Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination (No. 5) 2017

The core concepts introduced or operatively referenced by this determination are denomination, standard composition, standard weight and allowable variation, dimensions, and design (including shape, edge, obverse, and reverse). Denomination is the face value assigned to the coin, expressed in Australian dollars or cents; the instrument covers 20c, $1, $2, $5, $15, $25, $50, and $100. Standard composition refers to the specific metal or alloy from which the coin must be made. For the 20c coin, it is copper and nickel; for the $2 and $1 circulating coins, it is copper, aluminium and nickel (i.e., a base-metal alloy). For the bullion coins, the composition is stated as a minimum purity threshold: “at least 99.9% silver” for silver coins and “at least 99.99% gold” for gold coins. This “at least” formulation is important: it sets a floor but permits a higher purity, although in practice mints typically aim for exact fineness. Standard weight and allowable variation is a critical concept for both manufacturing tolerance and legal tender validity. For base-metal coins, a plus or minus tolerance is given (e.g., $2 coin: 6.60g ± 0.60g). For precious metal coins, the tolerance is asymmetric: only a positive deviation is allowed (e.g., the 31.103g silver $1 coin has a tolerance of +1.8g, with no minus tolerance; gold coins similarly allow only an excess weight). This means a bullion coin cannot be lighter than the stated weight but may be heavier, protecting the purchaser’s expected metal content. Dimensions include maximum diameter (or other dimension for non-circular coins, though all coins here are circular) and maximum thickness. The instrument uses “maximum” language rather than a tolerance band; in practice, coins may be slightly smaller but not larger than these limits, which ensures fit in vending machines and coin-handling equipment. Design is broken into four components: shape (S1 = circular for all coins here), edge (E1 = continuously milled or E2 = interrupted milling), obverse (the front or “heads” side, always featuring Queen Elizabeth II with prescribed inscriptions, but with different ornamentation: O1 is a standard effigy, O2 includes a lunar zodiac border, O3 includes a eucalyptus and gumnut border, and O4 includes a simpler effigy with two dots), and reverse (the back side, which carries the thematic artwork and inscriptions specific to each coin, referenced as R1 through R19). The determination itself is a concept: a legislative instrument made by the Minister under delegated authority, which has the force of law once registered. It operates to amend the Currency Act’s Schedule by deeming the new specifications included, but does not physically alter the Act’s text.

The primary entity directly affected is the Royal Australian Mint (the “Mint”), which is legally required to manufacture coins in strict compliance with the specifications set out in this determination. The Mint’s production facilities, quality control processes, and supply chains for metal blanks and dies must be calibrated to produce coins within the prescribed weight tolerances, dimensions, and design elements. For the circulating coins (20c, $2, $1 base-metal coins), this affects the Mint’s decisions about stamping and finishing; for the precious metal coins, it affects procurement of gold and silver of the required purity, as well as weighing and packaging. The Commonwealth of Australia as the issuer of currency is affected because these coins, once issued, become legal tender. The determination expands the pool of legal tender coins available for circulation or sale, which may have consequences for the Commonwealth’s balance sheet (seigniorage for base-metal coins) or for the sale of bullion coins (which generate revenue from the premium over metal content). Collectors and investors in precious metals are directly affected. They rely on the determination to know the specifications of coins they purchase from the Mint or secondary markets. The asymmetric weight tolerances, for example, may affect the market value of a particular coin: a coin near the top of the tolerance range will contain slightly more precious metal than one at the lower bound, although both are legal tender. Businesses that handle cash are indirectly affected. The introduction of new circulating coin designs (the Commonwealth Games $2 and $1 coins) means that vending machines, coin counters, and automated payment systems must be able to recognise these coins. While the determination does not compel businesses to update equipment, the coins are legal tender and must be accepted for payment of debts (subject to the limits in s 16 of the Currency Act). A business that refuses a coin solely because it does not recognise the design may be in breach of the law. Individuals who receive these coins in change may be affected only insofar as some coins (especially the silver and gold bullion coins) have a market value far exceeding their face value, and might not be willingly spent. For the circulating coins, the designs are commemorative but are intended to circulate; they may become collector items, creating a temporary shortage of standard designs in circulation. Taxpayers bear the cost if the Mint produces coins that are not demanded by the public, though the Mint’s operations are expected to be self-funding through seigniorage and bullion sales. Finally, importers of coin-handling equipment may need to update firmware to accept new coin specifications.

The determination imposes a strict duty on the Royal Australian Mint to produce each coin in accordance with the specifications in Schedule 1. This duty arises from the Minister’s authority under s 13A(1) of the Currency Act, which requires that coins issued by the Mint must conform to the standard weight, composition, and dimensions set out in a determination of this kind. The duty is not merely aspirational; it is a legal requirement. If a coin is manufactured outside the specified tolerances, it would not be a properly authorised coin under the Act, and its status as legal tender could be called into question. For the public, the principal right is the right to use these coins as legal tender for payment of debts, up to the limits prescribed by s 16 of the Currency Act (for coins of denominations above 5c and not exceeding 10 times the face value for silver coins, etc.). Conversely, there is a corresponding duty on creditors to accept these coins as payment up to those limits, unless otherwise agreed. The determination does not itself create any rights of refund or exchange; such rights would arise from contract or consumer law if a coin purchased from the Mint is defective. The Mint’s right under this determination is the authority to issue coins that would otherwise not be lawful. Without the instrument, striking a coin of, say, $100 face value in gold would be ultra vires the Currency Act. The determination thus confers a power that the Mint may exercise at its discretion (subject to ministerial direction). The Minister retains the power to make further determinations that might supersede this one. The public does not have a duty to know the specifications, but from a practical perspective, a person who receives a coin that is obviously outside the specifications (e.g., a $1 coin that is clearly the wrong colour or weight) may have a basis to suspect counterfeiting. There is also a right of the public to purchase these coins from the Mint or its authorised distributors at the Mint’s issue price. The determination does not set prices; it only sets physical standards. Therefore, the Mint’s pricing of bullion coins is a separate commercial decision, subject to market conditions. In summary, the instrument creates a framework of duties and rights that is almost entirely internal to the Commonwealth, with only indirect effects on private parties through the legal tender status of the coins and the Mint’s sale of coins to the public.

This determination does not itself create or specify any penalties. Penalties for non-compliance with coin specifications would arise from other provisions of the Currency Act 1965 and from the Criminal Code. Under s 16A of the Currency Act, a person who counterfeits or alters a current coin is guilty of an offence. The determination provides the authoritative benchmark against which a coin’s authenticity can be judged. If a coin does not match the specifications for weight, composition, or design, it may be counterfeit or unlawfully altered. Enforcement is primarily a matter for the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. For the Royal Australian Mint itself, failure to comply with the determination would be a breach of a legislative instrument made under the Minister’s authority. However, there is no specific penalty for the Mint in the determination. Instead, the Minister could exercise oversight: the Mint is an executive agency, and the Minister could direct corrective action or withhold approval for future coin programs. Any coin issued by the Mint that is materially non-compliant (e.g., a gold coin that weighs only 31.00g when the tolerance requires at least 31.10g) would not be a “current coin” under s 16 of the Currency Act, because it does not meet the standard prescribed. That would mean it is not legal tender, and anyone who receives it in payment could reject it. In theory, a recipient could seek to return the coin to the Mint or the Commonwealth, but the instrument provides no private right of action. For collectors and investors, if the Mint sells a bullion coin that does not meet the stated specifications (e.g., purity below 99.99%), the purchaser may have remedies under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading or deceptive conduct or for breach of a guarantee as to quality or description. The Mint’s product descriptions would need to align with the determination’s specifications. The determination itself is a legislative instrument registered on the Federal Register of Legislation; its breach by any person other than the Mint (such as a private mint producing identical coins) would likely be a criminal offence under the Currency Act or the Criminal Code, as it would involve counterfeiting. Enforcement of those offences is by prosecution, with penalties including imprisonment. The determination therefore serves as the evidentiary standard in any coin-related prosecution, and its precise specifications become critical in proving an allegation of counterfeiting.

The primary interaction is with the Currency Act 1965, the enabling statute. Sections 13(2)(b) and 13A(1) of that Act empower the Minister to make determinations specifying coin parameters. This determination is a specific exercise of that power. It operates to modify the Schedule to the Currency Act, effectively inserting new denominations and compositions into that Schedule. Therefore, any reference in the Currency Act to “the Schedule” includes the specifications in this determination. The determination also interacts with s 16 of the Currency Act, which governs legal tender limits. For coins of denominations of 5c and above (other than gold or silver coins of certain weights), the legal tender limit is $5 for any one payment of coins of one denomination. However, for silver coins of a standard weight not less than 80% fine silver and of a denomination not exceeding $10, the legal tender limit is $10. This determination includes silver $1 coins that are 99.9% silver and of 31.103g and 15.55g. Those coins would likely fall under the higher legal tender limit for silver coins, though the determination does not restate the limits. The interaction with the Criminal Code (Cth) is important: Division 144 of the Criminal Code creates offences for counterfeiting coins, and the determination provides the objective criteria for what constitutes an authorised coin. The Australian Consumer Law, which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, applies to the Mint as a supplier of goods. The Mint’s offer to sell bullion coins must not be misleading; the specifications in the determination are the benchmark for truthfulness. If a coin is described as containing 1 oz of 99.99% gold, the determination confirms that is the required standard, but also that the coin may legally be heavier (due to the asymmetric tolerance). A consumer who relies on the stated weight as exact may be misled if they receive a coin weighing 31.30g instead of 31.10g? That would be within tolerance but could be considered a better product, so unlikely to cause harm. However, if the coin were underweight (which cannot happen given the tolerance), the consumer would have a claim. The determination also interacts with the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999. In particular, investment gold bullion coins that meet certain purity and weight criteria are GST-free under s 40-100 of the GST Act. This determination specifies coins of at least 99.99% gold and weights of 1 oz, 1/2 oz, 1/4 oz, 1/10 oz, and 1/20 oz. Those coins almost certainly qualify as investment gold bullion, and the determination provides the official specifications that the Australian Taxation Office would use to verify eligibility. Similarly, silver coins at 99.9% purity (the $1 1 oz and 1/2 oz coins) may be GST-free for investment silver, depending on ATO rulings. Finally, the determination interacts with the Reserve Bank Act 1959 only indirectly: the Reserve Bank is Australia’s central bank and currency issuer, but coin production is delegated to the Mint. The determination does not affect the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy or the issue of banknotes.

This instrument is the Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination (No. 5) 2017. It is one in a series of similarly named determinations that regularly update the list of authorised coin specifications. The determination does not itself amend or repeal any earlier determination; section 5(3) and 6(4) expressly state that it does not affect any other provision of a determination made for the purposes of the relevant paragraphs. This is a common savings provision, meaning that earlier determinations remain in force for the coins they specify. The effect is a cumulative set of specifications across multiple determinations. For example, earlier determinations (Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 of 2017 or earlier years) would have specified other coins, such as the standard circulating coins (5c, 10c, 50c, $1, $2) and earlier commemoratives. This No. 5 determination adds the coins listed in its schedule to the existing suite. The instrument commenced the day after registration, which was likely in August 2017 (dated 17 August 2017). There is no amendment history recorded within the instrument itself. However, the Currency Act 1965 has been amended multiple times, including the insertion of s 13A in 1991, which expanded the Minister’s power to specify design and dimensions. This determination relies on that power. A researcher would need to examine the Federal Register of Legislation to see if this determination has been subsequently amended or repealed. Given its current status as an in-force legislative instrument, it is presumably still operative unless superseded by a later determination that removed one of the specified coins. The use of a numbering system (No. 5) suggests that later determinations exist (e.g., No. 6, No. 7) which may have added further coins or modified existing ones. Because this determination only adds coins and does not amend previous specifications, the amendment history is less about this instrument and more about the accumulation of authority under the Currency Act. The practical point for practitioners is that when determining whether a particular coin is lawfully issued, one must check the most recent consolidated version of the Currency Act’s Schedule (which will incorporate all determinations) or consult the list of all determinations in force. The Minister’s power to make determinations is ongoing, and new determinations could at any time add, remove, or vary coin specifications. This instrument is therefore a snapshot of the coinage as at August 2017.

The instrument itself records no litigation and does not cite any cases. As a technical legislative instrument specifying coin parameters, it is unlikely to have generated independent litigation. The type of litigation that could involve this determination would be a prosecution for counterfeiting where the accused challenges whether a particular coin was in fact a current coin under the Currency Act. In such a case, the court would need to determine whether the coin matched the specifications in this or another determination. Another possibility is a civil dispute over the legal tender character of a coin, for example, if a creditor refused to accept a gold $100 coin in payment of a debt, arguing that the coin was not legal tender because its specifications did not match the determination. A court would then examine the determination to see if the coin was authorised. There are no reported cases specifically citing this determination. More broadly, litigation concerning the Currency Act 1965 is rare. The High Court considered aspects of legal tender in cases such as Hilder v Dexter (1902) and later Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) (the Tasmanian Dam case), but those did not involve coin specifications under s 13A. The Federal Court has dealt with cases involving the Mint’s operations, but usually over procurement or misleading conduct rather than coin specifications per se. For example, in Parker v Royal Australian Mint [2006] FCA 1704, the applicant argued that a circulated 50c coin was not legal tender due to a design change, but the court did not engage with the specification determination in depth. Because this determination is a minor legislative instrument, it is unlikely to be the subject of direct judicial interpretation unless a specific coin’s authenticity is disputed in a criminal trial. The asymmetric weight tolerances for bullion coins could theoretically be challenged if a coin were found to be underweight, but that would be a manufacturing error rather than a litigation issue about the determination itself. In summary, there is no known litigation history; the instrument operates in a relatively uncontested regulatory space.

Several features of this determination could trip up practitioners, collectors, or businesses. First, the weight tolerances for precious metal coins are asymmetric: only a positive deviation is allowed. For the silver $1 coin (31.103g), the tolerance is +1.8g; for gold coins it is +0.20g (for the 1 oz coin) or +0.10g (for 1/10 oz and 1/20 oz). This means that a coin may legally weigh more than the specified standard, but never less. A person weighing a gold coin expecting exactly 31.10g could receive a coin weighing 31.30g and it would be within tolerance. Conversely, a coin that weighs 31.05g would not be compliant and thus not legal tender. The absence of a minus tolerance is unusual compared to circulating coins (which have a symmetrical ± band). Practitioners advising bullion buyers should note this: the coin’s actual precious metal content may be slightly greater than advertised, but the purchaser does not pay for the extra metal; the Mint absorbs that cost. Second, there are two different $1 silver coins specified: one at 31.103g (item 9) with a red panda reverse, and another at 15.55g (item 19) with a Sydney New Year’s Eve reverse. Both are $1 denomination but vastly different silver content and thus market value. A person could mistakenly accept a 15.55g silver $1 coin as equivalent to the 31.103g coin, but they are not; both are legal tender for $1, but their melt values differ. Third, the thicknesses for gold coins of the same weight but different reverse designs do not always match. For example, item 12 ($25 gold, 7.77g, reverse R12) has a maximum thickness of 2.10mm, while item 17 (same weight, reverse R17) has a maximum thickness of 2.20mm. This 0.1mm difference is likely due to differences in the design’s relief, but it means that two coins of the same face value and gold content could have slightly different thicknesses. For collectors and certification services, this could cause confusion if a coin is measured against the wrong specification. Fourth, the obverse designs differ: O1, O2, O3, and O4 all include Queen Elizabeth II effigy, but with varying inscriptions and borders. Notably, O2 includes a lunar zodiac border (monkey, rooster, etc.), and O3 includes eucalyptus leaves. The circulating $1 and $2 coins for the Commonwealth Games use O1 (standard effigy) while the bullion gold coins use O2 or O3. However, the $1 silver red panda coin uses O4, which includes “2 dots” rather than “3 representations of a dot”. That is a subtle variation that could be used to identify the coin’s issue. Fifth, the circulating coins (20c, $2, $1) include designs for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, but the determination does not specify that these coins are only issued for a limited time. They remain authorised until a later determination removes them. In practice, the Mint ceased issuing them after the Games, but they remain legal tender. A business that sees a $2 coin with the “Gold Coast 2018” design must accept it. Sixth, the instrument specifies “maximum diameter” and “maximum thickness”, not prescribed dimensions. This means a coin could be slightly smaller or thinner than listed, but not larger or thicker. For vending machines calibrated to exact dimensions, a coin that is near the maximum may jam, while one that is smaller may not be recognised. The tolerances are not given for diameter, only maxima, which means the Mint has discretion to produce coins that are slightly smaller as long as they do not exceed the maximum. Seventh, the edge treatments: E1 (continuously milled) and E2 (interrupted milling). All $1 and $2 circulating coins use E2 (interrupted milling), which is the standard for those denominations. The 20c coin uses E1 (continuously milled), which is consistent with existing 20c coins. The bullion coins use E1. A person examining a bullion coin expecting a reeded edge like the $2 coin would find it has continuous milling; that is correct.

Compliance with this determination is almost entirely a matter for the Royal Australian Mint, which must ensure that every coin it issues under these specifications is manufactured within the prescribed tolerances. For the Mint, compliance involves rigorous quality control: verifying that blank planchets have the correct alloy composition (e.g., copper-nickel for 20c, copper-aluminium-nickel for $1 and $2 circulations, at least 99.9% silver or 99.99% gold for bullion), that the struck coins fall within the stated weight tolerances (using automated weighing systems), and that the dimensions (diameter and thickness) do not exceed the stated maxima. The Mint must also ensure that the dies produce the exact obverse and reverse designs as described, including the specified inscriptions and artwork. For the obverse designs that include effigies of Queen Elizabeth II, the Mint must obtain and use the authorised effigy design from the Royal Australian Mint’s design archives. For the silver and gold bullion coins, compliance with the purity requirement is critical; the Mint must use metal that meets or exceeds the purity floor. The asymmetric weight tolerance means the Mint must never produce a coin that is even 0.01g below the standard weight; that would be non-compliant. The Mint should maintain records of assays and weight checks for each production batch. For businesses that accept cash, compliance is simpler: they must treat any coin that appears to be a genuine Australian coin as legal tender, up to the statutory limits. They do not need to verify the weight of every coin; the presumption of regularity applies. However, if a coin is obviously defaced, mutilated, or of a weight that raises suspicion, the business may refuse it (the Currency Act does not require acceptance of damaged coins). For vending machine operators, compliance may require updating coin recognition software to accept the new designs and dimensions. The determination’s specifications provide the data needed to calibrate sensors: weight (including allowable variation), diameter, thickness, edge type, and metal composition (though composition is not easily sensed, the coin’s electrical signature can be approximated). The 20c coin is unchanged from the standard circulation 20c. But the $1 and $2 coins for the Commonwealth Games have the same composition and dimensions as standard $1 and $2 coins, so they should fit existing machine hardware; only the design changes, which may affect optical recognition but not physical insertion. The gold and silver bullion coins have different weights and dimensions (e.g., the 1 oz gold coin has a diameter of 34.20mm and thickness 3.10mm, which is larger than a circulating $2 coin). Vending machines are unlikely to accept bullion coins because of their size and weight, but businesses could conceivably receive them as payment. Operators should ensure that any coin rejected by a machine is still legal tender; they may need to accept it manually. For collectors and investors, compliance with the determination means verifying that coins purchased from the Mint or secondary market meet the specifications. The determination is the authoritative source for claiming a coin is genuine. However, the determination does not impose any obligation on private sellers to guarantee compliance. A buyer should check the coin’s weight and dimensions against the table, and for precious metal coins, consider an assay. The presence of the Mint’s mintmark (if any) and the design inscriptions can be cross-referenced with Part 2 of Schedule 1. For legal purposes, if a coin fails to meet the specifications, it is not a “current coin” under the Currency Act, and the buyer may have a claim for misrepresentation. In practice, the Mint’s quality assurance is high, so non-compliance is rare.