A group of high-profile industry voices has penned an open letter raising issue with Wine Australia’s Strategic Plan 2025-2030, concerned that the plan shows intent to defund the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) and lacked sufficient industry consultation.
Concerned Elders (CE) response to the Wine Australia Strategic Plan 2025-2030.
In early July, Wine Australia quietly launched its Strategic Plan 2025-2030 (the Plan).
It is important to note that CE have a high level of respect and confidence in the multiple workings and output of Wine Australia, and admire the expertise, dedication and exemplary service provided by their people. Wine Australia, like the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI), is envied as a model in the wine world.
We also have respect for and support our universities and other R&D institutions including CSIRO and state agriculture departments. Collaboration between all these institutions including AWRI and Wine Australia is essential to achieve the greatest benefit for the whole Wine Industry.
Our issue with Wine Australia – based on their communications and reinforced the Plan – is the very real concern that the AWRI, the industry’s own research institute, is being defunded by Wine Australia and its viability is seriously threatened.
Throughout the Plan, there is total obeisance and submission to the many government, statutory, and recommended guideline requirements of Wine Australia. There is no identification of the requirements of industry from Wine Australia. It appears the board is there to impose the government’s will on the Australian Wine Industry.
Specific feedback follows, but we do ask up front where the industry consultation was in the release of the Plan. Did Australian Grape & Wine (AGW) and their Research Advisory Committee (RAC) endorse it?
The good news in the Plan is the expected R&D income from levy and government, for each of the next 5 years, is $22.5m, based on a predicted crush of 1.55m tonnes. Unfortunately, this will continue to diminish in its spending power, until our globally unique levy system, that supports R&D and education is reformed to a value-based system.
Although the Plan is constructed around the much criticised, 2024 One Sector Plan, it does acknowledge the basic strategy of the 2020 ‘Vision 2050’ Australian wine: enjoyed and respected globally, and there are some good points made:
Increasing the demand and premium paid for Australian wine remains the core objective of the Plan, and Research, Innovation and Adoption is recognised as the key to unlock innovation improving the quality and economic efficiency that are required for global competitive advantage.
Oversupply and its correction, particularly of inland red grapes is recognised as the priority to be addressed in the face of a dwindling global branded commodity market and a growing fine wine market.
The establishment of a National Vineyard Register is identified as a priority to inform the adjustment process.
Future proofing the supply base including the National Germplasm Collection is a necessary and worthy component of The Plan.
That’s where the thoughtful strategy ends.
The Plan employs mostly volume related statistics to describe the industry. When value is considered, it gives a different view of the state and dynamics of the industry. For example, the Plan states imports are 15% of the domestic market on a volume basis. On a value basis they are nearly 30%. Similarly, the large proportion of grape volume comes from the inland areas, but the value of grapes depicts a much more even balance from the cooler and coastal areas.
There is no recognition in the Plan that the Australian wine industry (like almost every major wine-producing country) is and always has been composed of two distinct segments, fine wine and branded commodity wine. Each requires its own strategy and separate investments in R&D and marketing with different priorities.
The reinvention of the one-shoe-fits-all panoramic Australian wine image, “Adventurous by Nature” follows in the footsteps of numerous previous attempts to capture all Australian wine under one banner. Australia’s dominant image as a producer of branded commodity wine makes it very difficult to achieve credibility in the under-indexing fine wine markets of the globe.
The very name of the latest industry plan, “One Grape and Wine Sector Plan”, speaks to the refusal of Wine Australia and AGW to recognise the fundamental reality that the Australian Wine Industry is composed of two sectors.
A big opportunity lies in improving Australia’s fine wine image and winning a share of these large and lucrative market segments consistent with our share of global production.
There is an obsession in the Plan with co-investment. A measure of innovation success (p13) states ‘…at least 90 per cent of projects with co-investment from appropriate partners.’ There is not and never has been an appetite in the Australian wine industry for co-investment in R&D and the current financial situation of the industry means this is very unlikely to change. Similarly, the commercialisation of R&D in the wine industry is historically almost non-existent. Setting these as measures of success is setting it up for failure before most of the industry realise the Plan even exists.
Wine Australia has no remit to be involved in the formation of a Wine Future Fund delivering promised benefits of $4m/annum to R&D. There is no detail of how this would be achieved other than it would be a combination of government, industry and private investment. If an opportunity really existed, then entrepreneurial private equity entities would already be doing it. Private equity is trying to exit the wine industry. It is extremely naïve and dangerous for a statutory body to be promoting an investment scheme that is unlikely to succeed, further eroding confidence in our fragile industry.
And what of the AWRI, the industry’s own research institute? It is only mentioned three times in the Plan. Once in relation to Sustainable Winegrowing Australia (p 27), and twice under international market access (p29).
There is no mention in the Plan of the world-leading genetic understanding and capability of AWRI that allows, amongst other things, the differentiation of grapevine clones and an understanding of yeast and bacteria.
There is no mention in the Plan of the core winemaking disciplines that have long provided the Australian wine industry with its competitive advantage based on grape and wine quality improvement. These disciplines will continue to be vital as our wines styles and consumers evolve with a changing climate. The microbiology, wine chemistry and stability, sensory analysis, plant physiology and genetics that are core disciplines for the improvement of Australian wine quality receive no mention.
Where does the plan cater for the cleverest wine scientists to look over the horizon and see, before anyone else, what is going to be front of mind in 5 years or more?
The absence of AWRI’s core scientific disciplines from the Strategic Plan is not just an oversight—it signals a deeper failure to uphold Wine Australia’s statutory responsibilities. The Plan’s near silence on AWRI, despite its globally recognised leadership and singular focus on advancing the Australian wine industry, reflects a troubling shift away from the foundational research that has long underpinned our competitive edge. As outlined in legal advice to the Concerned Elders, Wine Australia’s failure to fund AWRI at levels necessary to ensure its viability may be inconsistent with its obligations under the Wine Australia Act and the PGPA Act, which require the proper, effective, and ethical use of public resources to achieve the entity’s purpose. The Plan’s emphasis on co-investment and commercialisation—despite a historical lack of appetite or success in these areas—further distances Wine Australia from the practical realities of the sector. Without urgent recalibration, the Plan risks undermining the very research infrastructure that has sustained the industry’s global reputation and resilience.
The AWRI research team has been reduced to and arguably gone below the minimum resources required to deliver the full range of disciplines the industry needs and relies on day to day, when looking to the future, and in times of crisis.
There is no mention in the Plan of addressing this.
The Concerned Elders call for our representative Industry Bodies to support the AWRI and ensure its long-term future as it celebrates 70 years of support to the Wine Industry.
About the Concerned Elders
Louisa Rose, chair.
Members of the Concerned Elders include: Brian Croser AO, Andrew Caillard MW, Andrew Hardy, Andrew Weeks, Bill Hardy, Brian Walsh, Dan Eggleton, David Wollan, Di Davidson AM, Ed Peter, Eliza Brown, Garry Wall, Gary Baldwin AM, Geoffrey Weaver, Iain Riggs AM, Jenny Polack, Jeremy Dineen, Kym Anderson AC, Mark O’Callaghan, Mary Hamilton, Michael Fragos, Michael Hill Smith AM MW, Nigel Sneyd MW, Oliver Crawford, Peter Dawson, Peter Hayes AM, Peter Leske, Philip Laffer, Prue Henschke, Rachel Triggs, Richard Hamilton, Rob Bramley, Robin Day, Sam Connew, Sandy Clark AO, Stephen Henschke, Terry Lee OAM, Tim James, Tony Devitt, Virginia Willcock, Wendy Cameron MW.
We are not a closed group, and welcome anyone like-minded to join.
Are you a Daily Wine News subscriber? If not, click here to join our mailing list. It’s free!
Dining and Cooking