Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading

Roberts supported the bill, describing it as a practical response to pressures in the wine sector that provides a clearer framework for growers and winemakers. Roberts emphasised that the move to a mandatory code addresses the failure of the voluntary approach to protect growers from unfair contracting practices. Roberts highlighted the importance of improved data collection by Wine Australia and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences for evidence-based policy. Roberts argued that transparency in pricing and contracting is essential for long-term investment and stability in the industry.

Penfold supported the bill, acknowledging the genuine imbalance in bargaining power between growers and large winemakers. Penfold noted that the legislation lays the groundwork for the mandatory code but does not solve the broader structural crisis facing the industry, including a massive wine surplus and falling prices. Penfold criticised the government for rejecting a costed support package from Australian Grape and Wine and for pausing the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. Penfold also raised concerns about concentrated market power among major liquor retailers and the lack of notification mechanisms for levy payers when their information is shared.

Small supported the bill as a step towards restoring confidence in the sector by addressing bargaining power imbalances identified in the Emerson review. Small welcomed the inclusion of civil penalties for misuse of shared information and safeguards around data privacy. However, Small argued that the bill is insufficient given the structural surplus of wine and the government's decision to remove the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. Small stated that the industry needs more comprehensive support to address the decline in global consumption and the financial pressures on producers.

Pasin supported the bill but described the wine industry as being in crisis due to declining global demand and oversupply. Pasin argued that the government has failed to support growers in transitioning to other horticultural commodities as vineyards are removed. Pasin called for assistance with export market development and criticised the government for not using water buyback programs to help recalibrate supply. Pasin emphasised the social and economic impact of vineyard removal on regional communities and irrigation infrastructure.

Venning supported the bill as a technical step towards implementing the mandatory code of conduct. Venning highlighted the severe economic impact of the wine surplus and declining prices on regional South Australia, particularly the Clare Valley. Venning criticised the government for ignoring industry submissions and phasing out the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program. Venning also raised concerns about the container deposit scheme imposing additional costs on the industry and the complexity of the agricultural levy system.

Ryan supported the bill's establishment of a mandatory code to protect growers from unfair practices. However, she moved an amendment calling for the replacement of the Wine Equalisation Tax with a volumetric tax to address alcohol harm. Ryan argued that the current tax structure subsidises cheap, high-volume wine products, which contributes to alcohol-related health issues. Ryan cited multiple government reviews and health bodies recommending tax reform to align wine taxation with beer and spirits.

lead

McCormack supported the bill but used the speech to condemn federal water policies, citing job losses in the rice and wine sectors due to water buybacks. McCormack argued that the government's acquisition of 86 gigalitres of water reduced production capacity and devalued local economies. McCormack highlighted that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder holds 72 per cent of available water, leaving only 28 per cent for agriculture. McCormack also criticised an amendment moved by independent members, dismissing it as unnecessary regulation.

shadow minister

Birrell supported the bill but argued it did not address the severe pressures facing the wine industry, including unsold stock and vine removal. Birrell criticised water buybacks as economically damaging, noting the government paid premiums above market value for water shares. Birrell cited reports that the government paid $4,800 for water shares valued at approximately $4,000, resulting in poor value for taxpayers. Birrell urged the government to develop a strategic plan to assist the struggling industry.