On July 15, both houses of the U.S. Congress strongly supported the free trade agreement. The agreement was also supported by Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry. While the system is very effective at keeping many drug prices low, pharmaceutical companies in both the U.S. and Australia are cautious about operating the system, saying that higher drug prices are needed to finance research and development costs. U.S. pharmaceutical companies claim that Australians, when they ingest low-cost drugs, are essentially free of the cost of research conducted in the United States[8] This section contains that the two countries have agreed on conditions to ensure fair trade between telecommunications industries in each country. In particular, the rules exclude measures relating to the transmission or cable distribution of radio or television programmes. Australia as a whole is heavily dependent on the primary sector and the main benefits of a free trade agreement between the two countries were seen as better access to the large U.S. market, but heavily subsidized and protected by Australian producers.

In particular, the national party in the countryside and in the region is firmly committed to extending the agreement to the export of sugar. The possible provisions of the agreement did not go as far as expected and, as a result, some sugar industry lobbyists, particularly independent Bob Katter, insisted that the free trade agreement be rejected. However, many, like Peter Beattie, then Premier of Queensland, still saw the agreement as a net benefit to Australian agriculture and supported ratification on that basis. Economic theory suggests that bilateral agreements such as the free trade agreement lead to the creation of trade between the parties directly concerned, but also to divert trade out of third countries and offset all the benefits. Bilateral agreements can also undermine multilateral agreements related to the World Trade Organization. Partly because of these factors, the estimates of benefits produced by the ICE and used by the government have been challenged by most economists who have engaged in Senate committees that have looked at the issue, some of whom have concluded that the agreement would reduce Australia`s economic well-being. The chapter also sets out definitions that will be used throughout the agreement to ensure consistency. The chapter also reminds both countries that they must comply with WTO rules that apply so-called national treatment. “national treatment” means that each country treats goods imported from the other country in the same way as they are domestically manufactured goods. Free trade agreements (FAs) offer a competitive advantage to Australian businesses. By removing and removing certain barriers to international trade and investment, free trade agreements benefit Australian exporters, importers, producers and investors. In addition, this section describes customs cooperation to ensure the implementation of the rules of the agreement and outlines possible measures that can be taken when the exporting country appears to be acting in bad faith.