Australia as a whole is heavily dependent on the primary sector, and the main benefits of a free trade agreement between the two countries have been seen as better access for Australian manufacturers to the large but heavily subsidised and protected US market. In particular, the National Rural and Regional Party campaigned strongly for the agreement to be extended to the export of sugar. The final provisions of the agreement did not go as far as hoped and, as a result, some sugar industry lobbyists, including independent Bob Katter, lobbied for the free trade agreement to be rejected. However, many, like the then Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, still felt that the deal was a net gain for Australian agriculture and supported ratification on that basis. According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the trade imbalance between the United States and Australia increased significantly in 2007. The United States has become Australia`s main source of imports, with goods and services imported worth more than A$31 billion. However, Australia`s exports to the United States amounted to only $15.8 billion. [12] It is still unclear what real benefits, if any, the agreement has brought. Before Clinton sent her to the U.S. Senate, she added two parallel treaties, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and also to allay the concerns of many members of the House of Representatives. The United States has required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to their own. [Citation needed] After much lively deliberation and discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 234-200, on November 17, 1993.

Among the supporters of the deal were 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill was passed by the Senate on 20 November 1993 by a vote of 61 to 38. [21] Supporters in the Senate were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Rep. David Dreier of California, a staunch supporter of NAFTA since the Reagan administration, has played a leading role in mobilizing support for the deal among Republicans in Congress and across the country. [22] [23] The United States had a trade surplus of $28.3 billion in services with NAFTA countries in 2009 and a trade deficit of $94.6 billion (36.4% annual increase) in goods in 2010. This trade deficit accounted for 26.8% of the total U.S. trade deficit in goods.

[89] A 2018 study on global trade published by the Center for International Relations identified irregularities in the trade models of the NAFTA ecosystem using analytical network theory techniques. The study showed that the US trade balance was affected by opportunities for tax evasion in Ireland. [90] Economists have generally agreed that the U.S. economy as a whole has benefited from NAFTA because it has boosted trade. [82] [83] In a 2012 survey conducted by the Global Markets Initiative`s Economic Expert Panel, 95% of respondents said that U.S. citizens benefit from NAFTA on average, while none said nafta harms U.S. citizens on average. [5] A 2001 review of the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States. [6] A 2015 study found that U.S. welfare increased by 0.08% due to NAFTA tariff reductions and U.S.

intra-bloc trade increased by 41%. [63] In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that “the overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to be relatively modest, largely because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were adjustment costs for workers and businesses as the three countries moved to more open trade and investment in their economies. The report also estimates that NAFTA has added $80 billion to the U.S. economy since its inception, representing a 0.5% increase in U.S. GDP. [85] The agricultural part of the agreement establishes the system for the abolition of most tariffs on agricultural products traded between the two countries. Export subsidies should also be eliminated if the product in question is exported to one of the two country Parties. The Australian government did not have a majority in the Senate and therefore needed the support of the opposition Labor Party, the Greens, democrats or independent senators to ensure ratification. .