121. The representative of Australia said that the proponents of a more burdensome system tried to convince other Members that what was to be a voluntary system as clearly indicated by Article 23.4 should actually have mandatory effects on all WTO Members. His delegation could understand why developing countries, particularly those that were not wine-producing countries, had expressed concerns about this interpretation. Australia shared those concerns. He recalled that proponents had tried to place emphasis on the word "multilateral" in Article 23.4 as overriding a much more specific language on voluntary participation. The word "multilateral" in itself could in no way be seen to imply, for example, compulsory participation on all Members. This was clearly not the intention of the negotiators of Article 23.4. Why otherwise would Article 23.4 make it clear that every Member was to be "participating in the system", and that protection would only be for geographical indications "eligible for protection in those Members participating in the system"? For his delegation, the use of the word "multilateral" in Article 23.4 took on no special significance other than to suggest that the system being developed would be open to all Members if they wanted to participate. As if to overwrite this view, the last phrase of Article 23.4 made a crystal-clear point that the system should be voluntary in nature. Some delegations had quoted selectively from paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration to imply that Ministers made a decision to force mandatory participation on the Membership. Again, his delegation rejected such an association out of hand. Paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration only contained a reference to Article 23.4, which was clear on the question of voluntary participation. Therefore, selectively pulling out parts of paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration to justify the case for a mandatory binding effect on all Members was inappropriate and misleading. It was clear that what the proponents wanted was a system where all Members would incur obligations under it. Where obligations were incurred, there would also be expenses and costs, not to mention regulation and the prospect of other unnecessary red tape. His delegation would therefore fully sympathize with many non-wine-producing countries when they asked why the register for wines should apply to them.
