It is a burden if one does not have a bank account and wants to...

First 3 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Tumby

3,845 Posts.

596

24/08/19

23:27

Post #: 40136894
Share

Originally posted by dolcevita: ↑

tumby

I assume you're talking about the proposed cash limit on transactions?

https://*********.com.au/australian-government-proposed-cash-transaction-limit-invasion-of-privacy/

I assure you that the government has in-house lawyers who check for unconstitutional provisions at the earliest and the drafting stage of any proposed legislation.
Possible breach of s.92 of the Constitution would be among the matters they would look at.

What you have to consider is that the cash limit doesn't restrict the transaction itself, only that it cannot be conducted in cash.

The transaction can proceed by various means including electronic transfer. In this way there will be a full record of the transaction.

The idea seems to be to clamp down in the black economy. So to argue this you'd have to argue that there would be an effect on legitimate interstate trade.

There might be an effect on illegal or illegitimate trade, such as the drug trade. But is that going to be within the matters intended to be protected by s.92? Or trade that is seeking to avoid taxation.

I'd suggest it is implied in the Constitution that only legitimate trade is intended by the term. So, I'd suggest the answer to the issue, is this is likely to go ahead.

I would be very interested if I'm wrong on this.

Expand

It is a burden if one does not have a bank account and wants to do a $20,000 transaction in cash, implying that one requires to open a bank account can be seen as an impediment to trade, Muslims deal in cash, most do not trust banks, it may even be a religious statement as to do with money, interest and banking. Trading in cash is free trade thus there should not be any laws that curtails that constitutional freedom. The constitution is to protect the people from the over reach of government, restriction of trade by any means goes against section 92 in my eyes. Im sure it is only to coerce the poor public to shore up the banks so they have a buffer if the financial wheels fall off the trolley.
2 Upvote

Reply