WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
 WT/REG184/M/1  
2 October  2007  
 
 (07-0000)  
  Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Forty Seventh Session   
 
 
 
CONSIDERATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED 
STATES AND AUSTRALIA, GOODS AND SERVICES  
 
Note on th e Meeting of 13 September 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr J. Metcalfe (United Kingdom)  
 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document WT O/AIR/3031 and Corrigendum.1, dated 11 June 
and 6 July, respectively.  
2. Under Agenda Item B.II of its 47th Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(CRTA or the Committee) took up the consideration of the Free Trade Agreement between the 
United  States and Australia, goods and services.  
3. The Chairman  welcome d the representatives of the  Parties.  He proposed to deal with the 
goods aspect s first, followed by the services aspects.  The USAFTA  was signed by the United States 
and Australia on 18 May 2004 and had entered into force on 1  January 2005.  The goods and services 
aspects of the Agreement  had been notified to the WTO by the Parties t o the Agreement on 
22 December 2004 .  The USAFTA had been  notified  in the goods area  under Article XXIV:7(a) of 
the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article  XXIV of GATT 1994 as an 
Agreement establishing a free -trade area (WT/REG184 /N/1), and under GATS Article V:7(a) as an 
Agreement providing for the liberalization of trade in services within the meaning of Article V of the 
GATS (S/C/N/310).   The text of the Agreement had been  circulated to Members  as document 
WT/REG184/1, and was  also available, together with its Annexes, on the Parties' official websites . 
4. The Factual P resentations on both the goods and servic es aspects of the Agreement had  been 
prepared by the Secretariat in accordance with paragraph 7(b) of the Transparency Mechan ism (TM) 
for Regional Trade Agreements (document WT/L/671) at th e request of the Parties.  The Factual 
Presentation on trade in goods (document WT/REG184/3 dated 11 June 2007 ) had  been drawn up by 
the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility in full consu ltation with the Parties.  In addition, 
written questions and replies on t he U.S. -Australia Agreement had been  recently distributed in 
document WT/REG184/5 dated 3 September 2007 .  He drew Members' attention to the fact that in the  
document some sentences which should have been in bold we re, ins tead, in regular type and thus were 
wrongly attributed to  Australia and the US.  A revision of this document would shortly be issued.    
Goods aspects  
 
5. He propose d to organize the consideration of the goods aspects of  the USAFTA by first 
asking the Parties and then other Members to giv e any general comments.  The Committee would  then 
turn to the specifics of the Agreement, using t he Factual Presentation, document WT/R EG184/3, to 
guide the debate.  He propose d to go thr ough the Factual Presentation section by section, followed by 
the questions and replies document.  WT/REG184/M/1  
Page 2 
 
 
  6. The representative of Australia  said he would address the Agreement as a whole, including 
goods and services aspects and asked Members to take on board commen ts relevant to services as part 
of the opening statement which may help save some time as well.  Australia welcomed the CRTA's 
consideration of the Australia -United States Free Trade Agreement and valued its work in examining 
FTAs to ensure that they met W TO standards and contributed to the WTO’s goal of closer economic 
integration between Members.  Australia and the U.S. had notified the Agreement to the Committee in 
2004 which had been scheduled for examination under the previous Committee process.  Howev er, in 
the interests of transparency and consistency of process, the Parties had agreed to delay consideration 
of the Agreement until completion of negotiation and implementation of the  TM. 
7. Australia’s approach to FTAs was in line with its overarching inte rest in advancing and 
supporting the multilateral trade system.  Australian policy was to enter into FTAs which were:  fully 
consistent with WTO principles and rules;  delivered WTO -plus outcomes;  comprehensive;  and 
provided substantial liberalization ac ross all sectors. This Agreement clearly had met these 
requirements.  It had set a very high level of ambition for the further integration of two open and 
sophisticated economies;  had met the robust WTO threshold requirement that it cover “substantially 
all trade” between the parties;  had sent a strong signal in support of an open global trading and 
investment environment;  and had important flow -on benefits, including for regional trading partners, 
by stimulating further trade and investment flows.  
8. As a comprehensive Agreement, the AUSFTA had been helping to expand a trade 
relationship in goods and services that had grown by 12 per cent to $ A 47.5 billion and an investment 
relationship that was worth over $ A 680 billion in 2006.  The FTA’s disciplines and  commitments 
included trade in goods, services, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, 
electronic commerce, telecommunications, standards and technical regulations and competition 
policy.  It aimed to deliver both improved market access  and greater transparency and certainty about 
rules and regulations governing trade and investment.  On entry into force, the Agreement had 
eliminated duties on 86.6 per cent of Australian tariff lines (equal to 97.6 per cent of US imports);  
81.7 per cent  of United States tariff lines (equal to 82 per cent of Australian exports);  and with 
virtually all remaining tariffs (agricultural and non -agricultural) to be phased out according to the 
staging categories set out in the FTA.  
9. The Agreement provided an op en and non -discriminatory environment for Australian and 
U.S. service suppliers.  It had bound liberal access for services trade across a wide range of sectors, 
including educational, financial and professional services;  the negative -list approach on serv ices and 
investment, whereby all sectors were subject to commitments except those that had been included in a 
list of reservations, had assisted the Parties to achieve substantial GATS -plus outcomes.  The 
Agreement also ensured regulatory transparency and would automatically make future unilateral 
liberalization of many measures a binding part of the Agreement.  Importantly, the Agreement had 
also put in place a framework to work toward the mutual recognition of professional services through 
the Professiona l Services Working Group.  
10. The FTA had reinforced the openness of Australian and U.S. financial services markets.  
Financial institutions and investors in financial institutions had been guaranteed an open and 
non-discriminatory operating environment;  the FTA was also allowing the Parties to explore closer 
integration of their financial sectors through the establishment of a Financial Services Committee 
(FSC).  By providing an open and secure investment environment, the Agreement would continue to 
promote h igh levels of investment between Australia and the United States.  It ensured open and 
non-discriminatory treatment for investors and investments from both countries;  prohibited a range of 
distorting performance requirements;  and provided important prote ctions for investment, through 
obligations on minimum standard of treatment, expropriation and transfers.   WT/REG184/M/1  
 Page 3 
 
 
  11. The inclusion of intellectual property had recognized the importance of a strong intellectual 
property regime to economic growth through trade and inv estment.  Australia and the United States 
had implemented IP protection through the Agreement that had set a high benchmark internationally.  
The greater harmonization of IP protection had facilitated bilateral trade and investment, by providing 
business w ith increased confidence and certainty that their goods and services would be protected.  
The government procurement chapter ensured non -discrimination in the conduct of government 
procurement so that each government afforded the suppliers of goods and ser vices of the other Party 
the same treatment that applied to domestic suppliers, goods, and services for covered procurements.  
For Australian companies and suppliers, this had created access for the first time to the U.S. federal 
government procurement mar ket and the markets of the 31 U.S. States who had so far signed on to the 
Agreement.  The FTA further included a mechanism to address issues relating to technical regulations 
and conformity assessment and a binding dispute settlement procedure to settle di sputes were they to 
arise under the Agreement.  
12. Recognizing the living nature of the Agreement, it was reviewed annually through a 
ministerial -level Joint Committee which the Australian Trade Minister co -chaired with his 
counterpart, the U .S. Trade Represen tative.  The inaugural Joint Committee had met in Washington in 
March 2006 with the second meeting held in Sydney in July 2007.  B oth P arties agreed that the FTA 
was making a significant contribution to the growth and enhancement of the strong trade and 
economic relationship between Australia and the United States .  They looked forward to a fruitful 
discussion and would endeavour, where possible, to answer additional questions as they arose.  
Australia also thanked the U .S. for its cooperation and assistanc e in preparing for the meeting.  
13. The representative of the United States  also welcomed the consideration of the Agreement by 
this Committee.  Like Australia, the United States believed the Agreement was in line with the United 
States' FTA policy.  It  was fu lly consistent with the P arties' WTO obligations and built upon their 
WTO commitments.  The high standards of the Agreement and its comprehensiveness reflected the 
two countries' commitment to free trade, openness, and transparency.  The P arties also viewe d the 
Agreement as building on their efforts to further promote trade liberalization within the WTO.  
14. The Agreement had generated economic opportunities for businesses, farmers, service 
providers, workers , and consumers in both countries , further reaffirmin g their commitment to open 
markets and economic liberalization.  In addition to the 19 per cent growth in two -way goods trade 
since the Agreement had come into force, two -way services trade was up 29 per cent.  The Agreement 
had also boosted investment, wi th U.S. foreign direct investment flows into Australia up 153 per cent 
since 2003.   
15. The United States appreciated  Australia's thorough summary of the Agreement's disciplines 
and commitments and also noted the following elements:   the Agreement had not onl y eliminate d 
customs duties on the vast majority of products, but had also addresse d a variety of non -tariff barriers 
that could restrict or distort trade flows.  In addition to the chapter specifically addressing financial 
servi ces, the Agreement had  a telecom munications chapter that ensured  non-discriminatory access to 
each other's pub lic telecommunication networks and open , transparent and competitive domestic and 
cross -border telecommunications markets.  
16. With respect to digital products, the Agreement i ncluded ground breaking rules prohibiting 
duties on and discrimination against digitally encoded products transmitted over the internet, 
including computer programs, video images, and sound recordings.  For software and other digital 
products that were phy sically traded, the Parties had agreed to apply customs duties on the basis of the 
value of the carrier medium, for example, CDs or other products.  The Agreement included provisions 
on facilitating authentication of electronic signatures, encouraging pape rless trading and maintaining 
and adopting on -line consumer protection measures.  WT/REG184/M/1  
Page 4 
 
 
  17. Both the U.S. and Australia recognized the value of transparency and the Agreement had set 
out requirements designed to foster openness, transparency, and fairness in the ado ption and 
application of measures covered by the Agreements.  Finally the Agreement contained trade -related 
labour and environmental provisions.  Australia and the U.S. affirmed the importance of not waiving 
or derogating from their domestic labour and env ironmental laws in order to facilitate trade or 
investment and had also committed to effectively enforcing their domestic, labour, and environmental 
laws.  Both Parties had recognized that cooperation enhanced opportunities for promoting the respect 
of lab our and environmental standards and would explore cooperative projects in those areas.  The 
Agreement's strong dispute settlement provisions provided equivalent remedies to enforce panel 
decisions under the Agreement regardless of whether they addressed th e Agreement's commercial, 
labour or environmental provisions.  
18. The Chairman  asked for general comments from other Members starting with the goods 
aspects of the Agreement.  
19. The representative of the European Communities (EC ) thanked the Parties  for their wr itten 
responses questions and their  helpful oral presentation s.  The EC acknowledge d that the 
U.S.-Australia FTA was very comprehensive, which would  be conducive to expand ing economic 
opportunities in both countries.  Indeed, a fully -fledged and far -reachi ng FTA should be the goal of 
two developed , and major , trading countries. However, she noted  with certain disappointment the 
missed opportunity for having negotiated a more ambitious agreement. Long transition periods for 
implementing liberalization c ommit ments did not belong in  a so-called ambitious FTA between 
developed countries. The  18-year transition pe riod for certain products provided by the Agreement 
was clearly a step backwards in terms of market openness.  In this respect, the EC hoped  that the 
Parties would reconsider this position in the future, and fully align their FTA provisions with their 
publicly expressed willingness a nd commitment to be champions of  fully fledged and ambitious 
FTAs.  Only then could  they claim to establish a good precedent  for other WTO Members to follow.  
The EC would be raising some follow up questions.  
20. The representative of Australia  said he would address the comment at a later stage.  
21. The representative of the EC had two follow -up questions on the reply to question 18 in  
document WT/REG/184/5 .  She asked the Parties  to elaborate further on the elements in the  Agreement 
they considered to be at the  cutting edge of trade liberaliz ation.   She also  asked them  to confirm whether 
they would consider agreeing to similar carve -outs of sub -sectors, such as sug ar, in future trade 
agreements.  With regard  to the reply to question 21  she asked why exports of sugar, despite not being 
covered by the Agreement, had increased from Australia to the U.S. in 2005 and 2006 and from the U.S. 
to Australia in 2006.  With regard to question 24, she asked why, when there were liberalization 
commitments taken on beef in the Agreement, bilateral trade in beef in 2005 and 2006 had declined in 
value with respect to 2004.  In addition, she asked whether  in 2005 and 2006 Australian beef exports to 
the U.S. filled the WTO and additional FTA tariff rate quotas.  She also requested data (numerical and 
percentage) on Australian beef exports relative to both the WTO and FTA tariff rate quota for calendar 
years  2005 and 2006.  Finally, she asked how the Parties considered that the textile and apparel -specific 
rules of origin in Chapter 4 of the Agreement, were no t unnece ssarily burdensome on exporters.  
22. The Chairman  requested that since the questions were specifi c and technical the EC provide a 
copy to the Parties in writing for them to respond to later in the meeting.  
23. On Section II.C, the representative of the EC wished to know that g iven the substantial 
liberalization  by Australia , at both Commonwealth and s tate levels of government  to comply with the 
chapter on government procu rement in the Agreement, why Australia did not intend  to acc ede to the 
WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).  She also asked whether Australia would 
have to take on significant additional comm itments were it to become a GPA signatory, given that it had  WT/REG184/M/1  
 Page 5 
 
 
  already implemented (or wa s in the process of implementing) a non -discriminatory regime at the 
Commonwealth and state levels of government .  On the reply to question 33, she asked for confirmation 
that by the end of 2007 there would no longer be, at the state and territory le vels of government in 
Australia any  remaining preferential schemes for domestic suppliers; and any remaining preferential 
schemes for certain foreign suppl iers, such as the United States.  Finally she asked about the outcome of 
the review of the government procurement chapter which had taken place in May 2007, whether the 
Parties had agreed to any further commitments and if  and when any additional federal agencie s, state 
governments, local governments, or agencies thereof, of either Party had become signatories to the 
Agreement .  On intellectual property rights, she asked whether the Parties could give an indication of 
the outcome of discussions that had been taki ng place in the Medicines Working Group.  She also 
asked about the frequency of, and participants in, these meetings.  
24. As before the Chairman  proposed deferring the questions until later to give the Parties time to 
consider their responses.  
25. On Section D, t he representative of the EC asked for details about any new market access 
commitments adopted by a Committee or Working Group.  
26. There were no comments on Section E, and Annexes I and II.  
27. The representative of Australia  clarified that late questions received  in writing from Canada 
had not yet been answered but he hoped to do so later during the meeting.   
28. The representative of the United States  had six observations in response to the EC's 
disappointment at the use of 18 year transition periods for tariff elim ination for some products and the 
suggestion that this presented some kind of legal or systemic concern:  first, as already mentioned, 
duties on over 80 per cent of each Party's tariff lines had been eliminated as at entry into force of the 
Agreement;  sec ond, as of year ten Australia would have eliminated virtually all tariffs on 
U.S. imports while the U.S. would have eliminated tariffs on 97.2 per cent of tariff lines and almost 
99 per cent of imports;  third,  the 18 year transition period applied only to  one per cent of U.S. imports 
from Australia and less than one per cent of tariff lines;  fourth, in the U.S .' experience, using long 
transition periods for a particularly difficult product in its FTAs whether with developed or developing 
countries had bee n a successful tool in ensuring robust agreements with maximum coverage.  The U.S. 
had preferred not to use total exemptions of the kind that had been seen in other agreements discussed in 
the Committee.  It was a historical observation based on the Commit tee's  review of many agreements 
that such exemptions could give an industry permanent protection well beyond the 18 years.  In contrast, 
a specific date for tariff elimination could give a sensitive industry adequate time and notice to adjust to 
liberaliz ed trade;  fifth, accordingly the United States had taken the Article XXIV standard very 
seriously and at the end of the transition period it should be noted that the Agreement contained written 
commitments to go to zero tariffs on 98.4 per cent of tariff lines and 99.9 per cent of trade;  finally, she 
hoped to see more agreements with such coverage being considered by the Committee.  
29. The representative of Australia  endorsed the comments made by the United States on the role 
of transition periods in the nego tiation of FTAs.   As Australia had made clear many times before, it 
had sought only high quality and ambitious FTAs and sometimes had also experienced that transition 
periods could be used in preference to the exclusion of complete sectors to achieve a hig h quality 
result.  On the question posed by the EC  related to question 18 in document WT/REG184/5 she 
reiterated that the Agreement was cutting -edge as it contained trade liberalizing measures that went 
beyond WTO Agreements;  in areas covered by the WTO, the Parties had undertaken substantial new 
commitments in areas such as telecommunications, e -commerce and intellectual property protection.  
Second, the Agreement also covered areas not yet addressed in the WTO in any detail such as 
investment and competi tion.  Other cutting -edge features included the negative list approach to services 
trade liberalization and the ratchet  mechanism whereby autonomous liberalization had been WT/REG184/M/1  
Page 6 
 
 
  automatically bound under the Agreement.  The second question from the EC had been whether the 
Parties would consider similar carve -outs of sub -sectors in future trade agreements.  She noted that the 
present meeting was concerned with the AUSFTA and not with any future trade agreements of the 
Parties.  On the question about increased bil ateral sugar trade in 2005 and 2006, she said this had been 
due to the affect of Hurricane Katrina on U.S. sugar domestic production and the resulting increase in 
the WTO TRQ for sugar granted to Australia by the U.S. for these years.  The EC had also aske d about 
the increase in U.S. sugar exports to Australia in 2006.  No analysis was available on this, but the parties 
considered this most likely due to regular market fluctuations.   In any case, she noted that U.S. sugar 
exports to Australia were very sma ll as referred to in the answer to question 21.  On the question about 
the decrease in the value of Australian beef exports to the U.S. since the entry into force of the 
Agreement, she believed this had been due to trade fluctuations resulting from increas ed demand for 
Australian beef in markets other than the U.S. and also reduced Australian domestic production due to 
drought conditions.  
30. The representative of the United States  responded to questions posed by the EC about 
TRQ  fill rates and import data.  Re garding U.S. imports of beef from Australia, it had been noted in 
the response to question 23 that Australia had shipped 3,000 metric tonnes in 2005 and 
296,000  metric tonnes in 2006.  As shown  in Table B.I.B of the factual presentation on page 35 and 
also provided in response to question 2, Australia's country specific allocation under the 
U.S. WTO  TRQ was 378,214 metric tonnes which suggested that Australia had filled 79.4 per cent and 
78.4 per cent of its WTO TRQ in 2005 and 2006 respectively.  Australia  did not use its TRQ under the 
FTA.   
31. The representative of Australia  noted in response to the question by the EC on rules of origin, 
that the Agreement had set out clearly defined rules of origin which the parties saw as being trade 
facilitating and appro priately easy to follow by exporters.  There was no certificate of origin 
requirement and advance rulings were available at the border to avoid delays, an important trade 
facilitation element of the rules of origin under the Agreement.  Neither party was a ware of any 
complaints made by traders.  On the next question which related to Australia joining the GPA, she 
took issue with the first question because Australia had long -maintained an open, transparent and 
non-discriminatory procurement system at both Co mmonwealth and State levels which had not 
changed as a result of the FTA.  Australia noted that the WTO GPA had recently been revised and 
was studying the details of this revision but Australia's position remained as it had indicated in it 
answer to questi on 32.  The next question asked what would happen to implementation efforts by 
Australia's state and territory levels of government which had until the end of 2007 to implement fully 
the government procurement commitments under the Agreement.  She noted th at Australia's States 
and Territories were still in the process of adjusting their non -compliant preference and off -set 
policies, but they would aim to meet the required deadline.  The next question from the EC was a 
follow -up to question 34 and asked abou t the review of the government procurement chapter 
undertaken by the Parties in May 2007, its outcome, and whether the Parties had agreed to any further 
commitments including the coverage by levels of government under the Agreement.  The operation of 
the F TA's government procurement chapter and implementation had been reviewed by the parties 
which had agreed that the chapter had worked well to liberalize trade between the Parties.  For 
Australia, the Parties had also considered the progress towards implemen tation at regional 
government levels, and technical modifications to the market access schedules had been agreed to 
reflect organizational changes (i.e. government departments that had merged or changed their names), 
but no additional agreements had been a greed.  The Parties had also agreed to look at ways to better 
capture data on government procurement contracts covered by the Agreement.   
32. Regarding the question on the functioning of the Medicines Working Group (MWG), she stated 
that the Parties had discu ssed and exchanged information on the issues set out in Annex 2 -C of the 
Agreement as per the MWG's mandate.  These had included certain transparency procedures on 
pharmaceuticals agreed between the Parties in the Annex.  The MWG's Standard Operating Proce dures,  WT/REG184/M/1  
 Page 7 
 
 
  which were publicly available, including on Australia's Department of Health and Ageing website, 
provided for the Group to meet once a year.  The MWG's agenda for both meetings was also available 
on this website.  The Parties' delegations to these M WG meetings had been led by senior health officials.  
33. The representative of the United States , responding to a question on the institutional 
framework, stated that there had been no new market access commitments adopted under the 
Agreement but the Parties c ontinued to review and discuss possibilities.  Once there was anything 
new, it would be notified as a change to the CRTA in accordance with the provisions of the TM.   
34. The representative of the EC thanked the Parties for their responses and asked if the an swers 
could be included in the minutes or as a room document.  The EC would not rule out further follow up 
questions but had nothing at present to add.  
35. The Chairman  confirmed that the questions would be included in the minutes and the same 
deadlines mentio ned earlier would apply for follow -up questions, namely 21 September.  He was sure 
the Parties would seek to reply to those by 5 October. He noted the consideration of the Goods 
Aspects of the U.S.-Australia Agreement had allowed Members to clarify a numbe r of questions and 
oral discussion of the RTA was concluded in accordance with paragraph 11 of the TM.  If any 
delegations wished to ask follow -up questions they were invited to forward submissions in writing to 
the Secretariat by 21 September and Parties were asked to submit replies in writing by not later than 
5 October.  In accordance with paragraph 13 of the TM all written submissions as well as the minutes 
of the meeting would be circulated promptly in all WTO official languages and would be made 
avail able on the WTO website.  
36. The Committee took note  of the comments.  
Services aspects  
 
37. The Chairman  noted that the Factual P resentation (document WT/REG184/4 dated 4 June 
2007 and Corrigendum 1 dated 14  June 2007 ) had  been drawn up by the WTO Secretariat on i ts own 
responsibility in full consultation with the Parties.  In addition, written questions and replies on the 
services aspects of the USAFTA had been  recently distributed in document WT/REG184/5 dated 
3 September 2007.  He proposed to begin  the considera tion of the services aspects of the USAFTA 
with an opening statement if the parties wished to make one, followed by looking at the sections of 
the Factual Presentation as before . 
38. There were no comments on Sections I and II.  On Section II.B, the representa tive of the 
EC asked, with regard to the response to question 53 in which the parties had indicated that if 
measures for which they had taken reservations were liberalized, the liberalization would be 
automatically bound under the Agreement, if there were measures to which such rules did not apply.  
39. With regard to Section II.C, the representative of Switzerland  asked for further details on 
paragraph 29 of the Factual Presentation which had referred to two reservations taken by the parties in 
Annex II to the Agreement.  The first reservation by Australia which concerned Mode 4 measures at 
the regional level had not been mentioned in the paragraph.  He noted that such measures on Mode 4 
were included in commitments under the GATS.  A similar reservation by the U.S. which covered all 
modes of delivery and at all levels of government did not provide additional market access to that 
granted under the GATS.  He asked whether there were other provisions in the agreement which 
would provide better market access than t hat granted multilaterally both with regard to mode 4 and 
regional governments and other modes of delivery.  Second, was there a timeframe in which market 
access commitments were to be improved beyond commitments in the GATS.  WT/REG184/M/1  
Page 8 
 
 
  40. On Section III.B the represent ative of the EC in a follow up to question 57 asked whether the 
Parties could indicate which mutual recognition arrangements the Joint Working Group on 
Professional Services had finalized to date.  
41. The representative of Canada  reiterated that Canada had pu t forward questions on services 
and understood that answers in writing would be available shortly, for which he thanked the parties.   
42. The representative of the United States  responded to the question from the EC on the answer 
to question 53.1  The Agreeme nt had used a negative list approach under which all sectors were 
covered subject to a small number of finite reservations which had been outlined in the Annexes.  
Annex 1 contained reservations that were, nonetheless, subject to a ratchet commitment.  Ann ex 2 and 
Annex 3, Part B included a short list of other reservations.  The Parties' experience had been that 
using a negative list approach would maximize economic integration and encouraged a predictable 
and stable business environment.  In response to th e EC's question on the Joint Working Group on 
Professional Services she stated that no mutual recognition arrangements had been concluded, but 
discussions were on -going focussing on professional mobility in the fields of law, accounting and 
engineering.2  
43. The representative of Australia  drew Switzerland's attention to paragraph 34 as paragraph 
29 of the Factual Presentation did not cover the fact that there were two parts to this reservation for 
Australia.  The first reservation applied to the Commonwealth Government, with Australia reserving 
the right to adopt or maintain any measure with respect to the supply of the service by the U.S. 
supplier through the presence of natural persons of the U.S. in its territory.  This was not inconsistent 
with its obligat ions under Article 16 of the GATS as it was a market access reservation with respect to 
the supply of the service by a supplier through the presence of a natural person.  The second  part of 
the reservation which applied to regional governments was broader and applied to Modes 1, 2 and 4 
bearing in mind that the services chapter of the Agreement dealt only with those modes while Mode 3 
was covered by a separate chapter on investment.  She suggested that Switzerland could look at 
paragraphs 29 and 34 together  which might help them understand how the reservations worked for 
Australia.  The response to the question on whether there was any other provision providing market 
access above that in the GATS, was no.  However, there were other very important parts of t he 
Agreement in which commitments went beyond those in the GATS.  She also noted that the effect of the 
market access reservation had been to import automatically into the FTA any increase in GATS market 
access that had already been bound by the parties.   
44. The representative of the EC thanked the parties for their responses and asked if they could be 
provided in writing.   
45. The representative of Switzerland  thanked Australia for the detailed reply to the first question 
and reminded here about a second questi on about any timetable to increase market access 
liberalization beyond the GATS level.   
46. The representative of Australia  said that any additional market access granted by the parties to 
each other in the GATS negotiations would be automatically imported in to the FTA and she noted 
that the Parties' GATS commitments were already very broad and substantial.  There was, however, 
no particular timetable.  
47. The Chairman  asked whether the answers to questions raised by Canada were available.  
 
1 Please see document WT/REG184/6 for additional information.  
2 Idem .  WT/REG184/M/1  
 Page 9 
 
 
  48. The representative of t he United States  said they were still working with Capital and hoped to 
respond to the questions as soon as possible.  
49. The Chairman  noted that Canada had indicated that it would be happy to receive the 
responses at some point during the next few days.   The consideration of the services  aspects  of the 
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement had  allowed the Committee to clarify a  number of questions 
concluding oral discussion of the  RTA in accordance with paragraph 11 of the TM.  If any delegations 
wished to ask f ollow-up questions they we re invited to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat 
by 21 September  and Parties we re asked to submit replies  in writing by not later than 5 October .  In 
accordance with paragraph 13 of the Transparency Mechanism all wr itten submissions, as well  as 
minutes of this meeting would  be circulated promptly, in all WTO  official languages, and would  be 
made available on the WTO web site.  
50. The Committee took note  of the comments.  
__________