OK. That makes sense then. What he typed up is what the industry groups have been putting about for a few years and they just did a tour in which they passed out additional items, etc. They're going to be replacing their annual huge tasting with smaller regional tastings as well.
To the original question as to whether regional identity is important - IMO it's foolish to identify varietals with regions, which is the antithesis of what made Australia what it is, but it's not foolish to identify regional character.
While Australia has a winemaking history that goes back to some of the early settlers, for the most part, they were making wine for themselves, not to compete with the best of Europe. Regional identity is a concept central to European winemaking, but it is the result of centuries of warmaking, despotism, experimentation, trade, and much more, mostly having to do with politics rather than winemaking or marketing.
The Romans carried grapes and winemaking everywhere they went, but after the collapse of the empire, communities ended up more isolated than under the Romans. Consequently, local traditions grew up without reference to other towns or nation-states. Winemaking disputes that did exist concerned only the things close at hand. For example, they weren't growing nebbiolo or blaufrankish in Burgundy, so the rulers didn't have a choice between those and pinot noir. They simply selected between pinot noir and gamay and one became identified with Burgundy. Same with nebbiolo and so many other regional grapes. Garnacha is found in many southern areas close to the Mediterranean, likely carried by sea. Was it really the knowledge of viticulture that kept Portugese grapes from travelling the same route?
So regional identity as far as wine grapes is as much or more a product of accident and politics than a result of careful planning. Moreover, Old World wine drinkers tended to drink local products that became part of their traditions and cuisine. Still do - you don't find a lot of great Chinese food in the little towns of the Loire Valley. Or even much great Italian cooking. And I doubt that most Bordelais really collect much Gruner Veltliner.
For "New World" wine drinkers, if they came from a wine culture, those traditions were part of their own family past. In other cases, they were simply part of the romance of historic Europe. Americans who may not have Italian, German or French heritage are nonetheless drawn to the romance of the Tuscan countryside, or Rhine or Rhone valleys. In our heads we identify the varieties with the areas, even to the point that some of us try to convince ourselves that in the wine we can actually taste the chalk or limestone or slate or whatever is in the dirt.
The new world doesn't have any of that history and romance. Consequently, we're free to plant whatever we want wherever we think we can make a go of it. There is no real reason that Napa had to be devoted to cabernet sauvignon and at this point, it's just money that will continue that devotion because other grapes that might do as well or better will not bring the same financial return.
Same with shiraz in Barossa, which can produce pretty good grenache except for the fact that a few years ago the government policy was to tear out those great old grenache vines. It's not that the wine couldn't be good, it was about a political decision that made sense to somebody at that time. There's also no reason that they couldn't have been growing touriga nationale and identified that with Barossa, other than the fact that most people in the 60s had never heard of it. Australia makes pretty good zinfandel - where is that region going to be?
So associating grapes with the regions, which is part of this new Australian policy, is to me a silly exercise. The Brand Champions, etc., I just don't get.
The idea that certain areas have certain characteristics does make sense. Margaret River is not the same as McLaren Vale and regardless of the grape, it should have some identifying character. In that sense, the Wine Board is on the right track. To the degree that they care at all, most people simply equate Barossa Shiraz with Australian wine. There is much more to Australia. More logical to me would be to highlight the differences in the same grape, not to identify one varietal with a particular area. The first will highlight regionality, the second just seems too contrived and too much an attempt to replicate Europe. An Australis did not get where it is by copying the model of others.
So John in NYC, if you're doing the diploma, good luck. But be careful - you're not supposed to think too hard. I've looked at some of the tests and you need to be careful to answer what they want, whether or not you think something else. Best of luck.