United Nations Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No, 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection of Honour and Reputation , 8 April 1988, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html.

United Nations Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No, 18: Non-discrimination , 10 November 1989, para 7, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fa8.html.

ICERD Committee, General Recommendation No. 30: Discrimination Against Non-Citizens , 1 October 2004, para 4.

G20 Communiqué of the Meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, Sydney 22-23 February 2014.

See Human Rights Committee, Muller and Engelhard v Namibia , Communication No. 919/2000, views adopted on 26 March 2002, para 6.8.

For further information, please refer to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner's website at http://www.oaic.gov.au/.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Catalogue 5352.0 - International Investment Position, Australia: Supplementary Statistics, 2012 Table 1

Australian Bureau of Statistics Catalogue 5204.0 - Australian System of National Accounts, 2012-13

Reserve Bank of Australia website: Main Types of financial Institutions http://www.rba.gov.au/fin-stability/fin-inst/#adis

Australian Bureau of Statistics Catalogue 5352.0 - International Investment Position, Australia: Supplementary Statistics, 2012 Table 8

According to advice provided by the Reserve Bank of Australia to Treasury on 5 March 2014.

The Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income , which entered into force on 31 October 1983, and its Amending Protocol which entered into force on 12 May 2003.

That is, born in the US, but reside on a permanent basis in Australia.

Other than the Privacy Act 1988 , there are a number of other Australian laws that relate to privacy, for example, on telecommunications, data-matching, and anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism. This Regulation Impact Statement is only concerned with the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act 1988 was amended by the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012 . From 12 March 2014, Schedule 1 of the amending Act, that is, the Australian Privacy Principles, replaced the former National Privacy Principles and Information Privacy Principles. The Australian Privacy Principles apply to the handling of personal information by most Australian and Norfolk Island Government agencies and some private sector organisations.

Refer Press Release 2012/110 - Deputy Prime Minister & Treasurer, Wayne Swan - 7 November 2012.

Refer joint press release 017/2013 - Treasurer, Joe Hockey and Assistant Treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos AO - 6 November 2013.

Bermuda, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guernsey, Hungary, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Of these, only Japan, Switzerland and Bermuda have followed the Model 2 text.

G20 Communiqu è Meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors , Sydney 22-23 February 2014. https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/Communique%20Meeting%20of%20G20%20Finance%20Ministers%20and%20Central%20Bank%20Governors%20Sydney%2022-23%20February%202014_0.pdf

These entities and products are generally considered to pose a low risk for US tax avoidance by US persons. While most of these entities and products would fall within the FATCA regulations exceptions for such entities and products, their specific listing in Annex II guarantees this (thereby removing any potential compliance costs associated with confirming their FATCA treatment). Securing exceptions for Australia's entire superannuation industry (including superannuation entities and superannuation products) and Australia's government investment funds are key objectives from an Australian compliance cost perspective. Adapting the exception for small financial institutions to take account of the Australian context (including the potential proportion of New Zealand resident account holders), as well as expressly naming low risk Australian financial accounts (such as first home saver accounts), are also key objectives for Australian industry.

See OAIC submission to the Treasury, paragraph 20.

See OAIC submission to the Treasury, paragraph 21.

Treasury also contacted the Property Council of Australia on 4 March 2014 in order to get an appreciation of the number of its members that may be captured and exposed to FATCA compliance costs. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to get the data in the time available regarding the number and size of Property Council members that would be impacted, or the Compliance costs that they would be expected to incur. However the Property Council has indicated that pending internal validation, it is comfortable with assuming these costs would be akin to similarly sized businesses who are members of the ABA or FSC.

This cost is attributed to the yearly cost as calculated by: (Start-up cost ÷ 10) + yearly ongoing cost

This cost represents the difference between the status quo (take no action) Option 3 and Option 1. The status quo is estimated to cost $106.59 million per year.

This cost is attributed to the yearly cost as calculated by: (Start-up cost ÷ 10) + yearly ongoing cost

This cost is attributed to the yearly cost as calculated by: (Start-up cost ÷ 10) + yearly ongoing cost

This is the status quo.

Due to the complexity of Option 3 and industry's expectation that it will not be adopted, little data was available in relation to the true expected legal compliance costs. For instance, there could be significant costs associated with legal advice on the application of FATCA regulations themselves, closure of recalcitrant accounts and the legality and risks of waivers and both anti-discrimination and privacy law constraints. Contingency funds may also be needed for any legal challenges to actions by customers or other parties. In addition there are fundamental differences in the legal advice that would be required between Option 3 and the options which rely on an IGA. Both Option 1 and 2 would result in an international agreement, which would provide the legal authority to address existing domestic law impediments such as anti-discrimination and privacy barriers. An IGA would provide a legal basis upon which an entity could rely in order to comply with the regulations. This should therefore be taken as a conservative estimate.

ABA advice to Treasury on 7 March 2014