FATCA and Australia – Part 1 of 2
January 2020: This thread continues at FATCA and Australia – Part 2 of 2.
Let’s Fix the Australia/US Tax Treaty! The Australia/US tax treaty needs urgent revision to prevent double taxation. Get involved at www.FixTheTaxTreaty.org
Posts on The Isaac Brock Society website concerning FATCA and Australia
For articles on other websites, see Media and Blog Articles
For general discussion of FATCA, see FATCA Discussion Thread
For links to some websites and contact info (government, organisations, tax information), see Australia Information Links
25: John Richardson and Karen Alpert Session in Brisbane Australia Oct 25, 2018
August 2018
01: U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and Netherlands form international tax enforcement group
January 2018
July 2017
March 2017
13: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Sad Stories of “IRS Compliant” Australians Shaun and Mary?
November 2016
30: “Solving U.S. Citizenship Problems” – Online January 9, 2017 (Australia)
August 2016
25: Let’s Fix the Australia/US Tax Treaty!
May 2016
15: Australia: Dealing with Superannuation
February 2016
19: #Australia funds America’s #FATCA #Ethnic Identification System
September 2012
27: Last Day to make a FATCA submission to the Australian Govt
August 2012
28: Australian Government wants YOU to tell them what to do about FATCA
July 2012
20: Australian Financial Services Council lobbies Washington for FATCA exemption
Alby: I can copy it from here. I’m sorry that I had not seen it posted in its entirety here before I wrote my comment. I had only seen reference to it on another thread. Thank you for your permission and my apologies for the confusion! I hope that the United Nations is going to provide the power that we all need to get the U.S. off our backs.
@Jakdac….in my neck of the woods I am treating it not as a tax problem but as a citizenship problem. That is providing more mileage. In my case I am demanding and making it otherwise awkward for the pols to refer to my kids as other than EU whilst present in the EU.
If Australia would state that US Citienship law stops at the border and Australian Citizenship Law begins at the border a lot of this mess would sort itself.
@George
Except that the AU politicians are USA boot-lickers. They want the same excessive greed to be okay here in AU as is happening & destroying the USA as we speak.
It’s ALWAYS about the money with these sorts. And by “money”, I mean, “ending up in their pockets”.
Alby,
I’ll echo the thanks of MuzzledNoMore for allowing your comment to be added as addendum to the UN Human Rights Complaint. I used your heartfelt comment yesterday at the Canadian litigation’s donation link: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/08/27/99929-needed-in-94-more-days-to-make-the-100000-august-4-2015-payment-for-canadian-fatca-iga-lawsuit-il-nous-reste-99929-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-78/#comment-6433979.
You have stood up for families like yours in Australia and, by extension, all over the world! Thank you once again!
@All
I feel this is a citizenship problem. I know the Australian MP and treasury just say we are US citizens, but Australia can fix this without the US. Australia can make its own laws and could do something through possibly treaty, citizenship act, a new Australian law not thought of yet?? that would protect Australian citizens from other countries claims over them because of nationality.
Correct me if I am wrong. An exterritorial interference is when country X forces country Y to change it laws to please country X. I think the MPs do not consider FATCA exterritorial as its voluntary to implement it. Simply do not implement any pay the withholding tax. I hope I am wrong on this point.
@AU
Yes it is a citizenship problem. You have to slam the point that you are an AUS citizen and have a copy of
your AUS citizenship certificate when talking to MP or treasury. We did the same, it sat in the middle of the table at the MP meet, and was referred to many a time. That is who we are, Australian Citizens, that we have relinquished from the US and swore an oath or affirmed loyalty to Australia. Bring out these points to the MP.
You are on the right track, the AUS govt can fix this by enacting retrospective legislation exclusion for US born AUS citizens and residents that have no connection with US and live here intertwined into the fabric of Australian community and society.
RE: We are, Australian Citizens, that we have relinquished from the US
If we received Australian Citizenship but STILL have our US passport we are STILL Americans correct
Unless you went through the proper renouncing ceremony
Am I correct ??
Funny the US is wrong re CBT thus this all drives us insane
@George
Have you ever spoke to an Australian MPs or Treasury with regards to the comparison of the Nuremberg Laws of the 1935 Nazi Party and FATCA? I have mentioned to Treasury and the Australian Bankers Association that singling a person out because that person is a US person is similar to when Germany singled out a Jewish person. They said that is totally different and dismissed my comments.
A focus should be on the wrongness of US double taxing superannuation. There are many dimensions to the injustices, I believe this the clearest injustice and the one most understandable.
https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/637776663351193600
According to the ATO Tax Treaties prevent double taxation. https://www.ato.gov.au/General/International-tax-agreements/In-detail/Tax-treaties/What-are-tax-treaties-/ No footnote here in regards to US Tax Treaty and tax treaty gaps. Thus, I believe the ATO has violated their own commitment to only provide accurate information.
The above is part of the misinformation that tax treaties prevent double taxation, thus a misconception of not broke no need to fix it. Such misconception certainly has played a part in the Australian Parliament voting for the tax treaty as they thought it all good.
I have tried to point this out to the ATO that they need a footnote and what they have is misleading for Australian residents who may be classified as US persons.
@JakDac,
Re:
If you have a US passport in your possession, but have not used it (it’s just sitting in a drawer waiting to expire) nor renewed it nor replaced a lost one, since taking Australian citizenship, possessing the passport does not mean you’re still a US citizen. For example, if one applies for a relinquishment-based CLN, merely possessing one (obtained prior to the relinquishing act) would have no impact at all on their claimed relinquishment.
If you have used/renewed/replaced it, that’s a pretty strong indicator that you would be considered to still be a US citizen. Not necessarily, as some people have obtained relinquishment-based CLNs despite this because they were bullied into or confused about using or getting one or– but it is a very strong indicator.
Re:
If you received Australian citizenship with the intent of relinquishing your US citizenship and have acted as a non-US citizen since that time, you relinquished your US citizenship. In that case you wouldn’t have to renounce. Basically you wouldn’t have a US citizenship to renounce, because you’d already relinquished it. So, you’d apply for a CLN (or self-document) based on, and effective the date of, the naturalisation.
This is advertised in the paper.
Australian Citizenship
National citizenship consultationshttp
http://www.border.gov.au/News/Pages/citizenship-consultation-your-right-your-responsibility.aspx
://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/discussion-papers-submissionshttp
://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/discussion-papers-submissions/australian-citizenship-your-right-your-responsibility#
The Australian Government wants to hear your views.
All
This was authored by one of us and also submitted to MP at meeting last week.
28 July 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Implementation of the FATCA Agreement) ACT 2014-Regulation Impact Statement)
The Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) was prepared by the Department of Treasury. We represent persons directly impacted by the bad law and unfairness of the FATCA Agreement. Following are excerpts from the RIS:
Australian anti-discrimination law
3.70 Australian Commonwealth law governing discrimination on the grounds of race is broadly intended to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. These obligations are to promote equality before the law for all persons, regardless of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and to make discrimination against people on the basis of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin unlawful.
3.71 FATCA requires the interrogation or closure of customer accounts based on US citizenship. A person’s citizenship refers to their nationality. The fact that FATCA specifically targets US citizens means it is specifically targeting certain persons, based on their nationality.
3.72 It is unlikely that this would be inconsistent with Commonwealth laws governing discrimination on the grounds of race. For the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and under Australian courts jurisprudence in relation to that Act, a distinction made on the basis of colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
3.73 A distinction based on nationality may, however, be inconsistent with some Australian State and Territory laws governing discrimination on the grounds of race, on the basis that, race is defined in these laws as including nationality (which would refer to citizenship). This means that, in contrast to Commonwealth laws governing discrimination on the grounds of race, it is generally unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s nationality in certain Australian States and Territories.
Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Section 10
“If, by reason of, or a provision of, a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin do not enjoy a right that is enjoyed by persons of another race, colour or national or ethnic origin, or enjoy a right to a more limited extent that persons of another race, colour or national or ethnic origin, then, notwithstanding anything in that law, persons of the first—mentioned race, colour or national or ethnic origin shall, by force of this section, enjoy that right to the same extent as persons of that other race, colour or national or ethnic origin”
FATCA does make negative distinctions in relation to information gathering and transmitting of sensitive personal and financial information which does not apply to citizens (race) of non-US countries. The different rules for information gathering and sharing should not apply in respect of citizenship. How the authors of the RIS can draw this biased and erroneous conclusion in 3.72 is demonstration of the unsoundness of the FATCA legislation.
West Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984
(from “terms used” Section 4) race includes colour, descent, ethnic or national origin or nationality and the fact that a race may comprise 2 or more distinct races does not prevent it being a race for the purposes of this Act;
Part 111—Discrimination on the ground of race
Division 1–General
36. Racial discrimination
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator) discriminates against another person (in this section referred to as the aggrieved person) on the ground of race if, on the ground of—-
(a) the race of the aggrieved person; or
(b) a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of the race of the aggrieved person; or
(c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of the race of the aggrieved person,
the discriminator—-
(d) treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances that are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person of a different race; or
(e) segregates the aggrieved person from persons of a different race.
Division 3—Discrimination in other areas
46. Goods, services and facilities
It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the grounds of the other person’s race—
(a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person; or
(b) in terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or
(c) in the manner in which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person.
(b) and (c) are specific to the terms and conditions of the right to privacy with financial institutions. FATCA Agreement’s collection of personal information—a person’s name, address, U.S. Tax identification Number, the account number and the account balance is not required for citizens of non-U.S. countries. The divulging of private information is clearly profiling bank account holders to be treated less favourably as noted in section 36 (1). This discrimination and interrogation to collect and transmit sensitive private information in respect of citizenship is unlawful when measured against Section 46 of the West Australian Equal Opportunity Act. The Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) in point 3.73 accepts that, “in contrast to Commonwealth laws governing discrimination on the grounds of race, it is generally unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s nationality in certain Australian States and Territories. The conclusion by the authors of the RIS that there is contrast between the Commonwealth laws governing discrimination in the case of FATCA legislation and that discrimination is lawful is not supported by Section 10 of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. Their admission that FATCA legislation is generally unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s nationality in certain Australian States is specifically unlawful under the West Australian Equal Opportunity Act.
Yet Australian Federal Legislators have made FATCA law, and on an unlawful basis.
RIS 2.39 “The objective of facilitating tax compliance is sufficiently important to justify the Bill’s engagement with privacy and the differential treatment on the basis of a prohibited ground. Moreover, the terms of the FATCA Agreement are the least intrusive, and would be effective in facilitating tax compliance.”
RIS 2.40 “The key terms of the FATCA Agreement, in the context of whether the interference constitutes a proportionate measure, are considered below.
Collection of personal information
2.41 “The type of personal information required by the FATCA Agreement (a person’s name, address, U.S. Tax Identification Number, the account number, the income credited to the account and the account balance) is relatively narrow for determining a person’s potential tax obligations.”
What a load of codswallop!! The right to protection from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy and from discrimination are measured by the black letter of the law, not some willy-nilly legalese-proportionate-double-speak as suggested in RIS 2.41. Such blatant sophistry is the antithesis of equal treatment before the law.
Regarding the exchange of tax information under the Australia-U.S. tax treaty:
3.59 (from the Regulation Impact Statement) the Australia – US tax treaty aims to avoid double taxation and prevent fiscal evasion. Importantly, the treaty expressly allow the US to tax its citizens regardless of whether they are also citizens or Australian tax residents. (i.e. Dual citizens)
In the treaty Article 1 (3) reads “a contracting State may tax its residents (as determined under Article 4 (Residence) and individuals electing to be taxed as residents of that state, and by reason of citizenship may tax its citizens, as if this convention had not entered into force.”(US worldwide taxation)
When the 1982 tax treaty was agreed upon there was no dual citizenship. The Australian Government resisted dual citizenship and the U.S. did not favour the Australian government’s requirement for the renunciation of former allegiances in the oath of allegiance. That changed in 1986 and by the 1990’s many migrants to Australia began to take up dual citizenship. As Australian-American dual citizenship was non-existent it could not be defined in the terms of the 1982 treaty. These migrants did not come to Australia 40-50 years ago (now with grand and great grandchildren) to take up a new life well before the tax Convention and the digital age of communication for the purposes of fiscal evasion. The environment for the pool of Australian U.S. dual citizens has developed way beyond the scope of terms that define the 1982 tax treaty.
Under the treaty Article 3 (2) reads “As regards the application of this Convention by one of the contracting States, any term not defined herein shall, unless the context otherwise require, have the meaning which it has under the law of that State to the taxes which this convention applies.”
We put forward the case for the term dual citizenship to be defined in the treaty. Dual citizenship is well established and it must be treated distinctly and with due regard by the treaty. There is no case to appease the U.S. with rights to tax Australian Citizens.
The reason of dual citizenship would spell exemption from U.S. tax law on the basis of Australian citizenship and Australian tax residency. Those dual citizens electing to abide by U.S. tax law would have the choice to continue doing so if that suited their circumstances (such as financial ties in the U.S.)
The impact of dual citizens with the status quo of the treaty is ongoing debilitation of the value of Australian citizenship, unifying power of and commitment to Australian citizenship eroded, destabilization in the identification of being a fully accepted Australian (counter to notions of national identity), and the demoralisation of being treated as a second class citizen in the country and allegiance of choice. That is: the effects of U.S. tax law work as a detriment toward full cultural assimilation, community integration and building, social cohesion, stability in the workplace, business, and family structure. There is drastic erosion of the structure of Australian legal entities as regards exposure to U.S. domestic tax law for interpretation. This includes trusts, self-employed business and farms, self-managed superannuation funds, wills, estate and succession planning.
One must ask to what extent the Australian government will allow and support domestic tax laws of the U.S., which are interpreted and enforced through the IRS tax code, to prevail upon Australians who have a vague, obscure link to the U. S. and are unlucky enough to fall under the “relatively narrow” determinants of RIS 2.41 because of citizenship? These determinate’s are made on the distinction of citizenship (race), which is negatively discriminatory and unlawful as they are not required of citizens of non U.S. origin. The collection and transmission of the private and confidential information from Australian Financial Institutions without consent is unlawful under the Australian Privacy Act and West Australian legislation. West Australia is and has been our only home for over 40 years, where we live, raise families, work, run businesses and farms, strive to make a living and earn income. We have no financial ties in the U.S and are domiciled permanently in Australia. And why do Federal legislators allow the IRS to receive the information from the ATO that is unlawfully obtained by FATCA legislation? This action has the grave potential to extremely jeopardise our lives and livelihoods.
However, as equality is overridden by negative discrimination inherent in FATCA legislation which becomes the acceptable norm, the least we can ask for is equity through positive discrimination on the basis of Australian citizenship for protection from the potential ambit claims of the IRS to enforce U.S Tax laws. We are Australian Nationals in the first instance by naturalisation, and by the Master Nationality rule in international law. An individual may qualify as a national in two or more different States, but under international law only one of those nationalities can be dominant and effective at a particular time, that is sovereignty over citizenship. It is on this basis we request to be treated on an equal basis of responsibility as are all Australian citizens on sovereign Australian soil under Australian jurisdiction in matters regarding taxation. We request to be protected and treated as Australian tax residents solely. This is Australia—not the U.S. Why has Australia given over its sovereignty to the United States in this matter – to the extreme harm of its own law abiding citizens? Why are we denied full acceptance and participation in Australia as the lucky country? Why is the Australian federal government prepared to hand over to the U.S. Australian money generated by diligent, hardworking Australian citizens on Australian soil? We are Australians, not Americans, and want to build totally in focus for Australia. Enough appeasement to the U.S. It is not equitable, reasonable nor sensible for our efforts to be drained off to benefit the U.S. Exposure to Foreign Bank Account Reporting –FBAR—treats dual citizens as suspicious to be residing in Australia (U.S. domestic tax residents have no such requirements with U.S. banks). And finally the tax treaty creates the obligation to contribute taxes without political representation with no reciprocal entitlements. It would be in Australian national and sovereign interest to stand up for dual citizens to be exempt from the U.S. tax regime under the treaty.
This has been compiled for consideration toward legislative amendments where applicable and as regards negotiations of the Australia-U.S. Tax Treaty.
@ Alby, all
3.72 It is unlikely that this would be inconsistent with Commonwealth laws governing discrimination on the grounds of race. For the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and under Australian courts jurisprudence in relation to that Act, a distinction made on the basis of colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
From the link:www.eeoc.gov › Laws, Regulations & Guidance › Types of Discrimination
National origin discrimination involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).
From the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descent
In the 1330s one use of descent described familial ancestry. Darwin popularized and expanded this term in Victorian England with his study of the origins of humans and our simian relatives from a common ancestor.
It appears to me that FATCA is in violation Commonwealth laws governing discrimination on the grounds of race.
Any comments
@Alby
Excellent article and well done!. What was the MPs response to this? Have you spoken to treasury?
Do you feel that being a business owner would make them listen more?
Do you know when they will get back to you?
We have to win this fight for all.
INTERESTING
Following the 1975 Nugan Hand Bank/CIA coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, his British Crown-appointed successor Malcolm Fraser sped to the US, where he met with President Gerald Ford after conferring with David Rockefeller. [24]
http://originaldialogue.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-eight-families-that-control-wealth.html?m=1
@Alby
A few thoughts:
” is relatively narrow for determining a person’s potential tax obligations” They obviously are oblivious to FBAR / FATCA penalties.
“ongoing debilitation of the value of Australian citizenship, unifying power of and commitment to Australian citizenship eroded, destabilization in the identification of being a fully accepted Australian (counter to notions of national identity), and the demoralisation of being treated as a second class citizen in the country and allegiance of choice.” – the words “financial planning” “financial security” “finances” could be added.
List of trusts etc – you might mention signature authority as in working for an Australian business with signature authority even though that business may conduct 100% of its business within Australia.
US “extraterritorial tax laws.” Might mention the US fought its revolutionary law over opposition to a similar principle.
You are missing “superannuation” That word and “retirement” were mentioned most among the Australian letters to the Senate Finance Committee. I think that this is a big point, the Australian government has Superannuation policy to help people save for retirement, but then lets the US laws flow through to such an extent my tax preparer advises putting in as little as possible and bringing it out as soon as possible to avoid the US double taxation and lack of Australian tax credits for US tax paid on Australian resident superannuation. How can Australia let another country negate such important domestic policy?
You could have referenced Australian privacy law, which was modified because of FATCA ‘with exemption for international treaty’ thus outsourcing Australian privacy laws to other countries, in this case the US, in a blatant dodge of Australian privacy law.
WA law is a good angle. ADCS is also using certain state based laws.
Yes, I call it “guilting them” Guilt Them!
At some point the two lawsuits need mention.
Then there is the discrimination against nonUS Australian resident family members – having their financial information shared (in case of joint accounts) and their financial security disadvantaged as the US laws are an attack on the Australian resident family financial unit.
That Parliamentary inquiry seems like a good angle if that could be made to happen – that would be like opening a closed book.
Otherwise, some legal action to test the discrimination laws. Alison Christians says it is a matter for the courts – meaning forget all the arguments it has to be settled in the courts. In the mean time we are probing for weaknesses here and learning how best to present the case and to whom.
Discrimination is a great angle.
@AU
All key points in The Tax Laws amendment doc was summarized by the author who speaks passionately, eloquently and skilled in debating. He should be a politician. MP took notes and asked questions, and after the sucker punch family impact letter said would speak with treasury, and are we prepared to go see treasury.
Meeting was only last Thursday. Will update.
You would hope business owner would influence, we employ 80 in MP electorate. But we do know MP very well anyhow, is from immigrant background as well, so can relate to us. And we talk to advisor weekly lately regarding NBN. We know advisor as well from previous industry issues back in 2007.
An option we are considering is using lobbyists, I use them in business and have been to Canberra recently for 2 days with Lobbyist and association collegues to see MP,s, senators etc and have learned a lot by this process.
Lobbyists organize, guide and strategise your mandate, they pull things together and set up the meetings and then write up key points to discuss at the meeting with MP. They will email the agenda first to them.
I had in depth conversations with lobbyist on FATCA and he is horrified Australian US dual citizens such as our case is exposed to the US and our govt is complicit.
Lobbyists obviously come at a cost,.
AU, you stated you have talked with treasury officials and MP”s, by what process did you make appointments to visit treasury annd MP”s in parliament house Canberra.? Did you email them or ring them to set up the visit appointments?
@JC
Thanks for you input, the doc was mainly a counter to the regulation impact statement, some of the points you state are in your JC citizen letter I sent them.
But yes you raise a lot more points to add. I’ve forwarded your post to the author.
Are you a lawyer.? Otherwise you are very well versed in all this.
@JC
I second
“you are very well versed in all this”
I am not a lawyer. Yet these issues have been a hobby since about June 2014. I am trying to catch up with the knowledge of others at Brock.
I like the lobbyist route. I have not heard the Canadians pursue this. JakDac learned of some lobbying by Amcham Australia in Washington in June to get the tax treaty updated to exempt Superannuation. No news. Call Niels Marquardt. I am not at the point of reveling my offline identity.
My idea was to get the ATO to change their website, with footnote for the Australian – US Tax Treaty, to admit that the treaty does not prevent double taxation. That change would help attack the myth that the tax treaty prevents double taxation.
In terms of the tax treaty, these are basically the same around the world. There are a few important differences such as England and Canada exempt taxation of retirement accounts (but must fill out a form for this), and the Canadian Treaty says that Canada will not assist US tax debt collection for tax debts incurred by Canadian Citizen residents after they are resident in Canada.
My view is not so hopeful: we get Australia to ask for revision of the tax treaty. I think the US will not agree. After all these treaties are not necessarily a two way negotiation, but terms dictated from the US. The nasty consideration of each tax by itself is an example with no credits say from higher Australian wage taxes to cover other taxes that the US has but not Australia. This is why I suggested in my letter to the Senate Finance Committee some Australian action to get US attention, such as if they don’t agree to tax treaty changes then charge the US $2 billion a year. How likely is all this. A very long shot.
Lets just hope the two lawsuits go well. I think Canadian example – say invalidating Canadian FATCA IGA – should get some attention here.
@Alby
I initially contacted my local member and explained FATCA and CBT to them and they said I sound like a conspiracy theorist. They did not believe me at first. I following the conversation up with some documented proof. We also sent the same documented proof to every single MP (hundreds of letters) before the IGA was signed to explain CBT and the problems for Australian/US citizens. No responses received
I like your idea about getting lobbyist involved. The MPs must listen to us as they have the power through Australian law to make this fair for all Australian citizens.
“every single MP”
Do you have a list of email address
May be worth a “mosquito” mission
@All
The OECD is going to implement a global FATCA. The OECD model looks at the tax residence of all citizens of the planet. What happens after the OECD model is implemented and county X changes it tax law (or invents a new tax based on citizenship) then a dual Australian/(country X nationality) will have a tax to pay to county X. This could become a tax grab by all countries.
As Australia has a large multicultural population getting FATCA fixed is not just for US Persons it is for everyone in Australia. Maybe we could get other nationalities involved?
@JakDac
Letters through Australia post to offices in Canberra and nation wide
We have a link to a list of contact info for the Members and Senators of the Australian Parliament (e-mail, postal addresses, phone numbers).
A bit of a pain, because you have to click on each member’s/senator’s name to get his or her contact info. If someone has an more user-friendly list, we’ll be most happy to post it. Meanwhile, perhaps this can be of use.
You can access this through this link (or through the sidebar under “Take Action!” at “Anti-FATCA Publicity and Protest Materials”.)