· The free trade agreement is sensitive to concerns expressed by some members of Congress and some U.S. agricultural sectors, and the agreement uses tariff quotas to address these concerns. · Engages both parties to authorize the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of counterfeit goods and unauthorized products as well as equipment used in their manufacture. In addition, there are plans to enforce goods in transit to prevent offenders from using ports or free trade areas to trade in pirated goods. In criminal and border matters, measures can be taken automatically to ensure more effective enforcement. o Beef: U.S. quota tariffs will expire over an 18-year period. Initial imports from Australia under the QRT quota will account for approximately 0.17% of U.S. beef production and 1.6% of U.S.
beef imports. Quota increases will take effect when U.S. beef exports return to their 2003 level (before BSE) or three years after the agreement comes into force, depending on what happens first. The United States and Australia will cooperate with international organizations on BSE standards. At the end of the transition period, price-based coverage will be available and designed to respond to disruptions in the high-quality beef market. · This is the largest immediate reduction in industrial tariffs ever achieved in the case of a U.S. free trade agreement, and will bring immediate benefits to U.S. workers and businesses in the manufacturing industry. U.S. producers estimate that the abolition of tariffs could result in $2 billion a year in increasing U.S. exports of industrial products. Special tariff quotas are part of the agreement.
These quotas allow Australian producers to export larger quantities of these products to the United States duty-free during the duty elimination period. The following agricultural products are named: Concern over the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has led to speculation that the U.S. side will make a strong commitment to repeal them as part of a free trade agreement. The government has been criticized, particularly by The Australian Democrats and Greens, for not doing enough to protect the operations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which the government has vigorously disputed. Some scientists (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) have argued that the provisions of the agreement would lead to higher prices for PBS-based drugs. However, the text in question was limited to procedure and transparency and contained no provision that could influence the price, which ultimately did not.