66. The representative of Australia agreed that there were some similarities between Hong Kong, China's proposal and the proposed draft decision. However, her delegation continued to think that it would be possible to achieve the outcome sought by Hong Kong, China in a cheaper and more cost-effective way.
67. As to the questions posed by Korea, particularly on the issue of special and differential treatment, she recalled a paragraph from the earlier joint proposal which said that that "the proposed system is entirely voluntary and would not impose undue burdens, thus satisfying the needs for special and differential treatment measures for developing and least developed countries. For the purposes of the proposed system, this would be a self-regulating special and differential treatment mechanism for developing countries and least developed countries that are concerned about their ability to participate in the system (bearing in mind that least-developed countries are not presently required to implement a system of protection for geographical indications)". Australia would be more than open to any further discussion with Members on the issue of special and differential treatment.
68. With regard to a question posed by Korea on the voluntary nature of the proposed system, she recalled the reference made by New Zealand on previous occasions regarding the Code of Good Practice under the TBT Agreement.
69. In response to comments made by the European Communities and Switzerland on the mandate, she said that in tabling TN/IP/W/10 her delegation was interested in moving the Special Session to the negotiation of a concrete and workable solution. She had not really heard much support for the view that TN/IP/W/10 did not fulfil the mandate. The TRIPS Agreement and document TN/IP/W/10 had as a common denominator the fact that they set forth minimum standards. As had been explained by Chile, the mandate was clear, and if there was any issue, it would be an issue of those who wished to go beyond the mandate.
70. In response to the suggestion made that the co-sponsors of TN/IP/W/10 should bridge the gap between the two approaches, she pointed out that such a responsibility rested with all delegations and that, as far as the co-sponsors were concerned, they had already made a serious attempt to that effect.
71. With regard to participation, she said that the history of this issue was that it had been difficult for the European Communities to get countries to participate in systems that had strong legal effects and the Lisbon Agreement was a clear example of that. She further said that there was a similar problem with the mandate for the negotiation: there had been no agreement that the system would be mandatory; that was why the co-sponsors had proposed a voluntary one.
72. With regard to comments made the European Communities that the new proposal contained changes compared to the earlier joint proposal, she said that this was inevitable when moving from a document based on principles to a document, like the present one, that was supposed to be a workable concrete draft legal text.
73. As to the issue of challenge procedures, Australia did not see any need to make a reference to domestic procedures in a document related to a multilateral system in the WTO.
74. As to the issue of transliteration, she said that it would be genuinely facilitative if transliteration were provided, since the goal of the system was to facilitate the existing level of protection. Australia would, however, be happy to hear comments on this technical issue from other Members, and in particular those who would be doing the transliteration.
75. As to the comments on the reliability of information provided by the proposed system, she did not see that information as any more or less reliable than, for example, information that was required as part of a TBT notification. In the TBT framework, a Member simply alerted the WTO membership to the existence of a particular measure. Other Members would then be free to decide what to do with that information.
76. Finally, on JOB(03)/75, her delegation said that it was in no way a basis for future discussions.
