"What transactions are covered by the cash payment limit? The limit applies to all cash transactions equal to or in excess of $10,000, except for those that meet the conditions specified in the draft Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash—Excepted Transactions) Instrument 2019. "
I don't think this is going to affect somebody paying for split rent in cash...
3) An entity commits an offence if:
a) [payments are made]
b) the payment is part of a series of payments …
c) [in cash]
d) as a result of the payment, the total value of all amounts of cash included in the payments in the series equals or exceeds the cash payment limit
Given that the supply in this context is housing for some short term (7/14 days) and a rental contract can be exited from with 21 days, I don't see how a low income individual could be charged with an offense. Every additional payment period would conceivably be considered a separate supply not the accumulative rental period.
This seems like a case where politicians are damned either way. People complain incessantly (but justifiably) about there being too many loopholes that allow rich people to evade tax, and thus avoid contributing to government revenues to fund things like welfare. The ability to operate in cash, even for large transactions and transfers, is one of those methods.
So then they propose a law like this and get attacked on the presumption that it is an assault on poor people, when there is no evidence of this being the case.
[1] My partner works in such a role in an Australian government, so I've seen up close, the exhaustive effort that goes into ensuring law changes like this don't negatively impact vulnerable people.
Your faith in the administration is sorely misplaced.
But these points have little relevance.
Public drunkenness laws are a state matter, nothing to do with the federal government, have been in place effectively forever, and these days are only ever enforced against people who are being violent or damaging property. They're hardly controversial.
(If you're talking about recent NSW lockout laws, I can agree these are stupid, but they have been implemented and applied as they were designed).
Your attack on the prime minister is grounded in religion, which is not cool.
The robo-debt collection scheme was obviously poorly implemented, but was part of an effort that began several years ago to use technology to make government more efficient. It has since been reviewed and reformed, a process that continues.
Regardless of which political party you prefer, or even which system of governance you prefer, governing is always a case of managing trade-offs and competing virtues, and can only ever be an effort to achieve the least-worst outcome, never an outcome that pleases everyone.
Throughout the world and throughout history, seeking efficiency and fairness in the taxation and welfare systems is about the most difficult thing governments have to do.
None of this means the tax laws under discussion can't be drafted in such a way that they accommodate the thing you're talking about.
The RoboDebt system has continually been refined but it is still broken, issuing debt claims that are wrong 20% of the time (where “wrong” is defined as “the recipient complained and upon review we found it to be an incorrect claim” rather than “we reviewed all claims and found that 80% of them were correct”). Nobody involved in the system believes it is fit for purpose, there is plenty of expert advice at all levels of government and welfare support stating that the system will lead to hardship and suicides. The government persists, so it can only be assumed that their intent is to cause hardship and drive people to suicide. This is not a matter of compromises being made, this is direction for the Minister that RoboDebt notices should be issued without review, knowing full well that doing so will have these outcomes.
Nothing that this government does is about efficiency and fairness.
Like I said, I'm no fan of this government or its leadership. For what it's worth I literally handed out how-to-vote cards for the other side in the last federal election, not that it should matter in this context.
But partisan, ideologically charged venting like this makes it impossible to have constructive and/or interesting discussions about the way government works.
"Broadly, the payments not subject to the cash payment limit are: •payments related to personal or private transactions"
If my rent is a personal transaction, what about my dope trade? If my million-a-year pot business is not covered what about my prostitutes and arms deals?