Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 22 November 2012:

(1) Which organisations were consulted when the department undertook work relating to the amendment of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 that resulted in the adoption of section 40DA(2).

(2) What government agencies, Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC) representative bodies and private companies were consulted in relation to amendments to the Act, and what process of consultation was used by AWBC.

(3) Is the department committed to consulting all bodies that have legal standing to launch prosecutions for offences under the Act.

(4) Were any Australian wine producers consulted during deliberations on making these changes to the Act; if not, why not.

(5) How does the department meet the needs of: (a) grape producers; and (b) those involved in marketing wine.

(6) Given that Articles 25 and 26 of the Agreement Between Australia And The European Community On Trade In Wine maintain the protection of geographical indicators, what steps have been taken to ensure that this achieved.

(7) What proactive actions has the department taken to protect geographic indicators.

(8) Did the department consider whether the amendment that resulted in the adoption of section 40DA(2) was consistent with the AWBC Act; if not, why not.

(9) What action has AWBC taken to check the legality of 'The Orange Tree' label; if no action has been taken, on what basis was that decision made.

(10) Is the onus on the producer to satisfy AWBC in regard to the legality of their name, or on the AWBC to make the assessment that a producer can use a geographical name.

(11) Given that a press release issued by the AWBC Compliance Manager, Mr Steve Guy, on 31 August 2010 coincided with the announcement of changes to the Act, why was no mention made of the planned changes to the Act that resulted in section 40DA(2).

(12) How many vignerons in Australia pay the Wine Grapes Levy.

(13) Have implications arising from the 'Feet First' case been discussed with the European Union; if so, did these discussions occur prior to the legislative change was finalised.