The financial sector wants to profit from every transaction. Big tech wants to track every transaction. Central banks want negative interest rates. Authoritarian regimes want more control.
These experiments are the terminal phase of the fiat money disease.
Again, I am by no means an expert on Australian law, but I am curious about whether a law like this would be precedent-setting somehow. The role of precedence in the US legal system (and how interested parties influence legislation, for that matter) is well known and something that is browbeaten into every US civics student.
It also may be that the strength of the movement/opposition to cashless economies will hinge not on money laundering statutes but with the success or failure of libra.
But I don't want the government able to monitor every $2 purchase I make.
Please state what all the positive ramifications you are referring to are. All I see is essentially some extra convenience in exchange for a probable privacy nightmare.