Dr NELSON —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister outline to the parliament the nature and terms of the human rights clause proposed to be included in the framework trade agreement with the European Union? Would the Prime Minister also advise the House of the basis of the government's refusal to accept such a clause and its implications, if any, for Australia's trade relations with the EU and any other region?

Mr HOWARD —May I say in reply to the honourable member for Bradfield that the difference of view between Australia and the European Union on this issue is not a dispute over Australia's commitment to human rights. Australia's commitment to human rights is unequivocal and our record is second to none. The issue at stake in this dispute is whether or not Australia should sign a treaty which clearly links trade with human rights and which, if this clause were included, would allow either party to suspend the agreement or terminate it unilaterally on the basis of undefined criteria.

The European Union's draft framework trade and cooperation agreement has as its first operative article respect for democratic principles and human rights. The draft identifies these as the basis and an essential element of the agreement and also has non-fulfilment provisions.

The government's position is that the EU proposals are quite inappropriate in a treaty covering trade. They are unacceptable to Australia and ought to be unacceptable to any country that has the human rights standing of Australia. We have proposed the inclusion of our common objectives on human rights with the European Union in a political declaration. The government also considered that the draft agreement in its current form would not protect or advance the interests of Australia's business community, which of course is one of the main aims for such an agreement. The draft did not offer Australia the progress it sought on agricultural trade and in energy. If the opposition is arguing that we should have signed the agreement in the form desired by the European Union, it would have sold Australia and the business community of our country short.

The other point I would like to make—and I think it is important that it be made in the context of this debate—is that suggestions have been made that in some way the government's refusal to accept the human rights clause is related to a possible response by the government to the Wik judgment. Can I make it very plain to the House and to the Australian people that our decision in relation to the human rights clause requested by the European Union was taken months ago, and in fact taken several months before the High Court of Australia brought down its decision in the Wik case on 21 December.

I notice that the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs has criticised the foreign minister on this issue. It seems a very clear principle is emerging that whenever there is a dispute between Australia and another country, the Labor way is always to give way.