The word ‘corrupt’ is used in these files in the context of the abuse of the process, the failure to apply the law and regulations of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act by the Geographical Indications Committee and the resulting manner in which the Conduct of the Process has impacted on the Penola/Coonawarra community.
The files have been accumulated over 17+ years of the interlinked Coonawarra and Penola Wine Region processes.
The information in them is considerable and too large to include at one time on this website.
These files are only a part of the documentation that is openly available and in the public arena.
The files are available on CD and may be accessed by contacting the CPWIA secretary : email@example.com
‘Penola Wine Region’
Corruption of Conduct of Legislated Industry Process
This page contains documentation relating to the Conduct of the Process of the Application of Geographical Indications for wine in the Penola community.
The documentation will be upgraded regularly.
THE PENOLA WINE REGION — THE HISTORY OVER THE PERIOD 1990 TO 2007.
To whom it may concern.
(1) The Penola Wine Region
The initial concept and creation of the Penola Wine Region by the Australian Wine and Brandy (AWBC) Geographical Indications Committee (GIC) and the present declaration by the GIC to delete and dispose of the Penola Wine Region in the corrupted conduct of the process of the application of geographical indications (GI) for wine regions in the Penola/Coonawarra community
This is not about the Coonawarra Region.
It is about the Penola Wine Region and its creation in the corrupted Coonawarra Region process.
Very few people are aware of the existence of the Penola Wine Region. (Penola Data)
Or the Penola wine region’s relationship with the Coonawarra wine region.
*** To see a map of the Penola Wine Region click on page 4 of this website.
Keep it on hand.
Even though the interim determination for the Penola Wine Region was made by the GIC on the 9th May 2000, nearly 8 years ago, it is the only map of the Interim Penola Wine Region we know exists.
Note the Penola region’s embrace with the Coonawarra region.
It depicts what is now happening to the Penola region and Penola grape growers and winemakers in it.
‘Penola Community’ grape growers and winemakers are being shafted by the Australian Wine Industry Establishment.
Please note: Regarding the CD files and documentation relating to the conduct of the GI process in the Penola Coonawarra community accumulated over the period from 1990 to 2007.
These pages contain reference to (blue hyperlinks – available on CD but not on website) files and documentation relating to the conduct of the process of the application of geographical indications for both the Penola Wine region and the Coonawarra wine region in the one ‘Penola’ community. ( Penola Wine Region Map )
The files depict roles played and actions taken by industry representatives, elected, nominated or appointed in this Legislated Industry Process conducted under the corporate governance of the Australian wine industry and the AWBC’s GIC.
The word ‘corrupt’ is used in these files in the context of the abuse of the process, the failure to apply the law and regulations of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act by the Geographical Indications Committee, and the resulting manner in which the Conduct of the Process has impacted on the Penola/Coonawarra community.
The files on the CD have been accumulated over 17 years of the interlinked Coonawarra and Penola processes.
The information in the files is considerable and it is not possible to attach them all to the website.
The files indicated by (Links) may be emailed or supplied on CD if requested.
It is only a part of the documentation that is openly available and in the public arena.
(2) The Conduct of the Process of the conception and abortion of the Penola Region
· The unilateral creation of the Penola Wine Region by the GIC 9th May 2000
· The Coonawarra establishment’s role in the creation and deletion of the Penola region.
· The GIC’s declaration on the 26th November 2006 to now abort and dispose of the Penola Wine Region.
· The resulting personal and commercial impact on CPWIA members and their families.
The Coonawarra/Penola Wine Industries Association (CPWIA) grape growers did not ask the GIC for a Penola wine region. (5A) (5b)
At the 2 Feb 1999 meeting in Coonawarra the GIC suggested that ’Penola’ grape growers form a group and send in an application for a Coonawarra region. (2a) (3143)
The CPWIA was formed and applied to the GIC in June 1999 for an ‘inclusive’ Coonawarra Region. ( 1a ) ( 1b ) (Penola Wine Region Map)
The GIC ‘unilaterally’ changed this application to an Interim Determination for the Penola Wine Region on 10th May 2000. ( GIC 9 May 2000) Page 9, 10, 11.
It now appears that the Penola Interim region was in effect a ‘basket’ to dump Penola grape growers in that the ‘establishment’ didn’t want and remove them from further consideration in the Coonawarra regional process. (Lee Castine Statement AAT) Para 14 & 11/11/1999
The Penola region was created by the GIC at the same time as and during the same process that the Coonawarra region was declared. ( GIC 9 May 2000 )
The GIC got the Coonawarra process wrong. (Federal Court Ruling FCAFC 295)
Then the AAT got it wrong as well. (Federal Court Ruling FCAFC 295) Page 31.
The outcome of the Coonawarra region process was ‘affected’ by misconstructions of regulations’ by the GIC and ‘errors in law’ in the AAT. ( Federal Court Ruling  FCAFC 295)
* The Penola region was unilaterally declared by the GIC during this ‘corrupted’ process - with the apparent tacit approval of members of the Coonawarra associations. (Minutes of meeting 555 The Parade 11/11/1999)
* Now (22nd August 2007) the GIC has aborted the Penola region - on the basis of objections now from members of the same Coonawarra associations. (14a) (25)
In the Coonawarra Region process, the application of regulations by the GIC and ‘errors in law’ by the AAT have been reviewed. ( Federal Court Ruling FCAFC 295)
The ‘conduct of the (Coonawarra) process’ has not.
The conduct of the Penola process involving the interpretation and application of regulations by the GIC in the creation and abortion of the Penola Wine Region has been examined by no-one.
The Australian Wine Industry Establishment doesn’t want to know about Penola.
They have been asked to address and correct the situation on many occasions. ( CD File 15a) Page 5
The Australian Wine Establishment referred us back to the GIC. ( File 3145 )
The GIC got Coonawarra wrong. (Federal Court Ruling)
The GIC is largely responsible for the Penola mess we are faced with.
We believe that the GIC is a part of the problem.
We don’t believe the GIC is able to provide the solution… without a push. ( File 13f )
After the AAT’s ‘errors in law’ in the Coonawarra review (Federal Court Ruling  FCAFC 295) CPWIA members don’t have much faith in their ability to correct the mess either.
**** On the 22nd August 2007 the GIC decided to make NO DECISION for a final Penola Region, and because NO DECISION was made, Penola Community grape growers and winemakers (all those in the Penola/Coonawarra community excluded from the ‘corrupted’ final Coonawarra Region) now also unable to relate to Penola as a GI when selling their grapes and wine, are now left with NO RIGHT OF APPEAL to the AAT under the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act as it now stands.
The Federal Minister has been asked to address the situation. ( CD File 1AA ) Page 8+
The Federal Minister advised the CPWIA to contact the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman who investigates complaints against Federal committees such as the GIC.
The CPWIA lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding the GIC’s actions in the Penola Region Process. (3141)
The corruption of the conduct of the process of the Coonawarra/Penola regions has been partially exposed to the world.
It needs to be fully exposed.
The role, motives and actions of the GIC and the Australian (Coonawarra) Wine Establishment in firstly conceiving and creating the Penola Wine Region during the corrupted Coonawarra process need to be openly examined. ( File 3143 ) ( File 6a )
The role, motives and actions of the GIC and the Australian (Coonawarra) Wine Establishment in the creation and now aborting and disposing of the Penola Wine Region also need to be openly examined. ( File 14a ) (25)
CPWIA members lost the use of the name Coonawarra at the end of a corrupted Legislated Industry ‘Coonawarra’ process.
We now only have the ‘Penola community’ left to point to when showing the world where our wines come from.
The CPWIA ‘Penola’ grape growers and their families will fight to remain a part of the Penola community.
We have no where else to go.
(3) Summary of:
· The Original Intent of the Act,
· Exclusionary tactics of the Coonawarra ‘establishment’,
· Resulting consequences to CPWIA members,
· Request to the Federal Minister for a review of the corrupted conduct of the process of the application of GI’s for Wine in the Penola/ Coonawarra community.
· Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation of complaint re GIC actions.
The initial compilation and reading of the Act in Parliament, the Act itself and all commentary was that the process of the application of GI’s for wine Regions in Australia was to be inclusive. ( File 15ba)
In the Penola/Coonawarra community this has not happened.
The politics of exclusion by the Australian Wine Establishment prevailed in the Coonawarra region process.
The politics of exclusion by the Australian Wine Establishment continues in the Penola region process.
At a ‘Joint’ industry meeting in Penola on the 26th November 2006 the Coonawarra Vignerons Association (CVA) and Coonawarra Grape Growers Association (CGGA) confirmed their objection to the CPWIA continuing to use of the name ‘Penola’ as it had been applied to the Interim Determination for Penola. ( File 14a )
At the same meeting, the GIC then declared it’s intention to now unilaterally strip the name ‘Penola’ from the ‘Penola’ Wine Region, unilaterally create a ‘new region’ to the ‘west of Coonawarra’ and without any further consultation with the CPWIA give it a ‘new name’ that they (the GIC alone) think appropriate. ( File 14a )
*** Then on the 22nd August 2007 the GIC declared that it had decided “not to proceed with the making of a final determination of the Penola interim determination”
****This has created a situation where having lost the right to associate with Coonawarra at the end of the ‘corrupted’ Coonawarra stage of the process it now is illegal for grape grower and winemaking families in the balance of the Coonawarra /Penola community excluded from the ‘corrupted Coonawarra’ region, to relate to, or associate with, the Penola community in any way when selling their grapes or marketing their wine at the end of the ‘pedantically correct’ conduct of the Penola stage of the process.
These families have now been legislated into the status of outcasts in their own community where they and their families have lived and been a part of for 60, 80, 100 and up to140 years with no right of appeal under the AWBC Act.
They now, at the end of a corrupted Legislated Industry Process, have had imposed on them by law, under the Corporate Governance of the Australian Wine Industry, the status of second class citizens in their own community with no right of appeal under the AWBC Act.
This is wrong. It is outside of the intent of the AWBC Act.
*** It was not, and is not the intention of the legislation that the AWBC Act be applied or be allowed to be applied by elected or nominated industry representatives at local, regional, state and national levels in such a manner as to separate, isolate and disenfranchise fellow grape growers as has now happened in the Penola/Coonawarra community.
*** It was not, and is not the intention of the Act that the GI application process be conducted or allowed to be conducted in such a manner as to lead to absolute and total personal, industry and community isolation that some grape growers, wine makers and their families in the Penola/Coonawarra community are presently threatened with.
*** It was not, and is not the intention of the Act that grape growers who’s families have been a part of communities such as the Penola/Coonawarra community for 60, 80, 100and up to 140 years should be forced into the legal system to justify their right to continue to freely and openly and legally relate to, be a part of, and associate with their community.
The CPWIA has asked the Federal Minister of Agriculture to address and correct the situation before the impact of this corrupted Legislated Industry Process are fully cemented in law. ( File 1AA ) Page 10 & 11
The CPWIA has asked the Federal Minister to review the relevant sections of the Act under which families in the Penola/Coonawarra community are being stripped of their rights and take the necessary action to change the Act to correct the situation and to prevent this from happening in the future to families in other Australian communities.
( File 1AA ) Page 10 & 11
*** The CPWIA propose that the AWBC Act be amended to disband the GIC as it is currently structured and introduce amendments to the legislation to replace it (GIC) with a committee of qualified professionals appointed by the Minister and independent of the Australian Wine Industry.
(4) Correspondence between the CPWIA and:
· The GIC re objections to ‘Penola’ from the Coonawarra ‘establishment’ – CVA and CGGA
· The Australian Wine Industry – notification of problems and request for assistance.
· The Federal Minister re: (1) corruption of the conduct of the processes of the Penola Wine Region and the Coonawarra Wine Region and (2) requesting the Minister’s assistance in correcting the effects of the impact of the corrupted process.
Suggested order of reading.
CD File: 10 18th May 2004 - GIC to CPWIA:
· Advising of Coonawarra associations objection to CPWIA members use of the name Penola as a GI for wine.
· Advising of Rymill objection to use of ‘Penola’ as a GI by CPWIA Penola grape growers and winemakers.
· Alternative names!!!
CD File: 29A 14th December 2004- CPWIA reply to GIC re:
· Rymill objection to CPWIA Penola grape growers use of the name ‘Penola’ as a GI based on 1995 trade mark.
· Documentation of ‘prior use’ of the name Penola as a GI on labels by St Mary’s Wines since 1992.
· Coonawarra associations’ objection to CPWIA use of the name Penola and suggestion of ‘alternate’ names!
CD File: 15a 16th February 2005 – Letter from St Mary’s Wines to Mr Sam Tolley notifying him of:
· Lack of representation in the GI process at the local Penola/Coonawarra community level.
· Advice given to local Industry Representatives in May and June 1993 by the AWBC.
· Closing of doors by ‘Coonawarra’ groups at the local level– August 1993
· ‘Control’ of local industry representative body by Coonawarra groups in Coonawarra Process.
· Attempts by those ‘shut out’ of the conduct of the process at the local level to gain some real input into the process.
· Formation of the CPWIA in an attempt to give local grape growers ‘shut out’ of the process a voice in the process.
· Further attempts by CPWIA ‘Penola’ grape growers to have input into process.
· Requests to Australian Wine Industry for assistance to open up the conduct of the process to ‘all interested parties’.
CD File 3144 Trade Mark Objection Notice 18 May 2005.
· Rymill objection to CPWIA use of the name Penola as a GI lodged with IP Australia posted 18th May 2005.
· Rymill Trade Mark Objection ( No: 2) lodged after passage of US Free Trade Bill in January 2005.
· Rymill Trade Mark Objection ( No: 2) withdrawn on 21st November 2005
CD File: 1AA The Hon PETER McGAURAN MP 1st March 2007 - Letter from the CPWIA to the Federal Minister.
· Informing him of the impending disenfranchisement of grape growers in half the Penola/Coonawarra community. Page 1
· Corruption of the Conduct of the Process. Page 2 & 3
· Difficulties in communications between ‘Penola’ grape growers and the GIC. Page 4.
· Examples. Page 4 & 5.
· Collapse of local ‘Joint’ discussions re Penola GI – 26th October 2006. Page 6
· Declaration of intent by GIC to abort Penola GI – 26 October 2006. Page 6
· The resulting impact of GIC’s proposed declaration on Penola community families. Page 6
· Intent of Act— ‘Inclusive’ Wine Regions Page 7
· Query GIC’s actions and motives in the conception, creation and now aborting and disposing of the ‘Penola Wine Region’ Page 7.
· Query CVA and CGGA associations’ actions and motives in the conception, creation and abortion of the ‘Penola Region’. Page 8
· Notifying Minister of CPWIA intent to approach ACCC re actions of Elected Industry Representatives in Conduct of Process. Page 8 & 9.
· Request of Minister for review of the Corruption of the Conduct of the process of the Application of Geographical Indications for Wine in the Penola Coonawarra Community. Page 9 & 10 & 11.
(5) Independent overview and comment on the conduct of the process and outcome. (Recommended reading)
CD Folder: 10 Paper published in the Adelaide Law Review (Volume 27. Number 1) by Gary Edmond titled:-
‘Disorder with Law: Determining the geographical indication for the Coonawarra wine region.’
We point to the following points in particular:
· Federal Court ruling that the GIC and AAT misconstrued the AWBC Act and regulations in the Coonawarra region process. (Pages 41 – 45)
· Federal Court – ‘highly critical of the AAT decision’ (Page 41)
· The Federal Court finding that the AAT ‘fell into error of law in it’s construction of regulations 24 and 25.’ (Page 44)
· The inability or unwillingness of the parties involved at the Federal Court level to allow the Federal Court rulings to benefit the other parties that were co-appellants in the AAT. Pages 44 and 45)
· ‘Successful tactical maneuver’ by the Coonawarra Associations. Control of the conduct of the process of the application of wine regions at the Penola community level. (Page 46)
· The ‘lack of independence’ of the GIC from the Australian wine industry establishment. ( Pages 48, 49, 50 and 54)
· Consensus regulation. ( Pages 58, 67, 68, 69)
· Prejudice ( Page 46 & 68)
· Institutional Conservatism. (Page 67)
· A ‘legal failure’. (Page 45 & 69)
· The final Coonawarra Region Boundary:- unprincipled, irrational and consequently unfair (Page 45)
· The final Coonawarra Region Boundary:- devoid of statuary integrity (Page 66)
· Penola Zone Option – Inclusive – Compromise (Page 67)
(6) ******* Two of the most significant files on the CD regarding the GIC and the ‘Penola’ region are:
CD Files: 8a & 8b ( December 2003 meeting between CPWIA and GIC)
The entries in the CPWIA diary at this meeting that records the sentiments of the newly appointed members of the GIC (the ‘old’ GIC members that held office during the Coonawarra process and the unilateral creation of the Interim Penola Wine Region having stepped down) at the meeting that we - CPWIA members (Penola Community) growers)- had been ‘shafted’ in the Coonawarra process, that the name Penola was available to use and that our members should be ‘positive’ in using the name Penola on their grapes and wine - ASAP.
CD File: 14a (27 November 2006 - Letter from CPWIA to GIC )
The question arises as to what happened between the 3rd December 2003 and the ‘Joint’ meeting of the 26th November 2006 to change the attitude of the new members of the GIC to the point that they now declared their intention to (unilaterally) strip us of the use of the name Penola and delete and dispose of the Penola Wine Region.
********* An answer to this question could help in clearing the way to reversing the divisive and isolating impact of the local wine regional mess that is now directly affecting the daily lives and livelihoods of grape growing and wine making families in the Penola/Coonawarra community.
(7) The situation as of 30th June 2007.
· The CPWIA asked the Federal Minister to address the AWBC Act under which corruption of the conduct of the process has occurred in the establishment of GI’s for wine in the Penola community.
· The CPWIA lodged a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the GIC’s actions in the conduct of the process of the application of GI’s for wine in the Penola community.
· The CPWIA is presenting documentation relating to the actions of elected industry representatives in the conduct of the Coonawarra and Penola processes to the Australian Competition and Consumers Commission for review of compliance with the Act.
(8) The situation as of 1st January 2008.
The Coonawarra/Penola Wine Industries Association is continuing to pursue the ‘Penola Wine Region’ issue with the aim of having:
(1) The Conduct of the Process of the Application of Geographical Indications for wine in the Penola/Coonawarra community openly and independently reviewed.
(2) The actions and activities of elected, nominated and appointed Wine Industry representatives in the conduct of the process of the Application of Geographical Indications for Wine in the Penola/Coonawarra community openly and independently reviewed
In the meantime:
Steps that could be taken to correct the impact of the corrupted Coonawarra/Penola Region process on the Penola community:
Looking at the mess that was created by the Australian wine industry ‘establishment’ and the attempts by the establishment to now get rid of and cover up the ‘Penola embarrassment’, one fair, just and valid course of action from here is to:
(a) Delete both the existing ‘corrupted Coonawarra’ region and what is left of the Interim Penola region and start again.
We have been informed that it can be done and that the legislation is now in place – as of January 2005 - in the AWBC Act to fix the mess. ( File 13f )
*** The GIC maintains that presently it is not possible to change a finalized GI.
If in fact the GIC are correct, the AWBC Act needs to be amended to allow for the correction of situations such as we are now facing in the Penola/Coonawarra community that has occurred largely as a result of ‘misconstructions of regulations’ by the GIC and ‘errors in law’ in the AAT during the conduct of the process of the application of GI’s for wine in the Penola/Coonawarra community.
This amendment would also allow for future developments in the Australian grape growing industry, both expansive and contractive.
If the French are able to alter the boundary of the Champagne Region with it’s hundreds of years of history, why shouldn’t Australia be able to alter the boundary of a modern day ‘corrupted’ Coonawarra Region
All that is needed is for the Australian Wine Industry to have the integrity to take the step.
Or be pushed.
An alternative: (Within the Intent of the Act, and able to be done under the Act)
(b) Declare a Penola Zone inclusive of both the Penola and Coonawarra Regions.
Not perfect, but everybody in the Penola community - including Coonawarra - will then be able to continue to openly and legally relate to the Penola community.
This ‘Inclusive Penola Zone’ would offset the impact of the corrupted Coonawarra/Penola wine region process on the Penola community and would be within the original intention of the AWBC Act in the application of Geographical Indications for Wine Regions in Australian grape growing and wine making communities.
Further documentation may be accessed by email or CD by contacting the CPWIA secretary.
PO Box 14. Penola. SA. 5277
Coonawarra/Penola Wine Industries Association.
Ph: +61 8 87366070 Fax: +61 8 87366045
THE PENOLA WINE REGION - RELATIVE DOCUMENTATION AND PRESS ARTICLES POST 26th NOVEMBER 2007 TO PRESENT DAY TO BE POSTED ON THIS SITE SOON.