Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in solidarity with my electorate to speak out against the increasing push to move Australians towards a digital ID and a cashless society. As I've mentioned on a number of occasions in this chamber, the Lyne electorate is the oldest demographic in the country. Thus, the negative implications of the societal push to adopt these new systems is, understandably, greatly felt and greatly feared within Lyne. Cash has long been deemed king, but that status is quickly being usurped by card and digital payments driven by technological advancements, the COVID-19 pandemic and so-called convenience.

The big banks, corporate Australia and government are among some of the greatest proponents of a cashless society and are rapidly driving the transition, but in doing so they are recklessly leaving behind a large portion of the population. Card and digital payments are not necessarily convenient nor accessible to an electorate with a high proportion of older Australians and a network and grid that is becoming increasingly unreliable. Power outages are a common occurrence in parts of the electorate. I know that Nabiac and Minimbah often experience blackouts when the winds pick up. In Harrington and other coastal towns whose populations double or triple during holiday seasons, it's often impossible for businesses to use their squares because the mobile bandwidth is stretched to capacity. When this occurs, all cashless options are rendered completely useless. In these instances, cash well and truly is king. Indeed, it is the only option to ensure business can continue to operate, and ensure consumers can still purchase food, fuel and medicine.

And what about in emergency situations? Vast swathes of my electorate was submerged during the catastrophic flooding in May this year. Digital payments were simply not a possibility. Lou from my electorate notes: 'We've been subject to many natural disasters—flood, storms and drought—where it has been essential to purchase fuel to operate machinery, such as farm RVs and tractors. Cash always needs to be an acceptable form of payment.' Denis in my electorate stated, 'As a regional dweller, power failures are not uncommon during bushfires, and mobile towers are also subject to damage.' We saw that recently just near me at Wauchope.

And what about our most vulnerable? Women escaping domestic violence often rely on cash to be able to make discrete purchases or payments without being monitored or tracked through bank transactions. For many women of domestic violence, cash means freedom.

The government has recently closed submissions for its cash mandate draft regulations. The draft Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 would require large supermarket and fuel retailers to accept cash for in-person transactions under $500. While this may sound like a positive move to enshrine the continuation of cash, many constituents within my electorate are extremely concerned about this mandate, with all of its exceptions and limits—it is actually a trojan horse to herald in cash death—and understandably so.

Under the regulations, the ACCC will be able to grant exemptions from complying with the new regulations in exceptional circumstances. I'm concerned that these exemptions could become the rule, especially in towns with no bank or affordable cash transportation services. Without banking access, supermarkets and petrol stations could be excused altogether because they themselves don't have access to cash or the ability to safely deposit takings. That is why this proposal is inadequate. Furthermore, as it currently stands, the proposal is far too narrow, applying to just supermarkets and fuel stations. In doing so, it leaves out medicine, housing, utility bills and a host of other essentials.

If the Albanese government is serious about ensuring financial inclusion and ensuring society's most vulnerable do not get left behind, then I urge them to expand the mandate to guarantee that it applies to all retailers and outlets without exemption or exception. We must also ensure towns have the infrastructure that makes cash payments possible, and halt the disappearance of ATMs and the closing of bank branches. Otherwise businesses will easily be able to exempt themselves from this mandate.

It is clear to me why the proposal is insufficient. The government has cherry picked one recommendation from the regional banking inquiry, while ignoring the rest. It is now over 430 days since the inquiry handed down its report, and 75 days since every member of the Nationals wrote to the Treasurer seeking a response to the inquiry. The government hasn't replied to either.

I urge the government to consider the attempts by other countries to embrace a cash-free economy and the disastrous effects that has had. Sweden, for instance, has had to backtrack on its rush to cashlessness, which financially excluded the population's most vulnerable. It doesn't matter if the number of cash payments are falling; the point is that they have not stopped altogether. While there is ever a need for cash, the government must ensure that the need is protected and enshrined in its laws and not undermined by it.

The same can be said of digital ID. If the constituents of Lyne are concerned about a cashless society, they are livid about digital ID. I understand the rationale behind the government digitisation scheme. It is often touted as providing easy, high confidence verification of identity to enable millions of offline transactions to move online, which will enable a string of enhanced services. But the reality is that national multi-use identity schemes have a poor track record in Australia—and for good reason. Successive governments have presided over a string of breaches and confidentiality failures that have shaken public confidence in digital initiatives. They have done nothing to build trust regarding rights protection and limit setting.

There have been a number of emails to my office over the last fortnight from constituents outlining their concerns. Michelle's centre around the potential for security breaches, saying:

The people of your electorate do not want this digital ID. The federal government have already had many breaches of security. The Australian government needs to take heed of what is happening overseas with this incredibly stupid idea of digital ID.

This was from Mark:

The federal government is rolling out digital ID on My Gov. They say it's not mandatory but I fear that it is a load of bulldust. I keep refusing to update my My Gov ID, but I fear it is only a matter of time that I won't be able to lodge my quarterly BAS statements without it; I am staying with my password login. If I have to change over I will just shut down my business and still refuse to change to the Digital ID.

This was from Kieren:

I am expressing my objection to any form of government digital ID and elimination of cash in Australia for any reason.

This system would give the reigning government absolute power to manipulate and control every aspect of our lives … it is historically a very bad idea to allow the concentration of too much power to be in the hands of too few people—they will eventually use and abuse it, that is just human nature.

An Australia card was proposed to the Australian public in the late eighties but faced strong opposition and was abandoned, we know a digital ID would be far worse.

Cheryl said:

I write to you as an Australian citizen, vested with constitutional rights and freedoms that no government or corporate body has the authority to diminish, restrict, or coerce.

This correspondence serves as a formal notice of refusal and non-consent to the Digital ID scheme in all its current and proposed forms.

The Digital ID scheme centralises power, strips Australians of privacy, and creates the foundation for unprecedented monitoring and control over ordinary life.

Linking financial access, healthcare, education, employment, and civic participation to a centralised ID system paves the way for systemic abuse.

Australians will not tolerate it.

The people of Lyne have spoken. That's just a sample of the emails to my office. My old rule of thumb is that, for every single person who takes the time to write, there are another 100 out there who are thinking of doing it, thinking the same thing. The government would be wise to hasten slowly—very slowly—on this project. The government should not succumb to the profit focused goals and efficiency driven dividends of corporate Australia—just like Telstra is doing in Taree and the banks are doing across regional Australia—or the excitable IT technocrats thinking they are doing everyone a massive favour or officials in the bureaucracy who think they will meet or exceed some KPIs on technology adoption and implementation in the processes of government.

In summary, my point is that, while technology will always be with us and we will have to adapt to using it ever more, we need to be very mindful of what is in the best interests of people from all walks of life and from all regions of Australia and not just impose a new confronting technology on them in the interests of someone else.