Australia’s government, under its ruling center-left Labor Party, has proposed a new crypto framework regulating exchanges under existing financial services laws and has promised to tackle debanking.
It comes ahead of a federal election slated to be held on or before May 17, which current polling shows is shaping up to a dead heat between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor and the opposing Coalition led by Peter Dutton.
The Treasury Department said in a March 21 statement that crypto exchanges, custody services and some brokerage firms that trade or store crypto will come under the new laws.
The regime imposes similar compliance requirements as other financial services in the country, such as following rules safeguarding customer assets, obtaining an Australian Financial Services Licence and meeting minimum capital requirements.
“Our legislative reforms will extend existing financial services laws to key digital asset platforms, but not to all of the digital asset ecosystem,” the Treasury said in its statement.
Small-scale and startup platforms that don’t meet specific size thresholds will be exempt, along with firms that develop blockchain-related software or create digital assets that aren’t financial products.
Payment stablecoins will be treated as a type of stored-value facility under the Government’s Payments Licensing Reforms; however, some stablecoins and wrapped tokens will be exempt.
“Dealing or secondary market trading in these products will be not treated as a dealing activity, and platforms where they are traded will not be treated as operating a market simply because of that trading activity,” the Treasury said.
As part of its crypto agenda, Albanese’s government has also promised to work with Australia’s four largest banks to better understand the extent and nature of de-banking.
There will also be a review into a central bank digital currency and an Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox in 2025, allowing businesses to test new financial products without needing a license.
Albanese’s government intends to release a draft of the legislation for public consultation. However, a change of government could be on the horizon with a looming federal election, a date for which is yet to be called.
Dutton’s center-right Coalition had earlier promised to prioritize crypto regulation if it wins the election.
The latest YouGov poll published on March 20 shows the Coalition and Labor neck in neck for a two-party preferred vote.
The Coalition leads for topline voting intention, while Albanese continues to lead as preferred prime minister. Source: YouGov
Caroline Bowler, the CEO of local crypto exchange BTC Markets, said in a statement shared with Cointelegraph that the areas of reform are sensible and would keep Australia competitive with global peers.
However, she thinks there “will be additional detail required on capital adequacy and custody requirements.”
“We need to ensure that these requirements aren’t overly burdensome for business investment in Australia,” Bowler said.
Kraken Australia’s managing director, Jonathon Miller, said there is an “urgent need for bespoke crypto legislation” to address the existing confusion and uncertainty in the country’s industry.
“We believe that by establishing a clear crypto regulatory framework and mitigating problems like debanking, government can remove the barriers hampering growth in the Australian economy,” he said.
Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.