Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me first of all touch on the element of Mr. Menzies' question about criteria for looking at FTAs. This is beginning to sound a bit like a dance studio, but like Australia we look at a variety of possible partners. One of the key things we look at is long-term potential, and not just short-term gain. You have to be thinking ahead.
We've also taken a strategic approach when we've looked at FTAs. One example of that is one I mentioned, this P4 agreement we have between Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, and Brunei. That might seem rather an odd grouping, but what it does is provide a bridge from Latin America across to the Asia-Pacific region. One of our big concerns about the new emerging architecture in Asia-Pacific is that a line might be drawn down the Pacific that would exclude those countries in the Americas with a Pacific coast.
Beyond that, we insist that our FTAs be comprehensive, and they need to be transparent and open for others to accede to.
We, like Australia, are currently negotiating with China. That is very tough, because the Chinese initially had a whole bunch of issues they said they wanted to take off the table. We, like Australia, had to say, everything stays on the table; this is a negotiation.
Finally, on labour and environment, we always bring labour and environment objectives into our trade policy approach. It obviously poses complications when you're negotiating with, for example, a country like China, but labour protection and sustainable environmental issues are fundamental to New Zealanders' beliefs about themselves. These, again, are always on the table when we begin a negotiation.