 Should there be standards regards environmental requirements? Do we just export our standards that we have in this country to be undermined overseas? And how do we get that balance right? I think it's a critical question to get broad community support about how free trade is free, how it is non-discriminatory, and how do you make all of that transparent? Obviously it's a complex issue. A trade agreement can't do everything. It can't achieve higher living standards. A trade union writes a brilliant environment and so on. There are various mechanisms that can be deployed, but I go back to the first principle of this, is that if through trade you can lift the living standards of trading partners, then you've got a better chance of improving the quality of the environment, for example. These things can be taken to two poles, I think. One is, and I haven't thankfully heard this proposition, that we shouldn't trade with countries that have lower environmental or labour standards in Australia. Well, there goes Australia is a trading nation, I suppose, there'd be one or two countries that would have similar ones. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, there are very tokenistic provisions that are put into trade agreements that seem to make some people happy and probably don't do much harm. I think that it is worth saying that the purpose of a trade agreement shouldn't be to encourage other countries to lower their standards and to compete on the basis of that. But I just come back to the view that a trade agreement can't do everything and the point was made earlier that maybe not everything that we do in economic interaction should be through a trade agreement. Hi, my name's Preeti, I'm from the Nikkei. I'd like to ask Dr Emerson, you were critical of the US FTA and the concessions that were made in the negotiations with the Japanese FTA. Given the domestic situation in Japan, isn't it inevitable large concessions will be needed by Australians, especially in the agricultural sector? Well, let's wait and see. We had a visit by the Japanese foreign minister who also has responsibility for trade negotiations. He flew through the night in the last week of parliament to arrive here on Tuesday morning and then flew through the night to get back home, outlining the basic policy on comprehensive partnership agreements and indicating that through that policy, Japan is genuinely interested in liberalising its agricultural trade. We're engaged now in discussions with Japan on that and, as I said in my speech, we don't do this just for the sake of it for people like Bruce Gospa here to whiz around the world and enjoy the high life because it's actually a punishing life but it is quite high, about 36,000 feet. But the point is, we're just not doing these for the sake of doing that for this sort of having a trophy on the mantelpiece saying, look, we've got a free trade deal. It's the quality of the content and we'll be engaging with Japan to seek a very high quality agreement. My criticism of the US-Australia FTA was of some elements of it. I don't say for a moment that there's no good in that agreement but I do think that everyone in this room and every politician and every trade union official and every business person has a right to make a comment on the proposed content of a proposed agreement and Tony Sheldon just did that. He's entitled to do that. And I just found that at that time, when I had something to say about some of the provisions, I had the coalition saying that proves that Emerson is anti-American and un-Australian and I really resent that. We had a question here and then one here. Harley, you're right, from climate sense. I have a question for Professor Hoda. You mentioned the potential for carbon tariffs if there's no agreement, sensible agreement on emission cuts. Could you elaborate on that, please, and the potential for trade wars from carbon tariffs? I think at present we have the situation that in two economies, both the United States and the European Union, they're working towards a legislation that will involve some sort of penalty on imports from countries which do not have the same levels of environmental laws and regulations. What they say is that unless we do that, we are putting our own economic operators at a disadvantage vis-a-vis our competitors. And the other point is that there would be a leakage of the carbon measures that they take, that is the climate change measures that instead of production in their country, they will go to some other sort of country. And so the world will not gain in net terms. That's why they are thinking of it. What I said on this aspect is that technically it is possible to take measures consistently with the broad principles of the WTO to impose such measures, although there are certain aspects of the rules which would be very difficult to comply. And ultimately, each case will go up in a dispute. What I was saying was that in a situation, in the situation that exists today in which many countries want developing countries also to undertake some obligations, this kind of measures taken, border carbon measures that are taken, would be in the gray area as far as the international WTO law is concerned. So instead of taking recourse to such measures, such border carbon measures, the best situation would be for having a compact, when the Copenhagen Accord must be translated into a proper compact, which lays down very clearly who has to do what. And once that is done, then maybe there will be no need for border carbon measures or there'll be need for it only if some country is not observing the compact. Trevor Rowe, I'd like to ask the minister a question if I could. Dr. Emerson, I applaud your commitment to the multilateral trading system. And I'll ask you, like your reaction to a really simple proposition, there was a propensity to support bilateral trading arrangements over the years gone by on the argument that the multilateral trading system had either stalled or the enforcement around the multilateral trading system had proven to be ineffective. Do you believe that bilateral trading arrangements and a multilateral regime can exist side by side? I think they can, but there are necessary conditions for that to happen. And if the bilateral trading arrangements are preferential and have no regard to, or little regard to the world trading rules, then to use the terminology, they become stumbling blocks, not building blocks towards the multilateral system. My own view, and this may be a misty-eyed view, is that we shouldn't give up on the global system. There is a lot of pessimism around the Uruguay around. And people were saying this is going nowhere past. And while it is true that the Uruguay around, I think lasted about seven years, and the Doha around is into its 10th year, I think, you're gonna obviously get more people saying, Doha's dead as a dodo and forget about it. Well, I'm not gonna do that on Australia's behalf. And we've been involved in, I think, meaningful, encouraging discussions. So we're going to really give Doha a red-hot go in 2011. Now that doesn't mean Australia can stomp our feet and tell everyone to do the deal. But if we've got the sort of credibility that I mentioned in my speech, because we have done this unilaterally, to say as almost honest brokers, I think there is a real possibility. I won't put it as a certainty, but we're talking about services, that could be the key. That we fix up any remaining disagreements in relation to the package that was put in 2008, then augment it with a group of different groups of services. That might give a country like the United States good enough reason to go to the whole Congress and say there's something in this for everyone in the United States. And at the moment, they feel that there's not enough that they can say to Congress people that this is good for America and also good for the poorest countries on earth. So I think that might be the key that unlocks it, but we'll give it a red-hot go. Could I just add something there? I think it's, I think agree absolutely with the minister. You have to keep going with the multilateral initiative. Unfortunately, we'll all have our down days as we've had a few in the last five years or so. But good bilateral agreements will help you eventually get to a multilateral solution because captivating everyone at one time is a very, very hard thing to do. And I think the process of change will take a little time, but you shouldn't just throw away the multilateral and go everyone bilateral because that will give you bad bilateral agreements. So hopefully running on two tracks with good bilateral agreements will eventually get us to a proper place, but it will take time. And now please could you join me in thanking our three very excellent speakers today.