Currency (Perth Mint) Determination (No. 6) 2018

The direct entity affected is the Perth Mint, which is required to produce coins meeting the exact specifications in the instrument. The Perth Mint is a Western Australian government corporation, so the instrument affects its manufacturing processes, quality control, and inventory management. Coin dealers, bullion traders, and precious metal wholesalers are affected because these coins are products they buy and sell. The instrument defines the precise product specifications, so any deviation is a non-conforming coin. Collectors and investors are affected: they rely on the determination to know the exact fineness, weight, and dimensions of the coins they purchase. A $1 silver coin that is overweight or underweight by more than 0.500 grams would not comply with the determination, which may affect its marketability or legal-tender status. The Australian Taxation Office and Customs are indirectly affected: these coins are legal tender, so they may qualify for certain tax treatments (for example, exemptions from capital gains tax on personal-use assets if held for investment, or GST-free supply as investment gold under certain conditions). However, the determination itself does not alter tax law; it simply defines what the coins are. The Reserve Bank of Australia and the Royal Australian Mint are not directly affected because the Perth Mint operates under a separate legislative framework. Consumers who use these coins as gifts or collectables are affected: they pay a premium over bullion value for the design and packaging. The determination also affects counterfeiters: the detailed specifications (micro letters, specific designs, tolerances) provide markers for authenticity verification. The Australian competition regulator might be involved if dealers misrepresent the metal content, but the determination provides the official benchmark. Finally, the instrument affects the Australian government’s balance sheet indirectly: the Perth Mint buys precious metal, mints coins, and sells them at a premium, with the profit returning to the Western Australian government, not the Commonwealth.

The instrument imposes no duties directly on the public. Its primary duty falls on the Perth Mint: it must mint coins that conform to the specifications. Under section 13 of the Currency Act 1965, a coin that is not of the prescribed standard composition, weight, and design is not legal tender and may not be lawfully issued. However, the instrument itself does not create enforcement provisions; those are found in the Act. The Perth Mint has a right to produce these coins once the determination is registered. A holder of a coin issued under this determination has the right to use it as legal tender for payment of debts up to the face value (but a merchant can refuse any coin, and in practice no one will pay a $100 bill with a $2,000 gold coin). More practically, the holder has the right to sell the coin as a collectable or bullion item. The designs are copyrightable subject matter; the Perth Mint likely owns the copyright in the designs and can prevent unauthorised reproduction. The instrument does not grant any rights to third parties to use the designs. The determination also gives the public a reliable source of information: anyone can verify whether a coin matches the prescribed specifications by weighing, measuring, and comparing the design. This creates a de facto market expectation of conformance. The reverse designs include designer initials (e.g., “AH” for the kookaburra, “SD” for Stuart Devlin, “NH” for the whale, “IJ” for the dragon). This does not create a legal right for the designer but is a marker of attribution. The currency-design regulations under the Currency Act might also restrict how the effigy of Queen Elizabeth II may be used; the determination ensures the obverse designs comply.

The instrument itself does not prescribe penalties. Enforcement derives from the Currency Act 1965 and the Criminal Code. Under the Currency Act, it is an offence to make, issue, or use coins that do not comply with a determination without authority, or to deface or melt down coins (though there are exceptions for the Perth Mint). The maximum penalties under the Act can include imprisonment for counterfeiting or altering coins. The determination provides the specifications against which a coin’s authenticity is judged. If a coin is found to be outside the allowable weight tolerance, it could be considered not a coin of the realm and could be refused as legal tender. For enforcement, the Australian Federal Police and state police could investigate counterfeiting or fraud. The Perth Mint’s own quality control is the first line of enforcement: they must test for weight, dimensions, and composition. If the Mint produces a batch that does not conform, those coins may be recalled; the determination does not address that, but the Act likely requires the Mint to destroy non-conforming coins. There is a practical enforcement risk: the weight tolerances for the silver coins are relatively generous (1.58% variation), which means a significant quality spread is legally acceptable. This could be exploited by a dishonest refiner who under-weights the silver content within tolerance. Conversely, a coin that is slightly overweight might be rejected by a bullion exchange. The presence of micro letters and coloured elements makes counterfeiting harder but not impossible. The $2,000 coin with the attached dragon piece presents a unique enforcement challenge: the composite purity must be verified for each part. Counterfeiters might produce a coin body of 99.99% gold but a dragon piece of lower gold content than specified, or vice versa. The micro letter “P” is a security feature. The determination’s design descriptions also serve as evidence in prosecutions: if a coin matches the exact description, it is likely genuine; if it deviates, it is likely a counterfeit.

The primary interaction is with the Currency Act 1965, under which the determination is made. Sections 13 and 13A of the Act provide the authority to prescribe coin specifications. The determination effectively amends the Schedule to the Act, meaning the coins become part of the legislative framework of Australian coinage. The coins are also subject to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and relevant state legislation dealing with counterfeiting and fraud. The determination does not override the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). If a dealer sells a coin as having “at least 99.99% silver”, that is a representation that must be true; the determination provides the official benchmark. False representations could attract penalties under the ACL. The Tax Administration Act 1953 and related acts treat coins differently from unrefined bullion. Under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1999, the supply of “investment gold” (gold of fineness at least 99.5%, refined and in the form of a coin or bar) is GST-free if supplied by a dealer meeting certain conditions. The determination does not change that, but it confirms that these coins meet the fineness requirements for silver (99.99%), gold (99.99% or 91.70%), and platinum (99.95%). However, a 91.70% gold coin is not “investment gold” for GST purposes because it is below 99.5%. That tax distinction matters: the $25 and $50 gold coins (91.70% fine) are not GST-free as investment gold, while the $100 and $2,000 coins (99.99% gold) likely are. The determination is silent on this. Similarly, for capital gains tax, personal-use assets under $150,000 are exempt from CGT; these coins, if held for personal use, may qualify, but the exact treatment depends on the taxpayer’s circumstances. The determination also interacts with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 if the coins are offered as investments. The Perth Mint is regulated by ASIC as a financial services licensee for some activities. The determination does not grant the Mint an exemption. The coins are also subject to international trade laws. The Australian Border Force may classify them as currency or as bullion under the Customs Act 1901, affecting import/export duties. The $2,000 coin with an attached piece containing emeralds and diamonds may trigger additional tariff classifications under the Harmonized System, because it is no longer purely precious metal. The determination does not address customs issues. Finally, the determination interacts with the Commonwealth’s sovereign prerogative over coinage; the Perth Mint’s authority to mint coins is delegated by the Commonwealth via the Currency Act.

The instrument is self-contained and does not amend any other legislative instrument. It is one of a series of determinations made under the Currency Act 1965 by the Assistant Treasurer or delegate. The numbering “No. 6” indicates it is the sixth such determination in 2018. Previous determinations in the same year would have specified other coins. The determination came into effect on the day after registration (section 2). The instrument has not been amended since its commencement. The authority for the determination is found in section 5 (made for paragraph 13(2)(b) of the Act) and section 6 (made for subsection 13A(1)). These provisions allow the Assistant Treasurer to specify denominations and standard compositions, and to prescribe standard weights, designs, and dimensions. The determination does not revoke earlier determinations; section 5(3) and section 6(4) state that the instrument does not affect any other provision of a determination made for the same purposes. Therefore, earlier determinations remain in force for coins specified there. The instrument adds ten new coin types to the schedule. It is not known whether any of these coins have been subsequently superseded by later determinations that specify the same denominations with different designs. The determination also includes the year “2019” in the obverse and reverse designs of some coins, indicating they are dated 2019 even though the instrument was made in December 2018. This is consistent with minting practice. The instrument uses “JC” for Jody Clark’s effigy of Queen Elizabeth II, which was introduced in Australia in 2019. The determination has not been repealed; it remains in force until expressly revoked or superseded. Amendment history is otherwise uneventful, as is typical for such routine product specifications.

The determination has not been the subject of reported litigation. In general, currency determinations are rarely litigated directly, because they are administrative instruments that do not create rights or duties for private individuals. However, the Perth Mint has been involved in civil litigation regarding bullion delivery contracts (e.g., disputes over delayed deliveries and alleged repudiation), but those cases did not turn on the specifications in this determination. There is no case law cited in the determination, and no judicial consideration of its provisions. Theoretical bases for litigation could include: a buyer suing the Perth Mint for breach of contract if a coin does not meet the specified weight or fineness; or a prosecution for counterfeiting where the determination is used as evidence of the genuine specifications. In such proceedings, the determination would be an essential reference. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal could review a decision of the Assistant Treasurer if a person were aggrieved by the making of the determination (unlikely, since no private rights are affected). The High Court could review the constitutional validity of the determination (e.g., whether it falls within the Commonwealth’s currency power), but such challenges have not occurred for similar instruments. The determination’s status as a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003 means it is subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament, but there is no record of disallowance. The design elements (especially the use of the Queen’s effigy) have statutory protection and are not subject to private IP challenges. The determination itself might be used in a valuation dispute: a coin collector might argue that a coin’s market value is affected by whether it matches the specification exactly. But that would be a factual issue, not a challenge to the determination. Overall, litigation history is a blank slate.

Several features of the determination merit close attention. First, the weight tolerances are not uniform: silver coins have a relatively wide tolerance of ±0.500 grams on a 31.607 gram coin (1.58% variation), while gold coins have tighter tolerances (e.g., ±0.030 grams on 8.018 grams for the $25 gold coin, which is 0.37%). This means a silver coin that is 0.500 grams underweight is still compliant, but a buyer expecting exactly 1 troy ounce (31.1035 grams) would receive a coin that could contain only 31.107 grams (still above one troy ounce) or up to 32.107 grams. For an investor buying based on metal content, this variance matters: the silver coin could contain as little as 31.107 grams of silver (still above one troy ounce) but the wording “at least 99.99% silver” combined with the weight tolerance means the coin could be underweight by 0.5 grams without breaching the determination. That is acceptable under the law, but may be unacceptable to a bullion exchange that prefers coins within a tighter range.

Second, the $2,000 coin has an attached piece (Chinese dragon) that is only 76.29% gold, 1.4% silver, and 22.2% copper. The overall fineness of the entire coin is not specified; only that the coin body is 99.99% gold and the attached piece is a different alloy. This composite construction could confuse buyers who assume the entire coin is 99.99% gold. The determination does not require the overall gold content to be disclosed. The piece also includes an emerald and diamonds inset (reverse design R5 mentions “an emerald and diamonds inset”). Those gemstones may affect the weight: the specified standard weight of 324.166 grams includes the stones? Likely yes, but the determination does not state whether the stones are included in the weight. It says “in relation to the coin,at least 99.99% gold; and (b) in relation to the attached piece,at least 76.29% gold”. So the weight specification likely applies to the complete coin including the attached piece and stones. The weight tolerance is ±0.600 grams, which is fairly tight for a 324 gram coin (0.185%), but the inclusion of gemstones with varying weights could create quality control issues.

Third, the reverse designs include colour (e.g., “coloured stylised sunset, grass and a tree” for the kookaburra reverse R1). Colour on coins can fade, chip, or wear. The determination does not address durability; a coin that loses colour might still be legal tender but could lose its collector premium. The determination does not require any colour fastness standard.

Fourth, the obverse of the $25 gold coin (item 3) includes the year “2019” only in the reverse? Actually reverse R3 has no year, but O2 includes “2019”. The $50 gold coin (item 4) uses O2 and R4, both include year. But the $1 silver coins (items 1, 2, 8) use O1 which does not have a year on the obverse; the reverse R1, R2, R8 do include “2019” in the design. This inconsistency might cause confusion if a coin’s obverse lacks a year.

Fifth, the dimensions given are “maximum diameter or other dimension” and “maximum thickness”. These are not targets but upper limits. A coin could be slightly thinner or smaller in diameter and still comply, as long as it does not exceed the maximum. But there is no minimum dimension specified. This could lead to coins that are noticeably thinner than expected, though the weight tolerance would constrain that.

Sixth, the “allowable variation” applies to weight only; there is no allowable variation for composition (it says “at least” X% fineness, so the coin can exceed the fineness but not fall below). However, the determination does not specify a methodology for verifying fineness. In practice, a dealer would need to trust the Perth Mint’s assay.

For the Perth Mint, compliance is a manufacturing specification: each coin must meet the exact design, composition, weight within tolerance, dimensions within maxima, and edge milling. The mint should have documented quality assurance procedures to measure weight, assay purity, and verify design details (including micro letters, colour, and gemstone setting). Records of each production batch would be prudent to demonstrate compliance if challenged. The mint must ensure that the correct standard composition is achieved, especially for the composite $2,000 coin where the body and the attached dragon piece have different purities. For the obverse design, care must be taken that the text, effigy, and initials “JC” are clear. The reverse designs require precise reproduction of the artwork, including colour application and micro letters. The mint should consider the tolerance on the obverse die wear, as repeated striking may degrade details. For the public, compliance is passive: they do not need to do anything. However, for dealers and bullion exchanges, compliance verification involves checking coin parameters. A high-precision scale (capable of 0.001 gram) can verify weight within the allowable variation. A micrometre or calliper can check diameter and thickness (ensuring they do not exceed the maxima). Ultrasonic testing or specific gravity can verify fineness, though for gold coins, an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer is common. Design verification requires visual inspection against the detailed descriptions. The micro letter “P” on some reverses is a security feature; a magnifier or microscope may be needed. The determination’s descriptions are sufficiently detailed to allow a competent inspector to distinguish genuine from counterfeit. If a coin is found to be non-compliant, it should not be sold as an Australian legal-tender coin. It may be sold as bullion or scrap, but that would likely be below its collector value. For lawyers or compliance professionals advising clients buying these coins, the key file is the determination itself as the source of legal specifications. There is no obligation to report non-compliance, but a commercial buyer may have contractual remedies if a coin is misdescribed. The determination also implies that the Perth Mint has complied with all required regulatory approvals for the design, including the use of the Queen’s effigy under the relevant protocol. No application to the government is needed by the public. The only ongoing compliance burden falls on the mint, which must ensure that each year’s coins also comply with any updated determinations (subsequent determinations may add, remove, or alter specifications). Dealers should check that they are referencing the correct determination for the coin date.