 Well, I am very much heartened and encouraged by the words of support of the honorable minister and I guess he is speaking for the government of Australia for unilateral trade liberalisation and for global non-discriminatory trade liberalisation. I think Australia has been the flag bearer among the group of nations which have supported free trade in agriculture and I think Australia has also been a leader in supporting initiatives for liberalisation of trade in non-agricultural products. So, these words today of Dr. Emerson are very much in keeping with the tradition of support for global free trade that Australia has always supported. As far as unilateral trade liberalisation is concerned I think we have to create an environment that supports and induces such liberalisation, unilateral. Unfortunately, that environment doesn't exist in the world today. If I give the example of my country, India, after the Doha round began India has reduced its peak industrial non-agricultural tariffs from 40 percent as high as 40 percent to 10 percent. Similarly, after the Uruguay round ended there has been a revolution as far as investment policy and services are concerned. From a time when almost all the major service sectors were nationalised industries that is not only was foreign investment not welcome but even domestic private investment was not allowed. From that situation in around 1995 we have travelled a long distance in which foreign investment is allowed virtually in all service sub sectors. There are one or two like multi-brand retail and the entire attention of some of our trading partners is on that one omission one or two. Whatever has been accomplished by way of liberalisation during the last 10, 15 years if I may use that word has been pocketed by some of our trading partners and they are asking for more to conclude the negotiations. Now coming back coming to the aspect of global trade liberalisation and economic integration arrangements there was a time in the not too distant past when trade policy officials abhor economic integration arrangements. In the mid 80s when the Uruguay round began a friends of the MFN group was formed to improve the multilateral framework for the conduct of world trade and to make it harder to create customs unions and free trade areas and two prominent members of this group were Australia and India. To this group a non-discriminatory framework of international trade appeared to the best to be the best as it enabled economic operators to buy from the cheapest and to sell to the dearest market. The efforts of this group made little headway and the integration in Europe was broadened and deepened and the US too the United States too pushed forward to form NAFTA. In 1991 when the Uruguay round was floundering many of us agonised on the prospect of the end of multilateralism and the world being divided up into economic integration arrangements. The Uruguay round succeeded and the WTO was established providing a reassurance that the multilateral trading system was alive. Nevertheless the world moved inexorably towards economic integration arrangements and nowhere more than in Asia. One count that I have is that 216 free trade areas, preferential trade areas and comprehensive economic partnership agreements have been formed in Asia alone, had been formed in Asia alone by 2009 and 166 of these were bilateral. The ASEAN has emerged as the principal hub and concluded agreements with all the major economies of the region, China, Japan, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Another notable feature is that in parallel with the broader agreement with the ASEAN as a group, these economies have concluded or are in the process of concluding agreements with member countries of the ASEAN as well. The debate is still alive on whether regionalism yields additional benefits or detracts from multilateralism. But regional integration arrangements are a formidable reality today and we need to go beyond the debate and devise ways in means and means in which maximum economic advantage can be drawn from them. Even the most ardent sort of supporters of regional agreements would agree that multiple and overlapping agreements diminish the benefits of economic integration arrangements. One big trade policy challenge before the Asia-Pacific region is how to ensure that large numbers of FTAs, RTAs and comprehensive economic partnership agreements coalesce into a big region wide economic integration arrangement embracing trade and goods and services as well as investment. To me it seems that the most advantageous way to proceed will be to consolidate the ASEAN plus six by the ASEAN partners, the six of them whom I name to form free trade areas among themselves to some extent this is already happening. But this would have to be carried to its conclusion to ensure that all these economic integration arrangements are assimilated into one region wide economic integration arrangement. Coming back to the global issues which are creating big trade policy changes and to which the honorable minister referred, I think these two need attention. In fact, they need greater attention of the countries of the region. I would like to under underline one important aspect in this connection. We should not be seeking trade policy solutions for every problem impinging on the world economy. The big problem of trade imbalance has roots in the macroeconomic policies and needs to be addressed through structural changes and not through trade action. Similarly, in the case of climate change what we need first is a deal on mitigation measures. Absent such a deal and the problem will be exacerbated through the use of border carbon measures. Let me conclude by saying that the biggest trade policy challenge is to restore the credibility of the multilateral trading system by bringing the doha around to a successful conclusion. For this to happen, the major players have to make another effort through additional concessions and also by resorting to wherever possible agreements among a limited group of countries constituting a critical mass. I won't bore you today with the potential areas and the financial services that I think give significant challenges. But what is very important is that the world continues to understand that trading, investing across boundaries is its future for growth and well-being and rising living standards across many areas. The thing that I think we must be very in some regards very fortunate where we are. Australia has an amazing opportunity to take advantage of the Asia growth engine. And we should first of all understand that the Asia growth engine is not just a story of the last 30 years. Over the last 2,000 years, all but 400 of those years, Asia was this most significant contributor to quote unquote global GDP. So we in the West probably need to reflect a little bit and understand what is going on. It's just a return to what was happening 400, 500 years ago. The emergence of a huge middle class in a number of countries, not just China, but in a number of countries, the movement of policy makers to stimulate domestic demand, places like Indonesia and India are probably further ahead of that than say China represent enormous opportunities. The urbanization that will go ahead not only in China where some 350 million people will be given access to an urban living environment over the next 20 years, but across all of Asia represents a huge opportunity to do this. And why is it that this is going to be, of course it's about rising living standards, but it's also about getting better balance in one's economy. Urbanization breeds domestic demand. Private consumption and demand for services will be huge growth areas. And this is something that in Australia that I feel is a massive opportunity and we at ANZ are clearly trying to take advantage of. Our position, our geographical position, our proximity to the market, how we are perceived by our Asian neighbors in the new world versus some of the more traditional areas represent amazing opportunities for this country to expand their businesses. Not only in agriculture and mining, but clearly in services. The people, people facet that we have started to breed through the educational services growth is a very good formula for which to breed future success. I reflect on two of our four biggest partnerships that we have and two of the chairman of two of the banks were actually educated in Australia some 20 to 30 years ago. So that people to people proximity allowed our business to create a relationship in a commercial basis some 25 years later. There are probably four key themes behind that that I think is important. Going forward I think the issue of trade agreements are probably something of the past. We must take a concept of business agreements over a wide span and I think the minister spoke a little bit about this. These business agreements must produce a win-win situation. It would be inappropriate for us to expect that it is win only for Australia and not for the other counterparty. That will be politically intolerable for any government to succeed to. These agreements can cover a broad range of trade, investment, flows of people, not just specific areas. I think one agreement that potentially could be of great interest is the Indonesian Australian agreement where it is very clear that the Indonesians and Australians are not talking about a trade agreement but rather a close economic partnership agreement. I think this is potentially the way of the new world to get everyone across the line. This will if correctly negotiated and both parties act responsibly could be of great significance to both countries as natural neighbors. What will also be required though as we enter these is I feel very strong political leadership not only by the trade ministers who are clearly batting out that side but by further cabinet and parliamentarians and policy makers right across the span, across the world. This is not aimed at one particular country and as I said in particular when you look at the current environment I think this becomes more critical. That strong political leadership that is required in order to stop a nationalist sentiment building in this area. I think what is also important that is we must understand that there will be certain sectors that globally become uncompetitive in a particular country. I reflect very much on the UK during the mid-80s where their mining sectors became clearly uncompetitive, probably were uncompetitive for 20 years and were supported by government subsidy etc. When the tough decisions were made though governments in the UK also realised the fallout that would happen on a human basis. So attracting investment as replacement for uncompetitive industries particularly if I take in the northeast the formation of some very competitive car plants from Japan in the late 90s which was helpful in allowing people to go along with the reform as their lives changed. I think we've seen that with reasonable success as our textile industry has slowly from a production basis moved into other areas and more into design, marketing, international distribution. What I also think is a second most important, another very important area is that there is an enormous opportunity with the neighbourly growth around the services sector. It will require though Australian businesses to be more bold and more tentative as to the opportunities that lie within them. Yesterday we were at the Asia link release of the services sector analysis of where Australian entities see the growth in the services sector. While it was at the headline impressive that we see that twice more interest in Asia than the rest of the world in the growth of our services sector, we have to understand that Asia is growing at four to five times the level of the rest of the world. Secondly we're coming off very low bases and the opportunity for us to create more than a mining and agriculture country definitively is there in my mind. We have the talent and we have the leadership in a number of areas, environmental services, architectural services, financial services, branding, marketing, etc. I can just talk about a recent visit by the Mayor of Tang Jing when he saw our new head office building in Melbourne. He was so impressed that he immediately co-opted and put on contract three Australian Melbourne firms who were critical in the design and the intelligence that went into that building for his environmental success. To me this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also important though is that we as a nation need to become business internationalists. It is my sense that we need to understand that while regulation and the government will do their part, we as business people need to understand how to run businesses across borders with a much more regard and perspective of where we trade and do business with. We must be able to be much more adaptive in our management style. We need to be able to find ways of how to commercially protect ourselves where legal environments are possibly not as sound as we have here in Australia. They can be done. Many international services companies have successfully grown over a sustainable period of time, fantastic businesses in environments which we would naturally say a high risk. If you manage them properly and you manage the risk properly and you understand the environments they are no more risky than dealing in an environment such as our own. The other thing that I think is important and the last thing that I think is important is that business also has an obligation to help government. Government and we have found DFAT has been an incredible assistance in helping us build our licensed franchises in a number of countries. But what is also important is that we participate in a business to business lobby. Business people across the world are the natural people for which to create and lobby for a much more open and free marketplace. It is important that people that we deal with are promoting that in other countries. It is also important for us to help government to identify the win-wins for our respective businesses. Arguments are put soundly across the negotiating table when dealing with business agreements in the future. It is us who best knows those opportunities that can allow for that win-win situation. It is also important that we play our role in lobbying at multiple levels within governments. If you deal in India it is an absolute requirement to work your way through the pyramid of influences in terms of government policy. And it is not acceptable in my view to throw your hands up and say what we can't get what we want. It is in business power to help explain the position. That's certainly the way that we've dealt in the last three years and certainly an enormous success. The last thing that I would say is that investment trade if you wish to call it services trade is actually very, very different from physical trade of production and mineral resources. Services trade in many regards requires big operations in country, requires lots of people in certain areas. For us setting up a branch network having 2,000 people sitting in Singapore or 1,000 people sitting in Indonesia is very different from exporting agricultural or mineral resources into another country. And that in itself is a win-win potentially for other governments to take handle of and promote internally within their own policy makers.