Wine Sector

Question

1. Under the Australia–European Union Free Trade Agreement, Australian producers will no longer be permitted to use the term “Prosecco” for exports after the agreed transition period.  What modelling has the Government undertaken of the impact this outcome will have on Australian prosecco producers? 2. How many Australian wine businesses does the Department estimate will be directly affected by the loss of the ability to export wine labelled as prosecco? 3. What assessment has been undertaken of the likely financial impact on affected businesses, including impacts on export sales, rebranding costs, marketing costs, and market recognition? 4. Does the Government acknowledge that Australian producers have invested significantly over many years in building export markets for prosecco under that varietal name? 5. What advice is the Government providing to producers regarding how they should transition their products and brands in export markets once the transition period expires? 6. Has Austrade or Wine Australia been tasked with developing any specific export market transition strategy for affected prosecco producers? 7. Will the Government provide additional export promotion or market development funding to assist producers who will effectively lose the ability to market their products overseas under the name consumers currently recognise? 8. Has the Government engaged directly with King Valley prosecco producers regarding the commercial implications of this agreement?  If not, when will this engagement occur? 9. Noting that the former Coalition Government provided adjustment assistance to wine producers affected by the transition from the terms 'sherry' and 'tokay' to 'apera' and 'topaque', what consideration has the Government given to establishing an adjustment or transition assistance package for Australian prosecco producers who will be required to cease using the term 'prosecco' in export markets under the Australia–EU Free Trade Agreement? 10. If no assistance package is being considered, why is this situation being treated differently from previous geographic indication transition arrangements? 11. Has the Department provided advice to Government on potential transition support measures for affected producers? 12. Can the Department table or describe any options that have been considered to support affected businesses? 13. Does the Government acknowledge that the King Valley region has built a significant tourism and regional economic identity around prosecco production? 14. What assessment has been undertaken of the regional economic impacts on the King Valley, including impacts on tourism, cellar doors, hospitality businesses, and regional employment? 15. At a time when the wine sector is already facing structural oversupply, declining global consumption, and ongoing commercial pressures, does the Government accept that this additional market disruption creates further uncertainty for affected businesses? 16. What stakeholders have the government consulted specifically regarding support needs arising from the prosecco outcome? 17. What practical assistance will the Government provide to ensure prosecco producers are not left to absorb the cost of this transition entirely on their own? 18. Can the Department guarantee that producers who lose access to export markets under the prosecco name will receive targeted support to adapt and remain internationally competitive? 19. If no dedicated support is planned, what exactly does the Government expect affected family-owned wine businesses in the King Valley to do? 20. Does the Government believe it is fair for Australian producers to bear the commercial cost of an agreement negotiated in the national interest without any adjustment assistance? 21. Will the Government commit to working with affected producers on a formal transition package before the Agreement enters into force?

Answer

Please see PDF attachment.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000604.pdf (opens in a new tab)