69. The representative of Australia expressed support for a simple, inexpensive and easy to maintain system, which had been suggested in the joint proposal. This would not be the case with the proposal for a system with a complicated opposition procedure. Furthermore, his delegation held the view that the opposition procedure could not be separated from the issue of costs. He noted on the basis of the Secretariat compilation that proponents of the opposition procedure wanted the system to automatically implicate all Members. With regard to the reversal of the burden of proof, there had been a lot of discussion in the Special Session: Australia had made it clear that it did not see any mandate or any need for altering the existing rights and obligations found in the TRIPS Agreement. Such a reversal would shift the burdens of the system from one set of producers with many geographical indications to protect to another set of producers with very few geographical indications to protect. This would be contrary to the mandate for this negotiation, and would also not be justified. It would not be acceptable to Australia.
