Barmera-based wine grape grower Jason Perrin has provided the following opinion piece in response to an article discusssing a potential Wine Industry Code of Conduct in last week’s Murray Pioneer
Jason Perrin, Murray Pioneer
I refer to Andrew Weeks’ article in last week’s Murray Pioneer (‘Looking at the bigger wine industry issues?’).
The article is negative, does a disservice to growers, and has glaring inaccuracies, and unless corrected, adds confusion to things we are lobbying for on behalf of growers.
Indicative prices out on 30 September. Expert determination decisions being legally binding.
It is moving it from a ridiculous ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to that of a binding contractual obligation.
Something all the well-intentioned people on boards over the years didn’t correct.
When you became a staffer to Vincent Tarzia, Liberal Opposition leader in SA, you didn’t just do a handshake on your pay and work entitlements in the public service, because he is a jolly nice person.
Enforceability with things related to our incomes, for which growers wait 12 months, is a small ask. Far bigger issue than a fortnightly pay cheque.
1. No one to my knowledge ever said that a mandatory code would be a ‘silver bullet’ for the industry. You and Tony Pasin have both said this publicly and wrongly in the last week. It is a personally and politically stupid thing for anyone to try and make further mileage out of. A red herring that now stinks. Please don’t bring it up again.
2. You state “it is misleading to suggest that a mandatory code will be the answer to all problems, nor is it guaranteed to only have positive impacts”. Who said that? How would you know, when a code for the industry hasn’t been created yet? Are you a fortune teller? To think you know what is in something that hasn’t been written yet, is beyond stupid. Give us a break. It’s like shooting the cow before you’ve even decided if you like beef.
3. The inference that “winemakers are greedily sitting on massive profits while holding out on growers” is your observation. If any grower has that point of view, it was probably fuelled in part by a major winery using the words ‘liquidation’ and ‘administration’ for a particular strategy, then three months later spending around $500 million dollars to buy rival interests. It was growers’ businesses on the line at the time, therefore, our incomes. I am sure there are cases of other ‘big business’ doing similar things, not paying what they could, and at times, rightly or wrongly, being propped up by our government. Mr Gupta and Whyalla as an example.
You mention a tale of woe about wineries having staff redundancies, mergers, and wine companies selling off stock at a loss to generate cash flow. Yes, to some extent. It’s growers flogging off water piecemeal to stay in a business in which they were previously sustainable, until screwed by low prices. Include the growers who are flogging off assets, second cars, a second tractor, dipping into super if they have it, some with smaller land holdings trying to get off-farm work, cutting back on permanent and casual labour, and many who have an escalating and very concerning level of depression.
CCW contracts and vineyards grossly devalued. Growers who now feel ‘trapped’ on a property they should be proud of, which should earn them an income. Just to name a few scenarios which you have not mentioned at all, or showed any understanding.
I would hope this isn’t a reflection of a Liberal view, or I would be a very unhappy past voter.
I wonder how many wine executives, including CEOs, on grower/winemaker boards have taken salary cuts over the past three years? Do you know of any? How many have foregone KPIs when they have achieved cost savings at the expense of not maintaining winery equipment over the last few years, or increased tank space so growers’ shiraz and cabernet didn’t shrivel on the vines as in the last week, not directly linked to temperatures?
Let’s not mention the shiraz brought in from the Barossa while carbon footprint-friendly, environmentally sustainably grown grapes within a 30km radius, were left to shrivel on the vines, and tanker loads of juice brought in from WA.
Remember the pay rise over three years for Accolade Wines workers they had to strike for? Not one grower whinged or begrudged the workers a fair deal.
But, it’s another reason why growers were screwed on price.
Growers have spent years being given excuses by wineries, putting up overhead transparencies and white board presentations, listening to them bleating about their sales slumps, costs of production, and so on.
This was even before the big corporates moved in. Same moaning, more modern format.
What advice is being given politically that disregards our plight, but makes excuses continually for the wine production/sales side of the story?
We must be factored into the equation too. Without growers, wineries are nothing, and neither is the $45 billion we help put into the nation’s piggy bank.
All growers want is a ‘fair shake’ from industry and government. But that has meant growers have had to shake hell out of the tree.
Nice words and thoughts don’t pay bills or put food on the table.
5. “A commoditisation of wine grapes where price is issued based on variety”. That’s what we have. You go on to ask “how can a grower be accurately rewarded for the value of their fruit before the fruit quality is known?”
Two furphies there.
Growers, went through a number of years of colour testing. I don’t know of growers who actually got bonuses for their red grapes with colour scores, despite the effort it took. Many growers may not remember that chardonnay was going to be paid on colour sampling, but was scrapped the first year because of inaccuracies. Colour testing was originally based on testing sugar beet. Wine grapes aren’t even in the same family as sugar beet. It’s an example of what ‘clever’ people shoved on us because they thought they knew best.
A comment on premium grapes: Recently, premium shiraz from the Barossa were rejected by a local winery, and sent back, so region doesn’t guarantee premiumisation all the way into the bottle.
Linking grape maturity to the final price offer is patent nonsense and has nothing to do with an indicative price, no matter when it is issued.
Your notion travels the same fantasy road that several people previously running Riverland Wine were pushing: that if there were less growers in the industry here, in order to survive, we would have to grow premium quality grapes.
That was a vile reason why someone suggested at a grower meeting that it would be in the interest of better-quality wine, if CCW folded.
Immature bunches have no bearing on the case for an indicative price in our lobbying in 2025, and another stinky red herring.
Remember, the three at the top of Riverland Wine at the time – pushing an agenda that was not grower requested, driven or accepted at all – hit the trail.
Anyone else who doesn’t listen to a grower majority, now vindicated by the Senate of Australia after an inquiry, should pack their kitbags and hit the road, politicians included, before being pushed.
Or, do we need to lobby for a redrawing of our federal electoral boundary, so we get true grower representation, based on what we ask for? Maybe a blue-ribbon seat where a ginger cat wearing a Liberal coat would be voted in, may not be in growers’ interests.
Linking indicative prices to quality and suggesting early indicative prices will result in less multi-year contracts, and more growers being chucked onto the ‘spot’ market is scaremongering.
If the ultimate purpose was to grow more quality grapes, growers could do this if wineries were honest enough to pay high prices for reduction in tonnages grown.
We went through this years ago, but it went out the window for two reasons. Firstly, when wine demand escalated, wineries said they wanted more tonnes; quality suddenly didn’t matter, it became a winemaker’s problem.
Secondly, the wineries that brought in quality parameters for payment bonuses didn’t offer enough money to make it worthwhile. It showed they had no real commitment to it, because they didn’t want to pay a premium for premium grapes.
A real kick in the pants for your case is after the frosts in September 2024, several wineries told their growers to grow tonnes. Some wineries, after demanding their growers do the sustainable wine grape accreditation nonsense, then set it aside to get enough grapes to service their requirements, but paid rubbish prices for them.
As usual, it is okay for a winery to break or change the rules when its profits are at stake. It kind of makes a joke of the quality call doesn’t it?
Why has the number of growers requesting their levies back risen in the past three years?
Maybe because growers got fed up with people who get on boards treating us as ‘jugs with ears’, telling us what we need, rather than lobbying for what we want?
Like a mother giving a dose of cod liver oil to a kid and saying “it’s good for you, mother knows best”.
There were people years ago, including myself, who raised issues, only to be dismissed, talked over, disregarded, and at one stage, in my case, I was conveniently wiped off the contact list three times. This was at a time when changes were being made to Riverland Wine Grape Growers Association; changes which I wouldn’t have stood for, if I’d known about them.
As a grower who has never requested a levy withdrawal, I reserve the right to make comment, raise issues, draw attention to what is wrong, and follow through with some very positive initiatives for every grower in Australia.
I have looked at our issues, and put forward specific positive suggestions, now lodged in Canberra with the full backing of the Riverina Growers Association, with which I’ve consulted and sought approval.
They have given me 100 per cent approval for my requests and lobbying.
It is very concerning also to hear that a Liberal politician has been suggesting that if growers push for a mandatory code or early indicative prices, we will get nothing at all from the federal government.
That’s bulldust and mischief.
Any repeats, and a number of growers intend to call for that politician to resign.
We can’t have two-faced people stabbing us in the back. Our futures are on the line.
Unfortunately some people find it easier to maintain the status quo, kiss corporate backsides and offer growers and the industry nothing regionally or nationally, except hollow talk and an inability to listen.
Peddle inaccuracies and nonsense somewhere else, and I pray honest politicians do fact-checks with growers, and learn the reality.
This article appeared in Murray Pioneer, 26 March 2025.
Related story: Looking at the bigger wine industry issues?
