As the number of objections to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s decision on the boundary of the Coonawarra region increases to five, many Coonawarra winegrowers are wondering if the matter of where their wine region actually begins and ends will ever be solved. Meantime, it’s a hot political issue that’s consuming their thoughts, their energies, their money, and in some cases, their health. While a date has yet to be fixed for the Federal Court to take up the wine industry’s dirty washing, it is widely expected that in May 2002 the gloves will come off again. The big loser in the AAT’s decision, Beringer Blass, is the principal objector to what I believe is an insightful and clear-headed decision delivered in exceptionally difficult circumstances by the AAT. More on that shortly. The occasionally bitter struggle over the Coonawarra boundary goes back about two decades. For a brief period in 1983 I was Secretary of the Coonawarra Vignerons Association. It was around this time that the matter became a hot one, especially once Brian Croser purchased what has since become Petaluma’s Sharefarmers vineyard in that same year. Even though it was outside what was then considered to be the border of Coonawarra – albeit by the width of a road – local growers were angry that Croser’s obvious intent was to plant the land and sell its product as Coonawarra wine, especially given that he paid a mere fraction per acre what it then cost to buy viticultural land on the region’s main cigar-shaped terra rossa strip. Croser didn’t let them down, and for several years the battle was a personal one as the Coonawarra Vigerons Association and Croser traded shots like a couple of gunslingers. Finally, irrespective of what happened and for what reason, this vineyard has justly been admitted into Coonawarra by the AAT. The Makings of a Battleground What happened to make Coonawarra the battleground it has become? At the heart of the battle lie issues like the price of land, the price of grapes and the price of wine. The growers and makers who in the 1960s and 1970s made the name of Coonawarra famous focused largely, but not exclusively, on the region’s premier red soils which overlay limestone. As they succeeded and as their wines became more expensive, especially in the 1980s, so did the cost of land in what was genuinely then regarded as a small and clearly finite wine region. While no legally binding regional boundary for Coonawarra existed, it was widely accepted that land outside the two local political boundaries immediately north and south of the Penola township, the Hundreds of Penola and Comaum, could not be regarded as Coonawarra. But it wasn’t as simple as that. Only a small portion of that land within these two Hundreds actually consisted of the quality terra rossa soils, while some outcrops of the same soil did occur in satellite fashion outside the limits of the two Hundreds. So, as viticultural land prices increased, huge areas of ordinary soil types within the Hundreds was planted to vines, while satellite outcrops of perfectly good terra rossa soil and with climates virtually identical to Coonawarra were also planted, producing wines that would ultimately wear the Coonawarra name… for a while at least. In the 1990s more and more land began to be planted, some of it on questionable sites clearly separate from the original Coonawarra cigar. Those who had paid top dollar for land in the main drag were naturally concerned that others who paid far less for land of significantly poorer quality were still able to sell their fruit for top ‘Coonawarra’ price. To many of the established growers their risks, hard work and hard-earned reputations were simply being exploited by low-spending newcomers with an eye on their profit margins. Why is the Coonawarra name so important? Because it is one of the few Australian wine regions with any real degree of recognition within Australia and the UK, our largest export market. It’s worth a serious lot of money to be able to put ‘Coonawarra’ on your label, especially if you’re launching a new brand of wine. Enter the Geographical Indications Committee (GIC), whose job it is to draw a line around Coonawarra, and the myriad of stakeholders in the matter finally had a battleground on which to vent their anger. But the GIC couldn’t bring the matter to a close and neither could the AAT, so attention now swings to the Federal Court. Will it end there? Who knows? An Opinion on the AAT’s Decision For one, I did not expect the AAT to be able to deal with highly complex wine industry matters with such clarity and wisdom. Despite substantial and perhaps well founded fears to the contrary, the AAT proved itself capable – to my mind at least – of finding a plausible and justifiable solution to the most complicated issue in modern Australian wine, although it certainly took some considerable time to do so. Its solution is broadly sensible and is backed up by a clear and concise train of thought that is easily followed by reading the 76 pages of findings. In doing so, the AAT should have earned the respect and gratitude of everyone involved in the making and drinking of Australian wine. In making its decision, the AAT had to navigate its way through the muddy waters of contradictory climatic, geological and historical evidence, scientific opinion and legal claptrap. To offer a single example, the boundary suggested by two expert geographical witnesses, Dr Derek Smith and Mr Maxwell Foale, turned out to be entirely different from the very boundary suggested they themselves had recommended as recently as July 1999. According to these geographers, it was ‘feasible’ to have a variety of boundaries for Coonawarra, and that both could be justified. The Issues that Mattered to the AAT The AAT recognised that the search for a boundary was ultimately based on ‘geographical logic’ and that both ‘judgement and compromise’ would be necessary to achieve a balanced result. It rejected any evidence related to marketing, and says that ‘the process of boundary setting under this legislation is not designed to allow for expansion of Coonawarra to create a benefit for future marketing activities’. While it indicated it was prepared both to expand and contract the historic view that Coonawarra was composed of Hundreds of Comaum and Penola, it recognised that ‘the task is not to create a new Coonawarra’. When determining whether a vineyard lay within Coonawarra or not, a key issue to the AAT was the composition of its terra rossa soil and its proximity to the main ‘cigar’ strip. For this reason it rejected some fine vineyard land lying outside the two Hundreds of Comaum and Penola and obviously not sited relatively close to the cigar. It also recognised the importance of the region’s terra rossa soil, but understood that none of the proposed regional models specified it as the exclusive soil type for Coonawarra. As a result, the AAT admitted several vineyards to the south of Penola which were historically considered outside the Coonawarra region. A significant number of applications were rejected on the grounds that irrespective of the quality of the fruit they might produce, their inclusion would also require the inclusion of large areas of land totally unsuitable for viticulture. This would have deprived Coonawarra of homogeneity of geological formation requisite under the terms of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act. Climate didn’t factor in any of the AAT’s deliberations. It correctly observed that any differences between the properties wishing to be included in the Coonawarra region were negligible. The Big Winners The Gartners the majority of whose present or intended vineyard developments in the Hundred of Comaum are included. Their property in Joanna is not included, even though it abuts the Hundred line and Petaluma’s Sharefarmers property. Glenbrook Estate whose 60 acres of vines 10km south of Penola has produced fruit sold to Rosemount Estate. Petaluma whose Sharefarmers Vineyard was just on the wrong side of the road when the 1984 resolution of the Coonawarra boundary restricted its northern boundary to the Hundred of Comaum. Developed in 1983 and extended in 1993, it has since 1989 produced more than 15% of the red wine sold as Petaluma ‘Coonawarra’, while until this stage never actually having been included within any official Coonawarra border, disputed or otherwise. It was included in the GIC’s proposed revision, but not in the final determination. All export Sharefarmers wine has historically been labelled as ‘Coonawarra’. A huge win for Brian Croser and his former wine company. Rymill whose vineyards south of Penola total more than 70ha, but lie within the Hundred of Penola, and have a history of producing wine sold as ‘Coonawarra’. The Big Losers Beringer Blass which has since 1993 developed its Robertson’s Well vineyard of 74 ha in the Hundred of Joanna. Dunkeld Pastoral Co whose 10.8 ha Riddoch Estate in the Naracoorte Range has for over twenty years produced wine sold as ‘Coonawarra’. Heatherfield Ridge (112 ha) and several other vineyards near Bool Lagoon, about 12 km from the old Coonawarra border. Koppamurra Wines whose fruit has been incorporated into many wines sold as ‘Coonawarra’ by a number of different makers, and whose refusal to let other neighbouring vineyards adopt the regional name of ‘Koppamurra’ without a substantial financial settlement led directly to the naming of the Wrattonbully wine region, which I and many others consider to be a total disaster. St Mary’s Vineyard located on an outcrop of terra rossa soil fifteen kilometres west of the centre of the narrow cigar strip, and which since 1986 has marketed its wine as ‘Coonawarra’. Other losers included several vineyards on the western slopes of the Naracoorte Range north of the Hundred of Comaum, others towards the western boundary of the Hundred of Comaum, and some well away from the main strip in the Hundreds of Monbulla and Killanoola. …or not? Beringer Blass has filed an appeal in the Federal Court against the AAT’s decision to exclude its Robertson’s Well vineyard from the Coonawarra region. It believes that the AAT overlooked ‘critical evidence’ in relation to ‘the use of a label and descriptor which directly links the wine and the Robertson’s Well vineyard with the Coonawarra region, and the objective connections Robertson’s Well has, and has had, with the Coonawarra region for many years’. According to Beringer Blass, ‘Robertson’s Well has in established reputation as both a Coonawarra wine and a Coonawarra vineyard and the company believes that it meets all the criteria set down by the AAT for inclusion in the Coonawarra Region’. The facts as I see them suggest otherwise. When the Robertson’s Well vineyard was first developed in 1993, there was no suggestion from Mildara Blass that the vineyard itself was in any way associated with Coonawarra. To the contrary, the company pumped up its discovery of a new wine region, which it then called Robertson’s Well. Yet in 1994, while the Robertson’s Well vineyard was just a series of sticks poking up from the ground, the company released a Robertson’s Well Cabernet Sauvignon 1992. Not only did this wine pre-date the planting of the Robertson’s Well vineyard by an entire year, but its label clearly identified it as a Coonawarra wine. Since that time the Robertson’s Well wines have purported to have come from Coonawarra, given the legally permissible 15% inclusion from other regions. While there is no argument over whether or not the Robertson’s Well wines have been associated with Coonawarra, I cannot see any clear link between the Robertson’s Well vineyards with the region. In other words, as far as I can tell, the AAT got it right. None of which would please two of the other objectors to the AAT’s decision, Naradina (A MacLeod) and RD MacLeod, whose vineyards are located in the Hundred of Joanna, near the Naracoorte Ranges and close to the Robertson’s Well vineyard. Other objections have been received from D Castine and JD & PG Kidman, whose vineyards have been excluded on the grounds that to admit them would admit a significant tract of unsuitable ground which would affect the homogeneity of the region. The only basis on which any of the objectors can appeal the AAT’s decision relates to matters of law, not fact, although a decent barrister can certainly blurr the boundaries between the two. However it is in this regard that the AAT may have left open a legal loophole which, if successfully exploited by the objectors, may even cause the entire process to begin again before the AAT. The case began being heard before three Tribunal Members, but only Justice O’Connor and Associate Professor B Davis completed the task. The third member’s tenure on the AAT expired on June 30, 2001, and he was not reappointed. It is presently unclear whether or not due process was followed by the AAT after this event, and there remains a slim possibility that the decision on the border of Coonawarra might be overturned over a technicality in this regard. From an industry perspective, Coonawarra growers and winemakers are disgruntled with the near certainty that the Federal Court and other action will cost them more time, energy and dollars in legal representation. Despite the reassurances some have received from the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation that they will not need to be represented at these proceedings, the reality is that they certainly will. One Coonawarra grower estimates a likely additional legal bill to the vignerons of $80,000 at the Federal Court, while the additional (if unlikely) danger of costs could extend this figure upwards to $150,000. A Coonawarra Timeline 1983 Petaluma purchases the unplanted property (later to become the Sharefarmers Vineyard) outside what was informally understood to be the Coonawarra region but adjacent to its boundary along the Hundred of Comaum, prompting local moves to accelerate a formal regional delineation. 1984 The Viticultural Council of South Eastern South Australia determines, by a vote of its members present at a meeting, that Coonawarra’s boundaries should be as ‘within the Hundreds of Penola and Comaum’. 1992 In Petaluma’s prospectus for its share issue the company refers to ‘!the Sharefarmers vineyard on the boundary of Coonawarra’ (my underline). 1993 The Geographical Indications Committee (GIC) is established by the Federal Government to determine the boundaries of Australian wine regions and sub-regions. 1994 Formation of the EEC Wine Agreement between Australia and the European Community, which underpins the need for regional delineation for exported wine. 1995 The Joint Committee of the Coonawarra Grape Growers Association and the Coonawarra Vignerons Association lodges an application to the GIC to determine Coonawarra’s boundaries. 1997 The GIC releases an interim determination of the region. More than twenty objections are received to this determination. 1999 The GIC releases a variation on the interim determination, again to around twenty objections. Later in the year it makes its final determination, to which forty-six official objections are received. 2001 The AAT commences its hearing, releasing its decision later in the year. Beringer Blass is one of five objectors.
