Some welcome economic news a long time in the making: Australia is one of 12 nations to strike a Trans-Pacific Partnership deal after eight years and against all odds. The agreement is the biggest since the World Trade Organisation began in 1995 and might end up being larger still if it works to set ground rules for more economy-boosting agreements.
The TPP covers 36 per cent of the global economy - bar China - and in theory gives Australia a better shot at benefiting from growth in the 11 other economies involved. 
While Australia did not get all it wanted, developing nations are still at risk from monopoly behaviour by large drug companies and the process was dangerously secretive, we did emerge unscathed on some of the potentially most dangerous provisions.
Trade Minister Andrew Robb deserves enormous praise for his negotiating agility against much larger nations. He claims the deal will deliver "unprecedented new opportunities in the rapidly growing Asia Pacific region, with its rising middle class, for our businesses, farmers, manufacturers and service providers".
Barring unseen flaws, the TPP will be a key part of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's much-touted optimistic, innovative economy with opportunities galore - ironically thanks to Mr Robb's efforts at the behest of then prime minister Tony Abbott.
The unity of purpose among the 12 nations puts enormous pressure on Beijing to join and make the TPP a baker's dozen. That's in Australia's interest, too. China can use the TPP to bolster its growth and reform program, although the strategic element remains touchy. Washington seeks to restore the so-called Pivot to Asia in the final months of President Barack Obama's tenure.
The deal involves Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.
The Australian Trade Minister went about his work with little fanfare - so little, in fact, that voters remain mostly in the dark about what's in the TPP for them. As the Herald said in   July, the confidential nature of the draft TPP texts made an objective assessment of the deal's lofty aspirations problematic. The normally reform-minded Productivity Commission has similar concerns about lack of transparency.
The detail will be out within a month. But we expect consumer prices should fall and the cost of exporting to TPP nations drop. Trade rules will be more consistent, which is crucial for service industries trying to tap new markets, and tariff cuts will make Australian products cheaper overseas.
Thankfully, Mr Robb held his ground against provisions that would have shifted power from governments to multinational companies. Business giants will still be able to sue governments under the so-called investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms of the TPP, with the devil in the detail.
At least Australia won a major victory to stop multinationals such as tobacco maker Philip Morris form using the TPP to stop Australian and other governments from legislating public health and some environmental policies that reduce profits.
Australia also helped to force Washington to back off demands to give big pharmaceutical companies a 12-year protection from generic imitators for biologic drugs. With the agreed waiting period five to eight years, Australians should get some cheaper drugs more quickly, although the TPP is a lost chance to ensure the Third World enjoys better access to low-cost medicines.
But the TPP looks to have curbed the power of state-owned enterprises, with protections for workers' rights strengthened, especially in developing nations.
Yes, some elements are disappointing. Australia wanted more for sugar growers and the US wanted to crack down on alleged currency manipulation, especially by Japan. Still, the global economy needs a boost. The TPP might provide that, as long as its benefits and costs are explained to the Australian electorate.
Every nation must ratify the deal.
Mr Obama faces a struggle. But at least the US International Trade Commission has to review the agreement's economic case. Then it can be legislated - assuming, of course, that the next Congress and president support free trade over cheap politics. Australia has a similar process with the detail of the deal to be made public for at least 20 parliamentary sitting days. Then a parliamentary committee examines the national interest. But there is no specific need for a cost-benefit analysis.
The Productivity Commission should have a role in conducting such an examination and reporting back. That way the TPP won't fall foul of public distrust in the essential process of global trade liberalisation and economic reform.