What surprises me in threads like this one is the assumption that exchanges in Australia can somehow avoid the provisions of the AML & CTF Act. Even if they are not reporting entities themselves, the organisations through which they process users funds are reporting entities and are legally required to take action in regard to suspicious activity.
There's not magical exemption which applies to the exchanges because...Bitcoin. Just like your personal bank accounts/PayPal accounts/Technocash accounts/Western Union transfers, their business accounts which process user funds are subject to AML/CTF laws and those accounts can be frozen indefinitely with no notice if their financial service provider detects suspicious activity. People also need to remember that "money laundering" includes things like credit card fraud as well as the more traditional processing large amounts of cash through multiple transactions to hide its origins.
Compliance with AML/CTF legislation isn't a matter of choice for the exchanges - they literally can't process user deposits and withdrawals of actual currency without using services which are reporting entities. The threat of their accounts being frozen isn't imaginary. It already happened with MtGox's Technocash accounts. Had the majority of MtGox user funds been held in its Technocash accounts in Australia, it would obviously have threatened their ability to continue operating.
The administrative burden of AML/CTF compliance is substantial. Does anybody really believe that the exchanges are doing this for shit and giggles?
If people want exchanges to operate in markets where there is heavy AML regulation, they're going to have to accept that the operations of those exchanges will be subject to that regulation.
For interest, I'm doing a FSL application at the moment for trading derivatives and advice, and was going to add a clause in the proofs to allow bitcoin to see what the ASIC analysts say. Last one I did was a few years ago, and they are not too hard.
I don't really see that there's going to be a huge issue with ASIC. They'll either exempt Bitcoin or they'll more likely classify it under one of the many existing categories where they have jurisdiction. The issue seems to be more about exchanges either not wanting to be regulated as Australian Financial Service Providers (they'd probably be classified as reporting entities) or not wanting to front the cost of licensing (from memory, the performance bonds for deposit-takers are substantial).
ASIC only needs to determine whether the exchanges are offering a financial service or product which is subject to regulation.
AUSTRAC is the real wildcard here. If they keep receiving reports of the Bitcoin exchanges being used to launder money then there will come a point at which they look at regulating Bitcoin itself and require certain Bitcoin transactions to be reported to them as well as requiring people opening accounts to trade Bitcoins to be formally identified.
It's also worth noting that different Bitcoin services could be regulated differently. If the exchanges are acting purely as escrow services and not buying and selling Bitcoins themselves, then they're likely to be licensed in a similar manner to PayPal - as authorised deposit takers. A business which is actually buying and selling Bitcoins to the general public and institutional investors would most likely be regarded as dealing in a financial product rather than offering a financial service and therefore regulated somewhat differently (they'd probably have to issue a PDS similar to those issued for insurance, superannuation, management funds, etc).