how much trade is being created by discriminatory trade deals relative to the value of trade diverted -- but there is no good reason for discrimination and therefore no good reason to sacrifice jobs and income through trade diversion. As Australian Trade Minister, I therefore re-embrace the second great Labor principle, the principle of non-discrimination. In negotiations with trading partners we neither seek exclusive nor preferential access to other countries' markets. I would like to be able to tell you that this is pure economic altruism. In reality it is because non-discriminatory trade agreements offer better long-run returns for Australia -- they are more likely to result in trade creation instead of diverting trade from other countries that, in the absence of tariffs, would be lower-cost producers. It's also worth mentioning that this approach doesn't mean Australia is obliged to repeat an error made in one concluded trade agreement in negotiating future agreements. Provisions that are in Australia's national interest obviously should be extended to other countries willing to settle high-quality, trade-creating agreements but those that are not in the national interest should not be extended to others for the sake of reaching a low-quality agreement. For example, an intellectual property clause which extends the duration of foreign copyright in one agreement and doesn't offer obvious economic benefits to Australia should not be part of a later agreement just because we had already used it. Many other countries do not embrace the principle of non-discrimination. We can encourage them but