85. The representative of Australia said that under the joint proposal there would be absolutely no cost to non-participating Members, which meant that those Members who did not produce wines and spirits or did not have anything to gain from this system would not have to bear costs. The costs of the joint proposal for participating Members, on the other hand, would vary, as Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement would give Members the freedom to determine the appropriate way of implementing this proposal within their own legal system and practice. Under Australian law, for example, decisions regarding the registration and protection of trademarks and geographical indications for wines and spirits were made by two bodies, namely IP Australia, responsible for the administration of Australia's Trademarks Act, and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC), which administered the AWBC Act. These bodies would be able to implement the joint proposal in a simple way, namely through the regulations to the already existing legislation with no need to neither change substantive law nor employ new staff. Most importantly, there would be no need to review the register, lodge reservations or enter into negotiations on behalf of every interested party in Australia that might be affected by the registration of a foreign geographical indication. This was significantly different from the EC proposal, which had legal effects both in participating and non-participating Members and would consequently pose serious burdens on those Members who themselves were not benefiting from the system.
