Archive

Archive for November, 2016

James Halliday as Wine Australia would censor him

November 14th, 2016 Comments off

The repressive attack on freedom of speech by Wine Australia has not yet reached the level of stopping wine journalists giving sensible information to consumers. But should a wine maker or retailer dare to quote the words of James Halliday, the country’s most famous wine writer, they would face two years in jail.
To give you an idea of just how ridiculously draconian Wine Australia’s censorship powers are, we reproduce below how a recent Halliday column would need to be censored to conform with Wine Australia’s law.
And if you think you know what the blacked out words are, enter Censored by Wine Australia’s competition by sending your guess at what the illegal words are to:


richard@politicalowl.com. 

There are $50 wine voucher that can be redeemed at glug.com.au for correct and/or witty entries.
Click on the column to enlarge it.


Categories: Drinking Tags:

What is the name of the Sparkling Wine from East of Paris – up around Epernay?

November 14th, 2016 Comments off
By David Farmer
I returned to Tasmania in 1970 after 5 years overseas and was by then very interested in wine. Enough to find out what was happening in Tasmania, so father, who knew everyone set up a meeting with the Department of Agriculture in Launceston.
I was told viticulture had no future as it was far too cold but a ‘crack-pot’ was planting a vineyard at Pipers Brook and the location was worth going to see. I did not meet the ‘crack-pot’ Andrew Pirie but I did meet his brother David who was propagating vine cuttings. I also went to the La Provence vineyard.
So naturally I have followed with great interest the growth of the Tasmanian wine industry.
The early to late 1980s were ……….. years and over a six year period I led the pack that producers two award winners of the professional class of the Australian Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de ……….. (C.I.V.C.), Chris Shanahan (1983) and Adrian Marsden Smedley (1986).
Thus I know a lot about sparkling wines and ……….., enough to tell you that the cheap French cooperative ……….. which have been flooding the local market are not worth your money. These are the ones with oddly familiar but made up names and have the initials CM on the label.
Tasmania is the place where you should be looking and Wine Australia says: House of Arras, Delamere and Pirie. These are wines of breed and complexity: age-worthy wines that take the classic ……….. blend…..that makes them unique……The wines are sough-after (sic)… and offer a value quotient that puts equivalent quality ……….. or ……….. in the shade.
As readers know this site is censored by Wine Australia and since what I have told you is advertising copy not wine writing, the words which will offend you must be dotted out and this is true even when I quote Wine Australia.
I thank customers who have sent in emails of support and report that this stupidity continues. Alas I have a fear Wine Australia want to dilute your interests as a consumer.
If you would like your views on this absurd censorship to be known by the federal government that supposedly control Wine Australia then click the Send Email bottom on the top right and let the relevant minister know.
And email richard@politicalowl.com with the censored name i.n the headline and you could win a $50 win voucher from David Farmer’s glug.com.au business.
Categories: Drinking Tags:

Wine Australia chairman’s company breaking own law that carries a two year jail term

November 10th, 2016 Comments off

They might proudly call it Méthode Tasmanoise but the Hill-Smith family, who purchased Jansz in 1997, seem quite keen to stress a French connection. You will notice, for one thing, that their sparkling is made by the Méthode Tasmanoise rather than the Tasmanian method. But that’s a minor dipping of the lid to proper champagne compared with other French references on the Jansz website.  References like this:

In 1986, esteemed Champagne house – Louis Roederer partnered with the owners of Heemskerk Wines to produce Tasmania’s first premium vintage sparkling wine. They saw the similarities between the climate here and the famous wine region of their homeland.

And this:

It could be argued we’re completely mad growing grapes in the wild and unforgivingly cold Tasmanian environment. But there’s méthode to our madness.
The climatic conditions of the Jansz vineyard rival the famed French wine region of Champagne. In fact, it was originally with French contribution that Jansz became Tasmania’s first sparkling made using the traditional Méthode Champenoise.
Today we call it, Méthode Tasmanoise. It’s the essence of a partnership between the environment and our winemaker. Just as the cool Tasmanian climate creates spectacular beauty in nature, it is also instrumental in the creation of art in bottles.

All that’s quite accurate and reasonable in my opinion but that’s no defence under the draconian laws administered by Wine Australia. The Hill-Smith family, whose wines usually carry the Yalumba label, have clearly breached what Rachel Triggs, Wine Australia’s Legal Counsel, describes in this way:

Under the AGWA Act and Regulations, it is an offence to sell, import or export a wine with a false description and presentation, or with a misleading description and presentation (sections 40C and 40E respectively). This extends to advertising on a website and would extend to the use of third party material, such as articles by wine critics, used to present and describe your wine and subsequently to promote and sell your wine.
It is important to clarify the differences between ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ use, as the interaction between these two elements is often misunderstood. The AGWA Act clearly states that the description and presentation of wine is misleading if it includes a registered geographical indication and the wine is misleading as to the country, region or locality in which the wine originated. It is often argued that certain unauthorised use of a GI “could not possibly mislead anyone” and, therefore, should be permitted. The description “A Barossa version of a Cote-Rotie”, for example, makes it absolutely clear that the wine is from the Barossa, not from the GI protected for France.
However, the Act provides an addition level of protection where the use of a GI is false for the purposes of the Act. This places a blanket prohibition over the use of a registered GI in relation to a wine that did not originate in that GI, regardless of whether the use is misleading as to the origin of the wine (with some small exceptions).
Such exceptions include pre-existing trade mark rights, terms used as part of an individual’s name or winery address, and common English words. …
This situation was clearly explained when the Act was introduced to Parliament, notwithstanding the example used was ‘Chablis’, rather than ‘Cote-Rotie’. A description such as ‘Australian Chablis, Product of Australia’ could not possibly mislead a reasonable person as to the true origin of the wine but is false use of the Chablis GI and constitutes an offence under our Act.
Penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment apply in relation to false or misleading statements or (or in addition to) $21,600 for an individual, and five times that for a company. Cancellation/suspension of export licences may also apply where the wine is being exported and any interested party, including AGWA, may make an application for an injunction restraining a person or a company from selling a wine that uses a GI contrary to the legislation.

If you want to read all of Ms Triggs’s opinion you will find it HERE

This breach of the law should be highly embarrassing to Wine Australia’s chairman Brian Walsh. As the Corporation’s website notes, “Brian boasts a 24 year career at Yalumba, spanning roles of Chief Winemaker, Director of Production and Director of Strategy & Business Development as well as 20 years working in winemaking and management positions in McLaren Vale.”

It suggests to me that Mr Walsh is unaware of the law he is charged with administering. He should be urging the federal Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce to change the Act so that consumers can be given information that helps them make sensible wine buying choices.

Categories: Drinking Tags:

A US Presidential election prediction – Clinton 332 electoral college votes to Trump’s 206

November 8th, 2016 Comments off

When it comes to predicting election results I’m still a wisdom of crowds man although with so many media pundits now following the betting markets there is growing evidence of people trying to influence things purely because they have more money than the markets can comfortably cope with. That’s why when it comes to this US presidential election I’m using the Iowa Electronic Market as my guide to what the true wisdom is. That’s because the IEM, run by the College of Business at the University of Iowa, has a lot of participants but with sensible limits on how much any participant can invest.

As I am writing this at 10pm Canberra time the Iowa consensus is that Clinton will end up with 53.7 per cent of the two party (Democrat plus Republican) vote to Trump’s 46.3 per cent. That predicts that Clinton will do 1.7 points better than Obama did in 2012 and have a comfortable win.

Comfortable but not enough to do better than Obama when it comes to the number of electoral college votes. On the IEM prediction of the national vote, if it turns out overall to be uniform, the electoral college result would be identical to 2012 – Clinton 232 to Trump on 206.

I’ll go with the pluses in some states being cancelled out by the minuses in others so 332 to 206 is my fearless prediction.

Win free wine in the Wine Australia censorship contest

November 8th, 2016 Comments off

The federal government body Wine Australia has decreed that the glug.com.au website cannot use certain words when trying to give consumers an honest opinion of a wine’s merit. Thus thick black lines have started appearing on the small Barossa winery’s tasting descriptions.

Harem ‘Fatima’ Barossa Grenache Mataro 2012

Ben got a lot of pleasure from taking the initial building blocks and assembling them on the tasting bench to make the final ‘Fatima’ blend. The ‘Layla’ style of Grenache appeals to me and I am thrilled with the result, whereas the ‘Fatima’ is a deep rich,                              style which will last.

Grenache no doubt dates back to the 1830s and was much liked in the days of making fortified wines as it gives heavy crops with high sugar. Smart wine makers have been playing with the rich heritage of old vines left over from this time and at last the winemaking artistry has clicked with the vines awaiting discovery. The model is the famous wines of the                             ,                                               , and those now made in McLaren Vale and the Barossa, equal or surpass these wines.

This censorship madness sees Wine Australia threatening a two year jail term for the South Australian winemaker/retailer if he continues to use words on his website like those blacked out in the examples above. The offending words are not misleading about where the wine comes from or mentioned on a wine’s label. The Wine Australia bureaucrats argue that the very mention of specified words on a website or in a printed description of a wine is illegal under legislation to ratify an agreement between Australia and the European Union.

So what are the words behind the blacked out sections? The Owl has five $50 vouchers you can use at glug.com.au to give away for answers in his Wine Australia Censorship Contest.
Email your entries to richard@politicalowl.com. The Owl will reward entries based on accuracy, wit and wisdom.
Categories: Drinking Tags: ,

Wine Australia wants to censor small Barossa winery from giving consumers an honest opinion

November 7th, 2016 Comments off
Wine Australia is threatening to have a South Australian winemaker/retailer sent to jail for two years if he continues to use words like these on his website:

‘This Tasmanian sparkling wine represents far better value than most champagnes.’

The offending word is champagne even though it is not mentioned on the label. The wine bureaucrats argue that the very mention of the word on a website or in a printed description of a wine is illegal under legislation to ratify an agreement between Australia and the European Union.

 

By David Farmer

All wineries keep records which allows a check that wineries are doing the right thing and one role of Wine Australia is be the inspector or auditor.
It is unexpected that they also have another role which is to control the use of particular terms and phrases which are grouped under a banner called geographical indicators often shortened to GIs.
The Wine Australia email specifically mentions; Rioja, Champagne, Cote du Rhone (including Rhone), and Cote Rotie, terms I have used in my selling descriptions.
It goes on to mention that usage is also restricted for Australian regions.
For 35 years I have been aware that the French are very protective of the use of wine terms to which they feel they have ownership. This first flared up in the late 1970s when local wineries labelled light red styles as Beaujolais.
At the time the business Farmer Bros. was a big importer of French Beaujolais and of course sold the local ‘Beaujolais’ wines as well. I watched the buying habits of customers with great interest.
I can report customers never had a doubt as to which Beaujolais was French and which Australian. This observation has edged me closer to the school of marketing which says; all publicity is good publicity.
Another example is that in recent years the French have been aggressive in protecting use of the word Champagne.
As the exports of Australian wines began to grow part of the agreement to gain entry to the European Union was to phase out the usage of common European wine terms on Australian labels. In other words the European are wanting to protect what it believes is its intellectual property.
At some time later this trade legislation has been strengthened to restrict not only the use on labels but how these terms can be used in the media.
The Australian Grape and Wine Authority or AGWA which operates under the name Wine Australia, came into being on Tuesday, July 1, 2014 following the merger of Wine Australia Corporation and the Grape and Wine Research Development Corporation.
My suspicion is that at this time a blanket ban was placed into the legislation controlling the use in advertising, as distinct from wine writing, of the large number of agreed geographical terms or GIs.
Over the next few weeks we took advice from a number of sources and replied as follows.

Wine Australia replied on 16th September.

We took the approach of letting them tell us explicitly what the problem was and it came in this form.

This email interested brother Richard and he sent the following thought to a colleague on the 27th August:
The draconian nature of trade agreements between Australia and other countries is well illustrated by recent actions of the federal government body Wine Australia.
Wine Australia is threatening to have a South Australian winemaker/retailer sent to jail for two years if he continues to use words like these on his website:
‘This Tasmanian sparkling wine represents far better value than most champagnes.’
The offending word is champagne even though it is not mentioned on the label. The wine bureaucrats argue that the very mention of the word on a website or in a printed description of a wine is illegal under legislation to ratify an agreement between Australia and the European Union..
Categories: Drinking Tags: ,

Censored by Wine Australia – Surprise Email from Wine Australia Creates Concerns

November 4th, 2016 Comments off
Wine Australia is threatening to have a South Australian winemaker/retailer sent to jail for two years if he continues to use words like these on his website:
‘This Tasmanian sparkling wine represents far better value than most champagnes.’
The offending word is champagne even though it is not mentioned on the label. The wine bureaucrats argue that the very mention of the word on a website or in a printed description of a wine is illegal under legislation to ratify an agreement between Australia and the European Union.
 
 
By David Farmer
 
If I have learnt one thing after 41 years of selling wine it is that wine is easy to make but very hard to sell.
For over four decades I have gone about my business of copy writing which sets out reasons why the wine being described has appeal.
Since I have a vast fund of knowledge it is useful for customers to know what I think about each wine.
On the 17th August, 2016 an email from the legislative body Wine Australia and tagged ‘high importance’ was sent to myself and my wine making colleague Benjamin Parker.

This email is not about the wine in the bottle matching what is on the label or ‘label integrity’ but something else which says there are rules about what you can say in advertisements about a wine.
Not whether comments are misleading but that certain terms may not be used in advertising copy and that some of the place names I use are controlled or not allowed.
I sent a copy to my brother, Richard Farmer, a man with vast experience in so many areas.
Richard,

Is this to be taken seriously? eg at times I may mention in copy references to French DOC regions and Australian regions.

He replied thus:

I will have a look at the legislation that establishes Wine Australia and get back to you. In the meantime have a look at other websites – eg First Choice and Dan Murphy – and see if they are doing the same thing as you when it comes to comparisons and locations.

And a day later added.

I will have a look at some of Halliday’s writing. This is a real free speech issue. We can have some fun about bureaucrats going mad.

 
It seems that after selling wine for 41 years, Wine Australia is telling me to change how I sell wine, when I thought their job would be to help in selling more.
This email from the Wine Australia is quite disturbing since it implies censorship and believing this will interest Glug customers I will keep you posted.
Categories: Drinking Tags: ,

The bureaucratic hypocrisy of Wine Australia – do as we say not as our directors do

November 3rd, 2016 Comments off

Wine Australia is a federal government body supposedly under the control of the Minister for Agriculture and his Assistant Minister.  It is charged with regulating and promoting the local wine industry. The current aims of Wine Australia seem to be kowtowing to the French and supporting local producers who claim to be the fine wine people. The result of both aims is to prevent consumers being given an accurate assessment of the real merits of both imported and local wines.
Wine Australia is trying to prevent anyone who sells wine from giving advice about wines from one region compared with wines from another.
It is currently threatening my brother David Farmer, who runs a small winery in the Barossa, with a two year jail term because he dared to suggest, for example, that a Wrattonbury cabernet might be as good as one from Coonawrra. You will find the details on David’s website HERE.
Meanwhile, a member of the Wine Australia board, is committing exactly the same so-called offence.
Mr Edouard Peter, the Wine Australia board director who is the majority shareholder of Dural Wines that controls Kaesler Wines with headquarters, like glug, in the Barossa, has his company defying the same laws that sees the directors of glug are being threatened with the full force of the law and facing a two year jail terrm.

Tut, tut. The reference to Graves is in defiance of Wine Australia’s “geographical indications” law.
Go to jail. Go directly to jail and pay a tens of thousands in fines while you do so.
And cop another sentence for daring to mention Bordeaux in this description.

And while Wine Australia is on its Big Brother vendetta it better begin the prosecution of that other board member Brian Croser. Brian, poor fellow, has dared to use a prohibited word in promoting one of his products.
The mists of Mersault indeed. The slammer for you Brian.
Categories: Drinking Tags: ,

Australian opposition to Muslim immigration exaggerated – Roy Morgan Research

November 1st, 2016 Comments off

Source: Australian opposition to Muslim immigration exaggerated – Roy Morgan Research

In stark contrast to the widely reported Essential Research Poll in mid-September that claimed Australians opposed Muslim Immigration 49% cf. 40%, independent research by Roy Morgan shows Australians continue to support Muslim immigration (58% cf. 33%) as well as Asylum Seeker Immigration (66% to 25%).

Five weeks ago, Australians were bombarded with the news that we, as a nation, or the majority of us, did not want Muslims coming into the country – based on a poll by Essential Research.

I said at the time, in several interviews (Listen to radio interview with 2SER), that we believed it was highly unlikely that these results were true.  Roy Morgan surveys over several years from 2010 to 2015, showed majority support for Muslims, refugees and others immigrating to Australia. We believed it highly unlikely that sentiment would have changed so dramatically. The latest Roy Morgan Research showed indeed Australians continue to support Muslim Immigration, albeit with a reduced majority.

It is crucial that public opinion surveys on such important issues as this are independent and conducted with a sample which is truly representative of the Australian population.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: