The definition you quoted is not stated anywhere in proposed Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Act 2019. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 is only referenced with regard to digital currency. The proposed cash ban act clearly states "cash or cash-like products". It also refers to the Australian constitution "is or includes an amount of cash that is currency, coinage or legal tender for the purposes of section 51(xii) of the Constitution; "
Looking at the definitions at this link https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInf...egislation/bills/r6418_first-reps/0000";rec=0 it says cash means either or both of the following: (a) digital currency; (b) physical currency. digital currency has the meaning given by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 . physical currency has the meaning given by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 Is this not the correct link to the bill?
That definition comes from the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 which the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Act 2019 refers to (as per my previous post) when defining digital AND physical currency.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6418_first-reps/toc_pdf/19189b01.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search="legislation/bills/r6418_first-reps/0000"
Yes, and that pdf on page 8 of 16 says physical currency as per AML Act, and that Act says physical currency is defined as "circulates as, and is customarily used and accepted as, a medium of exchange in the country of issue"
What do you make of the "Additional constitutional operation" section (coinage or legal tender for the purposes of section 51(xii) of the Constitution)?
Sec 51 is just saying commonwealth has powers to legislate on currency. I think the "expressly confined to" mean that bit is to cover some unique case or loophole (not sure what that would be) and would not override the Act's explicit definitions. I don't think the drafters are aware of or care if they a aware that people could use legal tender bullion at market value and even if they did intend this by that section 19 then people could just use cast or minted bars.
YAWN: there is an EXEMPTION for ditgital currencies SPECIFICALLY Section 9 – Digital currency The fifth exception is for payments that only exceed the cash payment limit because the transaction involves a payment that is or includes an amount of digital currency. The exception means that only the amount of physical currency in the payment is relevant for working out if the payment exceeds the cash payment limit. Digital currency is a new and developing area in the Australian economy. Unlike physical currency, it does not have a firmly established regulatory framework or industry structure. This makes it difficult to apply the cash payment limit in a way that would not largely prevent the use of digital currency in Australia or significantly stifle innovation in the sector. At the same time, there is little current evidence that digital currency is presently being used in Australia to facilitate black economy activities. Given this, the Government has decided at the present time to effectively carve digital currency out from the cash payment limit. This position will remain under ongoing scrutiny to ensure that the exemption for digital currency payments remains appropriate in light of the current use of digital currency in the Australian economy. again will rocks your mental prowess or lack there of is showing clearly
like in the old time, when in the US, you can buy land and pay with that old gold coins and they are legal and binding what not, they are still the same some people does practice them
Could "accepted as" be manipulated to include legal tender bullion coins? Or is "circulates as" the important part here?
It has an "and" there so I think it need both circulates and accepted. Often the purpose of the inclusion of these wordings is to carve out numismatic coins, which can be legal tender just like bullion coins. I don't think the drafters of the bill are thinking about bullion - this bill is highly related to AML and AUSTRAC so I think they just want to have it use the same definitions where possible, it makes it easier for the bureaucrats to administer if the definition of cash is the same across both laws.
Theyve already taken guns and freedoms in most places, next is the money when the people are powerless.
It's odd how many people actually enjoy paying with their phones. It's considered "fun" and "modern". Generations are growing up not knowing what it feels like to "hold it and own it". They're like fish in a fish tank.