my electorate of Barker span the breadth of the industry, from high-volume commercial offerings in inland wine regions like the Riverland to the ultra-premium brands in places like the Barossa, the Coonawarra and other regions, whether Padthaway, Wrattonbully or Cape Jaffa.

I'm loath to mention them all because, of course, I'll have producers from the regions I don't mention saying, 'Well, what about us?' I give a particular shout-out to the cool-climate producers in and around Mount Gambier that are sometimes forgotten about. The reality is that this industry is in crisis. The industry hasn't been profitable for a number of years, and it's fair to say no region across Australia is currently profitable.

It's easy—as those opposite have from time to time done, when it suited their narrative—to blame the breakdown in the relationship with China and perhaps reference a former prime minister and his actions around COVID. But the truth is: global demand for table wine has been in decline for a very long time. In fact, if you map it, you can see that about a billion litres—that's a billion, with a B—less table wine is consumed year on year.

If we think about why that is, we can start with a few factors. Firstly, I think everyone in this place and perhaps outside of it realises that the globe is going through a cost-of-living crisis. So that's a factor.

The second factor is: table wine competes with other alternatives. Other alcohol substitutes seem to be more on trend, and we see it with our own friendship networks, don't we? Once upon a time, you'd buy a bottle of wine and four or five glasses.

Now, someone wants a daiquiri. Someone else wants an espresso martini. Someone wants a cider, someone wants a ginger beer, and someone will have a glass of wine as well.

That's what's happening, right? The last thing is something we probably should celebrate. My generation, rightly or wrongly, was often measured by how much we could drink, particularly here in Australia—and I put my hand up.

As a young uni student, I participated in all the bad behaviours. You might believe that; it's not hard to believe! But this generation, I like to think, measures itself on how much you can lift.

There's a real push for wellbeing, spending time at the gym, being healthy and these things, and that's not necessarily consistent with serious consumption of Australia's premium wine—and wine otherwise. We're seeing this global trend. It's not an Australian trend; it's a global trend.

I mentioned, at the beginning of this contribution, vineyard removal. That's not an Australia-specific phenomenon. They're removing vineyards in the Napa Valley.

They're removing vineyards in Bordeaux. But there is a difference, and that difference emanates from this place and other decision-making theatres like this at a state level. In those jurisdictions I just spoke of, growers are being actively supported to transition.

I've been calling on this for a very long time. It is cruel to sit down around a kitchen tables at farms, with husband-and-wife producers in their 80s—some of whom don't have great command of the English language, and some of whom share my cultural background, so we can speak Italian together—to explain to them that this isn't a small blip in the price of Aussie wine or the global price of wine; this is a permanent change and one that has been a step-change.

And, yes, their vineyard isn't worth anything. In fact, it's the value of the land itself, as bare land, minus the cost of removing the infrastructure that's on it, which isn't insignificant. What upsets me about this is that I rang the bell on this about four years ago.

I called on those opposite to do something serious about supporting the transition. Why do I say 'transition'? I say it because not everyone is a grower.

Not everyone can grow things. Now, that might sound like a silly statement to make, but it's true, so we can't afford to lose these growers. We need to help them transition to other horticultural commodities.

But it's expensive. It's much more expensive than the kind of farming my parents do, where you put in a crop one year and put in another crop the next year, or where you graze cattle or sheep. You not only have to remove the infrastructure; you also then have to plant new permanent plantings.

There might be an almond tree, an olive tree, citrus and other things. Then, before you know it, you've got to wait two to three years for any sort of income. So you not only have the sunk cost of removing what's there; you also then have to spend the capital to put the new plantings there.

Then you've got to wait and wait for an exceptionally long time. That's why these growers have needed support. It's something that I've been calling for for a very long time, and I wasn't going to miss the opportunity with this bill to restate the call—which, I've got to say, is supported by Australian Grape & Wine—to achieve that outcome of a transition.

Do you know why else it's important? These communities rely on this horticultural effort. If you remove that vineyard, then the job goes.

When the job goes, the employee goes. When the employee goes, you've not only lost the economic activity that comes with that; you've also lost a student at a school or a volunteer at the CFS. Communities, particularly regional communities, break down.

And there's a further factor in many communities I represent. They rely on collective infrastructure to move water around—irrigation trusts. These irrigation trusts effectively extract water from the River Murray and pump it to properties all along the river.

It's the reason why, when you fly over the Riverland, for example—and I'm using the Riverland as an example because it's the epicentre where the most harm is felt. It has the industry, the commercial sector, which is suffering the most pain, and it's where assets are most tied to this issue of horticulture. In the south-east, I've seen vineyards removed, fences placed around properties and livestock grazing there quite quickly.

But I will get back to collective assets and the irrigation trusts. Say that I'm running a vineyard block, my colleague the member for Groom is running a vineyard block, the next person is and the next person is. If I stay in the industry and the irrigation trust needs to pass over the member for Groom's property, the following member's property and the following member's property to get to the last property that's still growing, the costs of running that trust are no longer divided amongst five or six—they're divided amongst two.

And, of course, we end up with these fallow blocks, which are another real challenge. The ask of government is a pretty simple one: support growers in the Riverland and the industry more generally to transition. This bill is not what's currently needed, but it is something we support.

So I'm quite happy to see it pass the House, but it is a really small part of what needs to occur right now. I've spoken about the need for growers to transition, but we've also got to sell more Australian wine. I call on those opposite to have another think about Export Market Development Grants that have tapped out.

Support producers who want to stay in this sector to go overseas and export their wine. It's a combination of things right now. We need to reduce the amount that we produce.

That's happening naturally, sadly, without the support of government, which I worry about because some of the best producers who are making the most hard nosed economic decisions are the very people we don't want to lose from this industry, whilst others who haven't got perhaps the same level of business acumen are staying in the industry, like smaller holdings et cetera.

But, at the same time, there's nothing being done to support increased exports at scale, or at least nothing I'm seeing. This sector feels like it's been forgotten. I speak to their representatives, Australian Grape and Wine.

I speak to local producers all the way along the value chain. They've got a sense that those opposite think that, if they just ignore this issue for long enough, it'll go away, and it might. People will make decisions.

They'll remove vineyards and recalibrate supply and demand and these things. But that will cause immeasurable hurt for particular groups, individuals and family businesses. It will really harm communities because it's not done with any rhyme or reason.

What those opposite ought to have done as a very bare minimum—and let's be clear. I don't Support water buybacks for the same reasons why I don't like the idea of communities shrinking because we're having to remove vineyards. I want growers to transition from viticulture to some other horticultural endeavour, retain that economic activity in the community and keep regional communities and river communities otherwise resilient.

But what those opposite have is a policy to remove water from the river buybacks. Now, given that that was their policy, do you think they could have solved for this problem at the same time? They could have calibrated a program of buybacks that said: 'You know what?

We're going to come into particular grape growing communities where we'd like to acquire water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and we're going to target older growers and individuals that are principally invested in red wine production, because that's the category most oversupplied.' With the funding they had available to acquire that water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, they could have achieved their goal, their target, which, I'll be clear, is one I don't support.

But they could have achieved their goal and at the same time supported this industry to recalibrate, to reduce supply and to bring supply closer to what is likely to be long-term demand for Australian red and white wines. But instead that didn't happen. I'm not sure why it didn't happen.

I hope it wasn't the politics of punishment. Sometimes I worry in this place that that's where we're at. But that didn't happen.

And right now we've got a wine industry that's screaming for support. I attend more forums about mental health in the wine industry than I do wine tastings right now. That's how worried we are about this sector.

Those opposite need to start taking it seriously.