Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) affirms that cash is critical national infrastructure, and that access to cash remains essential for millions of Australians, particularly older Australians and those in regional and remote communities;

(2) notes that when a natural disaster strikes, the power goes out, or communications networks fail, it is cash that keeps working;

(3) expresses concern that the Government has failed to act sooner, noting that:

(a) the risks to the cash distribution system have been evident since the ACCC approved the Armaguard and Prosegur merger in June 2023;

(b) by Easter 2024 the system was brought to the brink of crisis, requiring an emergency meeting chaired by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to secure a rescue package; and

(c) the Government has acted only in the final weeks before the ACCC's enforceable undertaking expires in September 2026, and that delay has placed the ongoing strength of Australia's cash system at risk; and

(4) expresses further concern about the Government's ongoing failure to address bank branch closures, and its lack of any plan for when the moratorium on regional branch closures ends on 31 July 2027".

We won't be opposing this bill. I note the minister in the chamber, and I acknowledge his presence. Cash is a critical piece of national infrastructure, and it's right to protect it.

As the minister well knows—but, for the chamber, I'll go through a little bit of the history of how we got to where we are today—in June 2023, the ACCC approved the merger of Australia's two largest cash-in-transit companies: Armaguard and Prosegur. That decision handed a single company control of 85 to 90 per cent of the market, a private monopoly over how cash physically moves around this country. The ACCC only allowed it with a temporary three-year undertaking, setting conditions over the merged entity until September 2026. In September 2023, the merger was finalised. In October 2023, just three weeks later, Armaguard approached the government, the RBA and major banks saying that, if it didn't get an extra $190 million over three years, it would no longer be viable. By Easter 2024, the risks were laid bare. Armaguard called for a bailout. Coles decided to pause cash deliveries and limited instore cash withdrawals. Shoppers faced the real prospect of not being able to get cash in certain places that they normally would have. It took an emergency meeting chaired by the Reserve Bank governor and a $50 million rescue package from banks and major retailers to keep the trucks going.

With the ACCC's enforceable undertaking on Armaguard about to expire in a month's time, the government has turned up with a plan. I acknowledge the plan. I support the plan. But I must admit that it is at the eleventh hour. I would suggest that the government should have acted on this sooner than it did. This bill creates an emergency regime so that cash can keep moving. This regime would be managed by the RBA, with similar emergency powers to what APRA have for banks and insurance companies and the financial market infrastructure regime. It also provides the ACCC with the power to require fair and transparent pricing; approve the terms offered to the banks and retailers; and set service standard levels, instead of a monopoly setting its own terms.

My side of politics always leans towards lower regulation, for private enterprise to work things out and for less government interference. But monopolies are, in a sense, a market failure, and we can't have a monopoly setting prices without close monitoring and controls. It's not fair for Australians that rely on cash. There would also be risks to our broader economy if we were to have a cash crisis. So I say to the minister these are sensible powers within this bill, the same kind we already use to protect the banking and insurance industries, and we support the minister and the government in doing this.

This bill does raise a wider topic, though, which I'd just like to touch on. It's good to have cash flowing around and cash getting delivered to where it needs to be in Armaguard trucks, but I think this bill doesn't necessarily put enough cash mandates onto the retail sector to make sure people can use cash where they want to. Labor did do a cash mandate, which commenced in January of this year. I personally don't feel it goes wide enough; it covers supermarkets and fuel, but there are limits of up to $500, and it's only between certain hours at some places—between 7 am and 9 pm. For example, it doesn't cover pharmacies, so there are potentially some pharmacies where older Australians can't pay cash for their medicines.

Also, I think it raises issues around ATMs and bank closures. We've seen over 800 bank branches close since 2022, Deputy Speaker Boyce, and I'm sure probably some of them have been in your community. There have been some in my community. Some of these banks and retail branches were in places where they were the only branch operating. There is a moratorium currently on regional bank closures, but it only applies to the major banks, many of which have already left some towns. It expires on 31 July 2027. I do note that Westpac have unilaterally agreed to extend the moratorium until 2030, which is welcome. I encourage the government to have a plan for what comes when this moratorium ends. It's June 2026, and the moratorium ends in less than a year.

In conclusion, we support the government. I support the minister and the work he's done on this and on passing the bill quickly, because the undertaking runs out in September. But I had hoped the government would have acted quicker. This will guarantee delivery but not necessarily your right to use cash in as many places as I think it should. And we need a plan for regional bank closures after the moratorium.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendment to the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026. At their heart, these bills are about something very simple—Australians who want or need to use cash should still be able to use it. That includes older Australians, people on lower incomes, small business and people living in regional and remote Australia. It includes every Australian who has ever stood at the checkout during a power outage, a communications failure or a banking system outage and has discovered that their phone or bankcard suddenly cannot buy anything.

We live in an increasingly digital economy, and that is not going to change. Most Australians now use cards, phones or online banking for much of their daily spending. But digital payments becoming more common does not mean cash has stopped being important. The Reserve Bank's 2025 Consumer Payments Survey found that around 15 per cent of payments were still made using cash. About half of all Australians use cash in a typical week. Older Australians and lower-income households use cash more often than other groups. About one third of Australians said they would face financial hardship or major inconvenience if cash became difficult to access or shops stopped accepting it. That should tell us something.

The future of payments cannot simply be designed around people who have the newest phone, reliable internet, a bank account that works perfectly and easy access to digital services. A modern payment system has to work for everyone. That means protecting choice, it means protecting access, and it means making sure no Australian is pushed out of the economy simply because they still use cash. That is why the Albanese government has committed to maintaining access to cash for as long as Australians want to use it. We've already introduced the cash acceptance mandate. Since 1 January this year, supermarkets and fuel retailers that meet the relevant criteria have been required to accept cash between 7 am and 9 pm for purchases of $500 or less.

Requiring a business to accept cash is only part of the job. The cash still has to get there. A supermarket still needs cash for its registers. A petrol station needs to be able to deposit the cash it receives. A bank branch needs notes and coins. ATMs need to be stocked. Businesses need cash collected, counted, processed, stored and transported. The system behind the scenes is called the cash distribution system. Most Australians will never have much reason to think about it, and that's probably a good sign. When an essential system works properly, people generally do not spend their day thinking about it, but, if it stops working, people notice very quickly.

The challenge is that our use of cash has fallen over time, and that creates a difficult economic problem. The trucks still have to travel, cash still needs to be stored safely, workers still need to collect it, processing centres still need to operate, security still needs to be maintained, and Australia is a very large country. Moving cash around Perth is one thing; moving it across regional Western Australia is another. A declining number of cash transactions does not mean those costs disappear. In fact, it can mean the cost of handling each transaction goes up. At the same time, Australia's cash-in-transit industry has become highly concentrated. The sector is now centred around one dominant provider. That combination creates risk. Cash is still an essential service for a large group of Australians, but the commercial system needed to move that cash is becoming harder to sustain. Government cannot simply wait until the system fails and then start looking for a solution. These bills create a framework before we reach that point.

The framework has two main regulators—the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Reserve Bank will be able to designate a provider that has a significant role in Australia's cash distribution system. The idea is not to place unnecessary regulation on every small operator. It is to focus oversight on providers whose failure could have a serious impact on access to cash. The ACCC will then have an important role in overseeing the commercial side of the system. It can approve standard terms for services and pricing. Those terms can provide a baseline offer for customers using cash distribution services. Designated providers will also be required to negotiate in good faith, and that is important. Where one provider has a major role in a market, customers need confidence that prices and service conditions are fair, transparent and non-discriminatory. The ACCC will also be able to set service level standards. Those standards can deal with issues such as where services are available, how often they are provided, how quickly they are provided and how they are priced. Businesses will also have access to dispute resolution and arbitration if negotiations cannot be resolved. That gives both sides a pathway to settle the dispute without allowing a breakdown in negotiations to threaten the wider cash system. There are also reporting and record keeping requirements so the regulator actually has the information it needs to do its job.

During the transition into a new system, the ACCC will have additional powers and to issue directions where necessary. That provides a bridge to the longer term standards being developed. This framework is particularly important for regional Australia. Distance changes the economics of cash distribution. A cash delivery service travelling hundreds of kilometres to reach a regional community operates on exactly the same basis as a service travelling between sites in a capital city. But Australians living outside a major city should not lose reasonable access to cash simply because of their postcode, nor should a small business in a regional town be placed in the position where accepting cash becomes impossible because it cannot get reasonable collection or delivery services, and that is why fair pricing and reliable service are both important. You cannot forever rely on customers in profitable metropolitan markets to subsidise expensive regional routes. That is not a long-term stable answer. The better answer is a transparent framework that recognises different costs, different regions and different customer needs while supporting the long-term viability of the entire system.

I now turn specifically to the amendments before us. Those amendments deal with the interaction between this new cash distribution framework and the road transport contractual chain orders, the RTCCOs. The name sounds complicated but the principle is not. The road transport contractual chain orders are made by the Fair Work Commission. They can set the minimum standards for people and businesses within a road transport contractual chain. Their purpose is to help ensure road transport operations are safe, sustainable and financially viable, and that can include both price and non-price conditions in commercial arrangements. There is good reason for that.

In road transport, commercial pressures do not stop when the contract is signed. If prices are pushed too low or unrealistic delivery demands are imposed, that pressure moves down the chain. Eventually, it reaches the people doing the work. A transport business still has to pay for vehicles, it has to pay for fuel, it has to maintain those vehicles, it has to meet safety requirements, and workers need enough time and resource to do their job safely. You cannot build a safe transport industry on contracts that only work if someone at the bottom of the chain cuts corners. That is why these orders exist.

The cash distribution framework has a different purpose. It is designed to keep cash distribution reliable, sustainable and accessible. In most cases, the two systems should operate alongside each other without difficulty. One regulates key parts of cash distribution. The other sets standards within road transport contractual chains. But there is a possibility that an obligation under the cash distribution framework could clash with an obligation imposed by the road transport contractual chain order. The amendments deal with that possibility before it becomes a problem, and that is sensible law-making. The amendments make clear that the new cash distribution framework is not intended to override these Fair Work Commission orders. Where both systems apply, regulators will need to take the relevant order into account.

When the ACCC is approving, changing or revoking standard terms, it must consider any relevant contractual chain order. The same principle will apply when the ACCC sets service standard levels. It will apply when the ACCC exercises relevant interim powers, and an arbitrator will also need to consider a relevant contractual chain order when making a decision. That means industrial standards are not treated as an afterthought once commercial decisions have already been made. They are brought into the decision-making process from the beginning.

The amendments also allow the ACCC to consult with the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. They support information-sharing between the agencies; again, this is practical. If two regulators are dealing with overlapping legal duties, they should be able to speak to each other. We should not create a system where one regulator is required to make a decision while pretending another regulator does not exist. That would be an impressive way to create paperwork and not much else.

The amendments also establish a clear process if a designated cash distribution provider believes it cannot comply with both systems. The provider will have to notify the ACCC. It will need to explain why complying with the cash distribution requirement would cause it to breach the relevant contractual chain order. It will also need to explain the extent to which it does not intend to comply with the cash distribution obligation. That gives the ACCC an opportunity to address the problem early. Where possible, the two requirements can then be brought into line. But if a genuine conflict remains, and the provider cannot comply with both, the road transport contractual chain order is protected. The provider will not be penalised under the cash distribution framework for failing to comply with an obligation where complying would require it to breach the Fair Work Commission's order. That creates certainty and protects the authority of the Fair Work Commission, and it avoids putting businesses in the absurd position of being punished whichever law they follow. This is also an important protection for workers.

Cash does not move around Australia by itself. Behind every ATM refill, every bank delivery and every collection from a business are workers. Somebody drives the vehicle, somebody handles the cash and somebody works within the security system to keep those people and that money safe. A sustainable cash distribution system cannot be built by weakening the standards that support safe and viable road transport work. If the price paid for moving cash is pushed below a sustainable level, that pressure does not vanish; it lands somewhere else. It can land on wages, it can land on vehicle maintenance, it can land on staffing, it can land on schedules and, eventually, it can land on safety. The amendments recognise that keeping cash distribution financially sustainable and keeping road transport work sustainable are not opposing goals; they should reinforce each other.

There is one important limit to these amendments: they do not apply to the Reserve Bank's crisis readiness and crisis resolution powers—and that distinction is necessary. The bills give the Reserve Bank powers to act where a critical cash provider is facing serious financial trouble or where essential cash services may stop. Those powers can include issuing directions, appointing a statutory manager and transferring a business or shares where the legal tests are met. These are emergency powers. They are designed for situations where delay itself could cause serious harm. Applying the same conflict process to those crisis powers could prevent the Reserve Bank from acting quickly enough. That does not mean the road transport contractual chain orders disappear during a crisis—the Reserve Bank would still be expected to consider relevant legal obligations—but the amendments do not create a legal barrier that could prevent urgent action where Australia's access to cash is at risk. That is the right balance.

There is a wider point here about resilience. Australians sometimes hear about the fall in cash use and assume cash is becoming less useful. But there is another side to that story: cash becomes particularly useful when everything else stops working. During a telecommunications outage, cash still works. During some power outages, cash still works. During natural disasters, when networks and digital systems may be disrupted, cash can become extremely important. Recent natural disasters and payment outages have highlighted this role. A resilient economy does not rely on a single way of paying; it has back-up systems, and cash is one of those systems.

These bills are about keeping the system available. They recognise the way Australians' pay is changing. They do not try and stop the change, but they also recognise that progress does not require us to abandon people who still rely on cash. They support fair and transparent pricing. They provide minimum service standards. They give businesses a pathway to resolve disputes. They provide the Reserve Bank with tools to respond if a critical provider is in serious trouble. These amendments make an important clarification: the new framework must work alongside Australia's industrial relations system, not cut across it—and the road transport contractual chain orders exist for that reason. I commend the bills to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, which will provide a legislative framework to regulate Australian cash distribution services. Currency has been with us for centuries, for more than 2,000 years. It was the Lydians who created the earliest stamped coins. They did that in around the seventh century BC, and the Lydian empire was in what's now western Turkiye, but that was 700 years before the birth of Christ. Then, of course, we have the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians, from 1500 BC, developed trading networks across the Mediterranean. They were originally bartering goods, and they transitioned to weighted out pieces of copper and silver and coal and even jewellery units by around 300 BC. Over time, cities developed mints, crafting predominantly silver coins showing prominent local kings and gods as symbols they could rely on and that they could trust in. They could trust that unit of measure for the goods that were traded.

Thousands of years later, Australian coins and notes are produced by our own Royal Australian Mint less than five kilometres from this place. We too have come to rely on this currency and the symbols used on our coins and banknotes to denote their authenticity. Of course, we have the late Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on our coins, and then we have on our notes everyone from Dame Nellie Melba. My favourite particular note is the $10 Australian note, the blue note. On one side is Andrew 'Banjo' Paterson and on the other is Dame Mary Gilmore—true great Australians.

Cash, as the previous member said, works, particularly in crisis. When the power's out and when telecommunications are out, cash still works. Cash is important. It's particularly important in regional Australia. It's particularly important in areas where there are emergency risks. My daughter is currently studying, and she's living in a cyclone-prone climate. I said to her, when she moved up there, 'Make sure you have just a little purse that you don't touch in case of emergency that's got cash in it, because, if a cyclone comes through and you don't have power for days, you can still at least go and buy items.' Older Australians and those living in the regions and those without reliable connectivity still rely very heavily on cash as the trusted means of transacting in our communities.

The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2025 found that around one in five Australians are excluded or highly excluded and that around one in 10 are highly excluded from digital access. Digital exclusion rates are much higher for older Australians, particularly those aged 75 years and over, and those who did not complete secondary school. We find that this also includes public housing residents and First Nations people. Digital exclusion remains higher outside capital cities. In South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland, access, affordability and digital availability are lower than the national average. I note my electorate of Mayo is the oldest by median age in the state of South Australia and one of the oldest in the nation. Very many people in my community will keep cash at home and will use cash as the basis for their saving and their spending.

While the gap between the digital ability of older and younger Australians is indeed narrowing, some of my older constituents, I must say, are not confident about digital banking. They are concerned about scams and they want to rely on cash and, indeed, chequebooks. Unfortunately, banks are doing everything within their power to make sure that chequebooks are a legal tender of the past. This puts them at serious disadvantage if access to cash is lost. Regardless of digital inclusion, some older Australians and marginalised Australians do find it easier to rely on physical cash, and, in communities, as I said, experiencing emergencies and natural disasters—we certainly had that during the bushfires in my electorate—cash is king, and it's sometimes the only way that you can buy things when everything else fails.

What does this bill do? This bill is part founded on recommendations of the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport committee report, and that report was called Bank closures in regional Australia: protecting the future of regional banking. The Senate committee report and the government's response both recognised that access to essential banking services is integral to our economic and social fabric.

I just want to say, with respect to bank closures: my community has experienced too many bank closures. It's always rather galling when you get that contact from the CEO or the state manager of a particular bank to tell you that they're closing, and then, of course, in the next fortnight you read about the bonus bumper profits that they've made as a bank. I think banks have a social licence, and they should be in regional Australia. Regional Australians deserve to have face-to-face banking services.

To ensure that Australians have access to fit-for-purpose and sustainable banking services over the long term, the government has committed to draft legislation for a reliable cash-distribution regulatory framework, as part of taking action to ensure that regional communities are not left behind by banking closures, including regulated cash distribution to support access to those services so that they can continue to serve the needs of Australians.

We haven't even talked here about the needs of small business as to having access to cash. When you think of them, particularly in the regions but also in metropolitan Australia, every bank and every service station—everybody—needs to have a till, working, with cash in the till. And Australians deserve that. In addition, the cash acceptance mandate requires certain fuel and grocery retailers to accept cash payments in person for transactions of $500 or less between 7 am and 9 pm. For this to be achieved, all of those services need to have reliable cash distribution.

So what will this bill do? It will enable the RBA to designate entities with crucial roles in cash distribution—for example, Armaguard. It will grant the RBA crisis readiness and resolution powers to protect continuity of critical cash-distribution services. It will empower the ACCC to oversee designated cash-distribution entities, including approved standard terms and service level standards. It will also help ensure designated entities can continue, by providing critical cash-distribution services in difficult circumstances.

Stakeholders, including banks—those banks still left in regional Australia—supermarkets and Australia Post have expressed broad support. The Armaguard group have argued that the legislation will cause harm to the cash-distribution industry, raising concerns about ensuring fair pricing. But I see that the government has included provisions requiring banks and supermarkets et cetera to negotiate pricing with such services in good faith, and that provision is made for dispute resolution.

I agree that we do need a new regulatory approach, so that supermarkets, fuel retailers and banks, and the communities they serve, can rely on having cash at hand—just like the Phoenicians. It's an important step towards providing safeguards for communities—particularly regional communities like ours in Mayo—to ensure ongoing access to cash.

Bank branches, as I said, have been ripped out of our regional communities. In my community, I'm thinking of Lobethal, Hahndorf, Yankalilla, Strathalbyn—the list goes on. Our chequebooks and cheque accounts are being phased out, and we can't afford to lose cash too. We need to protect access to cash so that everyone may have access to cash, so that they have that purchasing power, when it's their preferred or, indeed, perhaps their only option. And that is why I commend this bill to the House.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. The bill has, as its core purpose, a determination to protect Australians' choice when they participate in the commercial marketplace at the checkout and to ensure no-one is excluded from participation in the face of the changing way Australians pay for goods and services.

We are all consumers. We all need to purchase goods and services for personal or household use. We all need to buy cars, fridges or washing machines. We all need to hire a plumber or an electrician or get dental work done.

Australians participate in the consumer marketplace by contracting to agree to pay a certain amount of money in exchange for the provision of goods or services all day—thousands of consumer interactions, contracts and exchanges all day, every day. You cannot live and participate in life today without being a consumer. Some people consume more than others. But, whatever transactions Australians participate in as consumers and whatever the number of transactions Australians participate in, the system must be fair, simple and trustworthy with contemporary and effective protections in place.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, the Albanese Labor government has delivered for consumers by rebuilding the structures that make the consumer marketplace fair and more equal for everyone who participates in it. This has been a strategy prosecuted at a regular cadence by this government. For example, in late 2023, the Commonwealth strengthened the unfair contract terms regime, meaning it's now illegal to include, apply or rely on unfair terms in standard-form contracts with consumers and small businesses.

It is fair to say that most Australians have probably encountered a service which contracts on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, often with a one sided arrangement with one party bearing all the risk and no reward. Another key aspect of this government's reforms is the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre and the first scams prevention framework, which operate to put clear and meaningful obligations on banks, telcos and digital platforms to prevent scammers from acting before they act.

John, an elderly gentleman, lives in Campbelltown in my electorate of Sturt. I met him whilst I was out doorknocking. John was retired. After 40 years of working in a physical job, he had a number of aches and pains and a few mobility issues. He was up for a chat. John told me that he had received a phone call out of the blue from PayPal seeking to do an identity check. John, who lives alone, was happy to get the call and happy to oblige by providing his name, address and bank details, which resulted in John being scammed to the tune of more than $5,000. John told me he didn't even have a PayPal account, but the scammer was so convincing and he just wanted to help.

Consequently, John had thrown his mobile phone away. He'd stopped using the internet and had also, in his words, 'ripped the landline out of the wall' so he couldn't be scammed again. John being scammed resulted not only in him losing a serious amount of money but in becoming even more isolated. Already lonely, John had chosen to cut himself off from the digital world out of fear. Because of this, he no longer wants to use a credit card or participate in the digital marketplace. He only trusts cash. Stories like John's are all too common. Scams and scam cities are growing and becoming more sophisticated, and business, banks and other participants offering goods and services in the consumer marketplace must take proactive steps to stop scams, not just deal with the aftermath when savings are decimated and lives are destroyed.

Stories like John's demonstrate that there is still a clear need for cash in our economy. This government has already made it mandatory for major supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash for essential purchases, because Australians who want or need to use cash deserve access to the marketplace. This bill firms up this commitment, particularly for older Australians like John but also for small businesses, those who live in regional communities and those who rely in an urgent and unavoidable way on cash during emergencies and service outages.

Cash use is reducing, but it is still a feature. I have seven local government areas in my electorate, and I visit the respective mayors regularly at their council chambers. Without fail, every time I do, there is someone, usually an elderly Australian, paying a bill over the counter using a bag of cash, often in small denominations. The cash distribution system must continue to serve Australians, and, in drawing on guidance from the Council of Financial Regulators and the ACCC, this bill will ensure the cash distribution system continues to serve Australians for years to come, because we know that a substantial portion of the Australian population would face genuine hardship or major inconvenience if cash were to become harder to access or use as a payment method.

It is right that maintaining access to cash is a key priority in the government's strategic plan for Australia's payment system. Appropriately the cash distribution regulatory framework complements the cash acceptance mandate that commenced earlier this year on 1 January. This obliges supermarkets and fuel retailers to allow customers a reasonable opportunity to pay in cash at certain retail sites. Cash must be accepted for in-person payments when transactions are $500 or less and between the hours of 7 am and 9 p.m. This mandate reflects the fact that cash is a fundamental feature of economic inclusion, the resilience and sustainability of the payment system, and a store of value, particularly in times of crisis and uncertainty.

There are three key elements of the framework prescribed in this bill. Firstly, powers are provided to the Reserve Bank to designate entities that have a significant role in the cash system or those that provide critical cash distribution services. This is targeted regulation designed to keep the framework proportionate and avoid placing burdens on smaller providers or new market entrants that do not provide critical and essential services.

The second feature enables the ACCC to oversee these designated entities, including the fair and efficient pricing of cash distribution services, because access to cash is made more challenging without accessible and fairly priced cash distribution services. This oversight is intended to support the long-term economic viability of the cash distribution sector.

The third feature of the framework gives the RBA powers to ensure continuity of critical cash distribution services and help prevent disruptions before they occur. To do this, the Reserve Bank needs appropriate powers to act promptly and with urgency to sustain critical services and resolve a crisis. These crisis and resolution powers include powers to make directions, appoint a statutory manager or transfer the business assets or shares of a cash distribution service provider in crisis. In addition, up to $400 million in funding support is available to ensure the continuity of cash distribution services is available but only as a last resort and where relevant entities, resources and recovery tools are insufficient to address losses or threats to the availability of cash. These crisis and resolution powers are subject to clearly defined triggers for intervention and are separate from the Reserve Bank's day-to-day monitoring and regulatory functions. The powers reflect the crisis and resolution frameworks already applying to other critical services in banking, insurance, and clearing and settlement.

We also know that the availability of cash in an emergency such as a flood or a bushfire, both of which happen with frequency in this country, is critical. Further system outages or cyberattacks may also impact the electronic payments and banking system, making cash the prime or only payment mechanism. Cash provides instant access to essential goods and services—food, shelter, health care, clean water. When people receive cash, they can quickly and effectively meet their most urgent needs. A cash-based disaster recovery program can reach more isolated and affected people and can also reduce operational costs and the environmental footprint, allowing disaster recovery budgets to go much further.

We also know that people in crisis overwhelmingly prefer cash over prepackaged assistance because cash gives people back control over their lives at a time where they may have limited control because of a disaster. Instead of receiving standard or 'one size fits all' packages that may not meet their specific needs, cash recipients can buy exactly what they require, and this flexibility allows them to address challenges as they arise, whether it's purchasing medicine for a sick child, materials to fix a damaged roof or other essential supplies.

Cash also preserves dignity. If you've had to flee or if you've lost your house, everything that can be done to restore dignity to what is a tragic and potentially dehumanising situation must be done, and this includes access to cash. Cash assistance allows people to make their own decisions and meet their needs through normal activities, like shopping at the local market or the local shop, and this change from passive recipient of assistance to active decision-maker can have a profound impact on mental wellbeing during the aftermath of a crisis. And it's not just the individuals who benefit. Money spent in local markets and shops and with local service providers helps to stimulate economic recovery in crisis affected areas.

As payment methods change and the digital age becomes even more entrenched, the Albanese Labor government is acting to ensure the marketplace is available and accessible to everyone, not just to those who can easily adapt to the digital marketplace. This bill protects not only vulnerable Australians but all Australians and Australian businesses by ensuring the availability of cash and shoring up the cash distribution and payment system so it enjoys long-term resilience and sustainability. I commend the bill to the House.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Cash is still part of everyday life in my electorate, not as a relic or a last resort but as ordinary commerce. Walk through Cabramatta, Fairfield, Liverpool or Canley Heights and you will see businesses taking cash across the counter, families doing their weekly shop and people using cash to manage everyday costs. I send money home to relatives in Vietnam as well. I use cash; I hand over cash at a money transfer business in Cabramatta, knowing that my aunty, who lives in a province in Vietnam, will have cash on the other end.

For many people in my community, cash remains part of how they earn, trade and pay. The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 is therefore not a debate about the past; it's about whether the system that gets cash into tills and ATMs will continue to hold up. The bill gives the Reserve Bank power to designate cash distribution providers whose disruption could threaten the continuity of cash access. It gives the ACCC oversight of relevant agreements and commercial terms, allows it to set service standards and provides a pathway for disputes to be resolved. It also establishes crisis powers: directions, statutory management and the ability to transfer a business or its assets. In a qualifying crisis, up to $400 million in Commonwealth funding support may be available, subject to ministerial authorisation, to help keep cash moving if a critical provider fails. I acknowledge the government for taking this step.

The cash-in-transit sector has consolidated to the point where it rests largely on one set of shoulders. The court-enforceable undertaking secured by the ACCC when Armaguard and Prosegur merged expires in September this year. When it lapses, the specific safeguards around service levels, geographic coverage and price increases will fall away. Doing nothing is not a neutral choice, and therefore I support the objective of this bill.

There are three parts of the framework that I welcome. First, it should be proportionate. The framework is intended to focus on providers whose role is significant to the national cash distribution system. A small local operator servicing a handful of businesses should not face the same burden as a provider whose failure could affect communities across the country.

Second, I welcome the ACCC's role. For a small business with limited options for cash collection, delivery or ATM servicing, there can be very little bargaining power over fees and service conditions. Transparent arrangements, service standards and a practical path to resolve these disputes can make a real difference.

Third, I welcome the crisis management regime. We have all experienced payment outages. Of course, the Telstra outage is a very recent example. When terminals go down, transactions can continue only where cash is available in the till. People do not care about the corporate structure of a cash-in-transit provider. They want to know whether they can buy dinner, fill the car and get to work in the morning.

There are parts of this framework I'll be watching closely. First, the powers are significant, and significant powers need accountability. The definition of a cash-distribution service is broad. Under the bill, the minister may make rules to include further services connected with cash or its availability or exclude service from the definition. The Reserve Bank may designate a constitutional corporation that provides cash-distribution services where it supports a significant part of the system, where disruption could threaten continuity or where it otherwise has a significant role in the cash-distribution system. Flexibility is needed, but it must be matched by transparency. When a provider is designated or the rules are changed, affected businesses and communities should be able to understand the reasons and the likely impact. Consultation should be meaningful. Appropriate review processes should be accessible, and parliament should be properly informed where public money is committed.

Second, we need to be alert to the cost of compliance. The explanatory material recognises that designated entities may face significant costs in establishing new systems and reporting processes. The risk is that some of those costs are passed through the supply chain to banks, retailers, local businesses and, ultimately, consumers. A cash-resilient distribution system is important, but resilience must not come at an unreasonable cost to the small businesses that rely on cash every day. The bill gives the ACCC an important role in overseeing commercial terms, including pricing. The government and regulators should use that role to monitor the effect of this framework on service fees and access costs, especially for small businesses and communities with limited alternatives.

Third, the framework must serve all communities that rely on cash. The bill rightly recognises the importance of cash for older Australians and people in regional and remote areas, but the policy discussion cannot stop here. Outer suburban culturally diverse communities like Fowler must also be seen. We are in metropolitan Sydney, but that does not mean everyone has the same access to digital banking, payment systems or financial information. The Reserve Bank and the ACCC should measure cash access in a way that identifies communities with high cash reliance, limited digital confidence or language barriers, not only communities that are geographically remote. If they rely only on national averages or a simple regional-versus-metropolitan divide, they risk missing places like Fowler.

Separately, the cash acceptance mandate that commenced in January is important, but it has a limited reach. It applies to certain grocery and fuel retailers, while small businesses with aggregated annual turnover below $10 million are generally exempt. Many local retailers also fall outside the relevant grocery and fuel categories altogether. I'm not asking to place new obligations on small business; I'm asking that we do not tell ourselves the job is finished.

I support the objective of this bill. I want it to work, but the government and regulators must be clear about who they are measuring. Cash used in south-west Sydney is not marginal, and we've heard from the previous member how important cash is to society. For many people and businesses in my electorate, it remains part of everyday life. Keep cash available, keep it affordable, and count my community in the data.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Think about the last time you paid for something. Maybe it was your coffee this morning. It could have been your sandwich from the trough at lunch. Perhaps it was a sneaky snack this afternoon. How did you pay for it? I suspect most of you simply tapped your phone or pressed your smartwatch against the terminal, but I reckon there's at least one person in this chamber right now who reached for their wallet, who sifted through a few notes and coins and handed over a $10 note instead. I bet that each of you know many of those people in your communities and in your families, because, while digital payments now dominate everyday transactions, cash is far from obsolete.

In 2025, the RBA found that one in every 10 Australians still used cash for most of their purchases. Often that one out of 10 is one of the most vulnerable people in our community. Cash usage is particularly strong amongst seniors, lower income earners and regional Australians. In fact, about 15 per cent of all payments were still made in cash. While Australians have enthusiastically embraced electronic payment systems, it's important that we continue to support those of us who prefer cash.

The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 and the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 are designed for this purpose to ensure that Australians have access to cash for as long as they want to use it, because, while we have to embrace new technology with gusto, we cannot leave Australians who still want to use cash behind. The Albanese Labor government is committed to protecting Australians' access to cash and by extension protecting people's rights to choose how they pay for goods and services. While the modernisation of payment systems has been rapid and has certainly aided in productivity and ease of payment for many, it is important to us that no-one is left behind.

Cash is more than just a method of payment. It plays an important role in ensuring that all Australians can participate fully in the economy—regardless of their age, regardless of their income, regardless of their location, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of their level of digital literacy. For many people—particularly those groups I mentioned earlier, such as older Australians, those on lower incomes and residents of regional and rural communities—cash remains a practical and trusted way to manage everyday expenses. Everyone deserves to have confidence in our economy, and that means that everyone deserves to have confidence in our payment system. That includes cash.

Think for a moment about Australia's vast geography and dispersed population. These factors create unique challenges in maintaining access to essential services for people living in regional, rural and remote communities. The significant distances between population centres combined with lower population density can make it more difficult and more costly to deliver services consistently and affordably. We know that access to reliable banking services remains a major concern for many Australians, particularly those in regional areas. Consumers in these areas have provided feedback that maintaining access to cash and face-to-face banking services is necessary to give communities more practical options to manage their financial needs.

Cash is also vital to help bolster the resilience of our payment system. Electronic systems can be adversely affected during power outages, natural disasters or system disruptions. In these circumstances, cash provides a reliable fallback, ensuring Australians can still purchase essential goods and services when they need them the most. In my electorate, on Brisbane's south side, we know what a natural disaster looks like. We know what it feels like. If you live in Oxley, Corinda, Rocklea, Fairfield, Yeronga and many more suburbs, you've experienced floods. When the chips are down and times are hard, all you are looking to do is recover and help your community and your neighbours. Making sure that you've got a reliable source to pay for things that you need is critical.

Cash can also provide a sense of security and certainty in times of economic uncertainty. It remains widely accepted as a store of value and gives people confidence that they can access and use their own money whenever it's necessary. For these reasons, maintaining access to cash is not simply a matter of preserving a traditional payment method. It is about protecting choice, supporting financial inclusion and ensuring that Australians are not disadvantaged as our economy becomes increasingly digital.

This bill implements a regulatory framework for Australia's cash distribution network. It is designed to ensure that key participants in the cash distribution system operate in a way that is transparent, accountable and sustainable. By providing greater regulatory oversight of critical cash distribution services, the framework will help safeguard the infrastructure that Australians rely on every day to access and use cash in their daily lives. The bill also introduces a crisis management and resolution framework for providers whose services are vital to the circulation of cash throughout the country. This will strengthen the ability of government and regulators to respond to significant disruptions and help maintain the continuity of cash services during periods of stress or during periods of operational failure. At its core, this legislation is about securing the future of cash in Australia, reflecting Labor's commitment to the Strategic Plan for Australia's Payments System.

The Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will administer the regulatory framework. Part 2 of the bill concerns the application of the framework to apply to the critical cash distribution service providers, as identified by the RBA. Part 3 of the bill provides for the development of ACCC approved standard terms and conditions relating to both service delivery and pricing arrangements. These standard terms are intended to establish a consistent minimum service offering that designated entities must make available to their customers. This baseline framework will apply unless it would be unreasonable in the circumstances or indeed when an entity and its customer have agreed to alternative arrangements through direct negotiation.

The framework is designed to promote greater certainty, consistency and fairness across the provision of designated cash services while still allowing for that flexibility to accommodate the differing needs of customers and service providers. Where alternative arrangements are sought, designated cash providers will be required to engage in negotiations in good faith. This includes taking reasonable steps to reach mutually acceptable outcomes and ensuring that proposed terms are fair, transparent and based on objective criteria. Providers must also avoid discriminatory practices, ensuring that customers in comparable circumstances are treated equitably and have access to services on reasonable commercial terms.

The next part of the bill implements dispute resolution and arbitration pathways for businesses relying on cash distribution services, and this is complemented by part 5 of the bill, which enables the ACCC to establish mandatory minimum service level standards. A sustainable and effective cash distribution sector depends on pricing arrangements that are fair, transparent and capable of reflecting the varying costs of servicing different customer groups and different geographical locations. Recognising that the cost of providing services can differ significantly between metropolitan, regional and remote areas, the framework seeks to ensure that pricing is established in a way that supports both equitable access to services and the long-term financial viability of providers.

To strengthen oversight and accountability, the bill introduces reporting and recordkeeping obligations for designated entities in relation to both service agreements and access agreements. These requirements will provide regulators with timely and accurate information about marketing practices, servicing arrangements and compliance with the framework. In addition, during the initial transition to the new framework, the ACCC will be granted temporary supplementary powers in relation to cash distribution services. These transitional powers are intended to provide regulators with the ability to respond quickly and effectively to operational challenges or to market disruptions that may arise as new arrangements are implemented. They will enable the ACCC to intervene when necessary to address urgent concerns, to support market stability, and to help ensure that cash distribution services continue to operate efficiently and reliably during the implementation phase.

Let's talk a little bit more about the features of the framework that will address preparedness for crises, because part 6 and part 7 of the bill implement resolution powers which ensure that cash distribution services will continue to operate if a crisis occurs. This means that, where the relevant legislative criteria are satisfied, the RBA will be authorised to intervene in relation to a service provider that has been designated as critical to the operation of Australia's cash distribution service.

These providers are intended to safeguard the continuity and stability of essential cash services when there is a risk of significant disruption. These resolution powers can be triggered in a specific range of circumstances, including in situations where a designated provider becomes insolvent, enters external administration, experiences severe financial distress, or proposes to significantly reduce, suspend or cease the delivery of critical cash distribution services. The RBA will be granted a range of resolution tools such as the power to appoint a statutory manager to oversee the entity's operations and the facilitation of the compulsory transfer of critical functions or assets where necessary.

The bill also provides for additional measures including temporary moratoriums and stays on certain actions, the suspension of contractual termination rights and the provision of temporary government financial support. These measures are standard practices in crisis resolution frameworks in the financial sector, and at its core is the recognition of the importance of ensuring continuity of services that are critical to the functioning of the economy and the financial system.

The bill further bolsters two related initiatives: the cash acceptance mandate and supporting the viability of bank branches in regional and remote Australia. This ensures that customers who rely on cash continue to have practical and reliable payment options for essential goods and services. The framework also plays a vital role in supporting the long-term sustainability of banking services and branch networks in regional, rural and remote Australia, where access to face-to-face banking remains particularly important.

This is a bill that works for both business and consumers. For businesses, it provides greater certainty that cash services will remain reliable and available, allowing them to continue accepting, handling and transacting in cash when required. For consumers, it will help preserve access to an important payment option and provide confidence that they can get cash when they need it.

The Albanese Labor government is putting Australians first by safeguarding access to essential financial services, supporting regional communities and ensuring that no Australian is left behind as the payment system continues to evolve.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, these bills are okay as far as they go, but if the government is trying to ensure that no Australians are left behind in our financial system then these bills fail; they don't go far enough. As I travel around my electorate in the heartland of Australia, I am constantly stopped by people who are very concerned about the phasing out of cash in this country. Indeed, many of my constituents believe that the big corporations and even small businesses are deliberately trying to phase out cash in this country.

In the last parliament, I introduced the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill. That bill would have mandated that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept, and, crucially, must accept, cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. In response to that legislation, the government introduced its own cash mandate. But I tell you what: it's not even cash mandate lite. It's worse than that. They basically said it only applies to supermarkets and fuel retailers, like petrol stations, when transactions are $500 or less, between the hours of 7 am and 9 pm—and there is an exemption for small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million per year. So it doesn't apply. When I took that proposal to my constituents, they basically came back and said: 'That's ridiculous. All you're doing is creating cash islands with these supermarkets and fuel retailers.' We need a proper cash mandate, which my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill would have delivered.

This is a huge issue for people in my area. There are many reasons why people need to use cash. Many senior Australians simply don't want to use cards for their transactions. Not everyone is able to use online banking services. Many find managing accounts and cards online to be stressful and confusing. Cash is often used in rural areas by individuals who do not have ready access to banking services. A lot of people are concerned about additional fees. Many Australians now understand that these banks and financial institutions charge you for using card transactions. It's passed on to consumers, and it is an insidious tax that is added to transactions just for tapping a card.

The use of cash is declining. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia's 2022 Consumer Payments Survey, the ongoing decline in cash use in Australia has accelerated since the 2019 pandemic. It is a huge issue for people who have contacted me expressing their fears that cash is being phased out or will soon disappear. In 2022, the overall value of cash transactions stood at 13 per cent. Many constituents of mine are worried that they're going to be locked out of the financial system and that businesses will simply refuse to accept cash—and I'm with them. I don't want to see cash use declining.

The reality is that the Reserve Bank Act 1959 provides that banknotes are legal tender, and the Currency Act 1965 provides that coins are legal tender, but there is no legal requirement for banknotes or coins to be accepted for transactions in Australia. If you, as a business, don't want to accept cash, all you need to do is put up a sign saying, 'We're not going to accept cash in our business'—that's it. This is a very worrying development, and constituents in my electorate continue to be very concerned about it.

Many Australians prefer cash as a means of managing their budgets. How can we teach our kids the value of cash if they don't know what it is? Others worry about the privacy risk and the risk of fraud associated with using cards. Many Australians have been the victim of fraud and unauthorised transactions relating to cards and the accounts linked to them; I have been myself. Some people just don't want corporations knowing every single thing they buy. Some people are happy for corporations to know that, but others are not—and that should be their choice. People should have the freedom to choose whether they use online banking, card transactions or cash. With respect to financial literacy, cash can be extremely useful in teaching valuable lessons about budgeting, making choices and understanding the value of money. My Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill is all about freedom—the freedom for Australians to choose how they will pay for transactions.

Also, think about life in the country and the endless connectivity problems that we seem to have—the black spots that we have and how often the internet and mobile phone services go down. We had a massive outage in the Central West just a couple of weeks ago. Connectivity can be disrupted for many days—sometimes longer—rendering electronic payments unusable. This is a huge issue for country people. Cash remains a dependable means of exchange that does not rely on electricity or internet access. If you live in country Australia, you experience these outages all the time.

For many people in our area and many older Australians, cash is not just a convenience; it is a lifeline. In these times of economic uncertainty and rising costs, cash is an essential tool for managing finances and actually sticking to a budget. So I would implore the government to rethink this whole flawed cash mandate that they have brought in.

My Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill would bring back that mandate—that businesses, in face-to-face settings, must offer to accept and must accept cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. There are exceptions. My bill actually contained exceptions and exemptions, and they included that offering to accept cash would pose a reasonable security risk; that it would be contrary to another law of the Commonwealth or to a law of a state or territory; that it would be contrary to Commonwealth, state or territory health advice, such as advice provided during a pandemic; or that cash in the form of change is needed but is not readily available.

Many seniors have been calling for legislation to keep cash king in Australia and to protect the use of cash. Many people do not trust corporations when they seek to phase out cash, and I'm talking about many corporations. Local councils are now phasing out cash transactions, so you can't pay for your council rates with cash. I agree, and I'm worried about it.

I was very disappointed when the Treasurer introduced this flawed cash mandate, because it did nothing to satisfy the concerns of constituents in our area, the great electorate of Calare, but also of people right around Australia who are following this issue really closely. I don't think the government understands how seriously people are viewing this issue. I don't think just creating cash islands for transactions under $500 at the major supermarkets is the answer. That's not keeping cash king in Australia; that's just nodding your head to a few concerns so you can pump out a few talking points and move on. But it is doing nothing to allay the legitimate concerns that many people across Australia have about the phasing out of cash. Most people believe that, if cash is legal tender, it should be accepted, and have worked on the assumption that that is the law. But it is not the law in this country.

So I would implore the government to rethink its flawed cash mandate and to have a look at my Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill. It was introduced to this House in good faith, and I worked with the government in good faith for a long time on it. But I didn't feel that there was meaningful engagement, and I've said this publicly. When the government announced this cash mandate, I think I was told the day before or something like that. There was no real engagement. I'd been crying out to work with the government on producing something meaningful, so I was very disappointed that this was supposed to be in answer to my bill. It just turned out to be a flawed and rather empty announcement. I was very disappointed about that, and I think people right around Australia were disappointed in that.

We, on the crossbench, the Independents, want to work with the government to get outcomes. Publicly, we were trying to get the government to a point where we could get a meaningful outcome here. I know Kerry Peck, who hosts the morning show on 2BS in Bathurst, was very keen for the Treasurer to work with me on this. I know he'll be listening to this broadcast and he'll be shaking his head over the fact that this really important bill and cash mandate were ignored by the government.

So, tonight, I am moving an amendment to the government's legislation—to the amendment moved by Mr Hogan. What my amendment does, basically, is call on the government to immediately introduce a cash mandate, providing that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept—and must accept!—cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000. That is my amendment.

We have to keep cash king in Australia. We are losing cash before our eyes. The big corporations are phasing it out before our eyes, and the government is assisting them with this weak and ineffective cash mandate it has imposed upon Australia. It's not good enough. We need to do better. If government MPs and opposition MPs listen to their constituents, they will hear the calls for a genuine cash mandate that actually effectively keeps cash circulating in our economies.

I tell you what: if you're a foreign government and you ever wanted to do damage to Australia, just turn off the internet; turn off the mobile phone reception, because without cash the economy of Australia stops. There is a valid national security reason as well for bringing in a genuine cash mandate, and I don't think the government appreciates it. Whenever our electronic transactions go down, for whatever reason, people panic. There's literally a panic: 'Oh, what am I going to do? How am I going to buy anything?' But, if you have cash, you can still get through. That's why we need to keep cash king in Australia.

So it is with great pleasure, but also with sadness, that I have to move this amendment tonight. I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"calls on the government to immediately introduce a cash mandate providing that businesses operating in face-to-face settings must offer to accept, and must accept, cash payments for transactions that do not exceed $10,000".

And I implore the government, the opposition and all right-thinking MPs to back this amendment in and keep cash king in Australia. We have to do it, and this is our moment.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to be standing here to speak about the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. This bill is exactly about that: the framework and distribution of cash. When you think of the distribution of cash, those of you that are around my age, who started working many, many years ago, all remember the security vehicles that would drive around and drop off our pay cheques in a little yellow envelope. Handwritten on that envelope were the hours that had been worked, overtime, tax paid et cetera, and it was all cash. Usually on a Thursday lunchtime, you'd get paid, wherever you worked, and cash was immediately put into your pocket. Then, you would have to go off and bank it or pay your bills. It was all done via cash.

Of course, that was many, many years ago, and it's all changed. Technology has transformed the way that we do our banking, our shopping, our purchasing and how we conduct our everyday transactions—and it has been much easier. For me, for example, it's much easier to have the phone and to tap when I buy a cup of coffee and to have direct debits out of my bank account to pay the bills. I'm sure it's the same for many, many people across our nation. But that's not to say that cash is not required. Many people depend on actually having cash. You can see how things can go wrong when our internet system goes down and when our telecommunications systems go haywire. We saw that, not that long ago, when a couple of banks' systems went down and you were not able to do transactions and pay for goods that you required. It caused havoc.

The way that we pay and payment methods may be changing, but one thing remains clear and that is that millions and millions of Australians still rely on cash every single day. Especially for older Australians and pensioners, cash remains a trusted and familiar way to manage the household budget. For many people living in regional and remote areas—as you would know, Deputy Speaker Claydon—cash remains a practical necessity. For Australians facing financial hardship, cash can provide certainty and control over day-to-day expenses. When technology fails—and it has failed; we've seen it fail—when systems go offline and natural disasters disrupt services, cash becomes more than a payment method; it becomes an essential safeguard and an absolute necessity. That is why access to cash matters, and that's why this legislation before the House is so important.

The bill before us, together with the accompanying Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, seeks to ensure that Australians can continue to access and use cash for as long as they choose. It complements the government's cash acceptance mandate, which came into effect on 1 January 2026, and it reflects a simple principle. That simple principle is that Australians should never be forced away from cash because the system that supports it has been allowed to weaken. For many years, the cash distribution network has come under increasing pressure. When I talk about the distribution network, again, I talk about those vans that everyone is familiar with—Armaguard, previously Prosegur—and would have seen driving around the place, distributing cash. They're picking up cash from banks, taking cash to banks and taking cash to businesses so there that is cash available to basically keep those cash transactions going.

But fewer transactions in cash are now conducted and the infrastructure that supports cash distribution has become increasingly difficult to sustain. Service providers have consolidated. Competition has been reduced. Today, much of Australia's cash distribution system depends on a near-monopoly provider. That creates risk for all the people who rely on cash; risk that essential services could become less reliable; risk that communities, particularly those outside major cities, could experience reduced access to cash; and risk that Australians who continue to rely on cash could be left behind. This bill is about addressing those risks before they become problems, and it establishes that framework to place Australia's cash distribution system on a more sustainable footing.

Importantly, it also recognises that access to cash is not simply a commercial issue; it's also a public interest issue. The ability to withdraw cash, deposit cash and access basic cash services is an essential part of economic participation for many Australians. Therefore, this legislation provides the regulatory tools that are necessary to protect that access. It establishes a mechanism for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to oversee critical cash distribution services and, when they go wrong, to be able to step in. When they need to see changes, they can step in again. It provides the Reserve Bank of Australia with crisis readiness and intervention powers to ensure the continuity of services should serious risks emerge.

These measures are particularly important for regional and rural Australia. In many communities, bank branches have unfortunately closed, financial services have become harder to access and cash services are increasingly concentrated in fewer locations. For those Australians in rural and regional areas, access to cash is not a matter of convenience; it is an absolute necessity and it is a matter of inclusion. It's about ensuring people can continue to participate fully in the economy regardless of where they live.

That's why the transitional arrangements contained in the Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 are equally important. These provisions will ensure that, during the introduction of the new framework, safeguards remain firmly in place. As I said earlier, it gives the ACCC temporary powers to intervene where there is a significant risk to ongoing cash access, creating an important bridge between the current system and long-term arrangements established by the legislation. At its core, the bill recognises a simple reality, and that reality is that, while Australia's payment system may continue to evolve—and it will evolve—the government has a responsibility to ensure that those who rely on cash are not left behind, whether it's the pensioner paying for their groceries, the small business managing daily transactions or the family living in a regional community where digital alternatives are not always there or not always reliable. Australians deserve confidence that cash will remain available when they need it, and that is exactly what this legislation seeks to secure.

We've seen many banks close lots of their local branches. We've seen ATMs disappearing. Walking down Rundle Mall in my electorate, in Adelaide—there used to be half-a-dozen ATMs in the major CBD shopping strip of Adelaide. I think I can count three or four, if that, now; they've all disappeared. The banks have basically put them out of action, because they're using less cash. We've seen bank branches shutting, and we've also seen face-to-face banking services gradually reduced. Banks often argue that these changes reflect changing customer behaviour and the rise of digital payments, but I don't actually believe that. I think people want to be able to walk into a bank and actually speak to a human being. We're dealing with people's finances. You want to feel confident. You want to know that you've spoken to someone and that someone is taking action on whatever that particular transaction that you've requested is or whatever the inquiry is.

I see some discrepancies when it comes to banks saying that it reflects changing times. I think it's a cost-saving measure from banks, and you can see it from the thousands of jobs that have been offshored because it's cheaper to create work overseas than to pay Australian workers. I feel that when they make profits of billions of dollars through the Australian community they also have a duty to the Australian community, whether it be creating jobs, offering services on a human-to-human basis or a whole range of other things. They're not just commercial entities; they get a special licence from governments to operate, and there should be some payback—and I'm not saying there isn't. They do great work. They loan money to people. But, at the same time, let's not lose track of one of the reasons why they're there. They're institutions. They are playing a vital role, and they've played a vital role in the lives of all Australians, but with that role comes a responsibility to ensure that people can continue to access basic banking services, including cash.

In my own community, I've seen firsthand how these changes are affecting people. My own bank has closed several branches in recent years. Like many Australians, I have found it increasingly difficult to find somewhere to walk into and to speak to a person.

Recently, I visited a major bank headquarters in Adelaide expecting assistance with an inquiry I had, only to discover that there were absolutely no tellers at all but machines that you press buttons on to get a ticket and then expect someone to perhaps give you access to their services. That experience highlights the directions that many banks appear to be taking, but it also demonstrates the growing disconnect between what some institutions are offering and what many Australians still need.

The issue is not confined, obviously, to individuals. It's affecting local businesses as well. In my electorate, a constituent of mine whose name was Mary, who operates a Bakers Delight bakery in one of South Australia's largest shopping centres, contacted me last year regarding increasing difficulty of accessing cash. As a small business, many of their customers were pensioners, and they pay by cash. Every morning, they'd go into the branch in that shopping mall, get their cash float, take it back to the shop, do their banking et cetera, only to find out, when Mary went to her bank one particular morning to deposit her takings and obtain the cash flow and change for the following day's trade, that the service was no longer available, and she was directed elsewhere.

When she approached the other banks, she was informed that they could assist but only if she became a customer to their bank. She was effectively being asked to move her entire banking relationship that she'd had for many years simply to access cash. When she finally located another branch of her own bank willing to provide the service, it was seven kilometres away, and, every day, she was forced to make that additional journey simply to obtain the cash flow and change needed to operate her small business. Then she was informed that the service was ending there as well after a few months. This is not about convenience. Mary's situation was not just about her convenience. It was about the ability to run a small business and how that small business functions. It was very important that she had access to cash.

We're also seeing cash refused in some everyday situations. For example, I've heard stories of families taking their children with friend's children—in other words, taking friends' kids as well along with their family—to concerts and kids events in Adelaide, and these friends of the kids arriving with cash that their parents had given them to buy food and drinks during the interval or during the break of the event. When they went to purchase something, they were told cash is not accepted—not because they didn't have money, because they've got the cash, and not because they couldn't pay, because they've got the cash, but because the venue had decided that only cards would be accepted. This was a story that was relayed to me by parents of these kids. What messages are we sending when a young Australian turns up with perfectly legal tender and is told that it cannot be used?

We know that, as Australians, we value choice, and most Australians use digital payments every day, and many, as I said, enjoy, like myself, the convenience of tapping that phone and that option that they have, but there should be an option for people that want to use cash. We need to have that option, as I said.

Technology should expand choice not remove it. Progress should include people not exclude them. In a country as fair and inclusive as Australia, every single citizen should retain the right to access, use and rely on cash for as long as they choose, because cash is more than a payment method. It is a matter of choice, accessibility, independence and dignity.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 is one that is incredibly important for all Australians. At first glance, this legislation may appear to be about logistics or oversight and compliance, but, when we strip away the legal language, this bill is about something much more fundamental. It's about ensuring Australians continue to have a choice at the checkout. It's about protecting the resilience of our payment system, and, most importantly, it's about making sure no Australian is left behind as our economy continues to evolve.

There is an old saying, that cash is king—and we've heard it many times in here today. For some people, that expression sounds outdated. For others, it remains as true today as it has ever been.

Technology has transformed the way Australians pay for goods and services. We can tap our phones, tap our watches or pay with a fingerprint online. We can transfer money in seconds from one side of the country to the other. It's no secret that the growth of digital payments have made life easier for millions of Australians. They create convenience and a high level of efficiency. They have opened opportunities that were unimaginable only a generation ago. None of that should be dismissed, and we should always welcome and encourage progress and innovation.

But progress should never come at the expense of inclusion. The measure of a successful payment system is not whether it embraces the newest technology; it's whether every Australian can participate in it with confidence. That is precisely what this legislation seeks to achieve.

Before I entered this parliament, I spent over half a decade working in the cash-in-transit industry. I saw firsthand the enormous operation required to keep Australia's cash economy flowing every single day. I worked across north-west Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, transporting currency between Reserve Bank facilities, commercial banks, retailers, businesses and automated teller machines.

Most Australians never see that work, and nor should they. When the system works properly, it operates quietly in the background. Cash simply appears in an ATM. A supermarket receives its change before opening, and once again before closing. A local cafe has enough float to serve its first customer. The bank has sufficient cash available on hand when someone walks through the front door. Most people never stop to consider how that happens, because behind every $20 note withdrawn from an ATM sits an extraordinary logistics network. There are armoured vehicles travelling thousands of kilometres every week, with highly trained crews who work long hours under strict security procedures. Cash processing centres count, verify and package millions of dollars every day. Routes are planned with military precision. Security systems operate around the clock. Every link in that chain matters. If just one part fails, the effects ripple throughout the entire economy.

My time in that industry taught me something that has stayed with me throughout my working life. Cash is not simply a currency; it is the unofficial infrastructure of this nation.

I just want to say a quick shout-out to all my past colleagues that I worked with at the Mildura depot, but also those I had the great fortune of representing as the local branch organiser in South Australia at the Pooraka branch—so many fantastic people I've worked alongside of and helped represent with their industrial matters, who have made a fantastic contribution to this country in making sure that, when people go to an ATM at a bank near them, they can get the money that they rightly deserve to be able to take out of those machines. So well done, guys, and keep up the good work.

Cash is every bit as important as the roads that transport it. Without a functioning cash system, Australians quickly discover just how much they rely upon it. The reality becomes especially apparent during natural disasters. When communications fail, when power is interrupted, when internet services become unreliable, cash often becomes the only reliable means of payment. In those moments nobody asks, 'Cash or card?' because there is only one answer to that.

It's easy to assume in our day-to-day life that, because many of us tap our cards every day, everyone else must do the same. That's simply not the case. The Reserve Bank found in 2025 that approximately one in every 10 Australians still relies on cash for their most important purchases. Around 15 per cent of all payments across the country continue to be made using cash. Those are not insignificant numbers. They represent millions of Australians—like elderly citizens who have managed household budgets with cash throughout their lives, or those on lower incomes who find cash helps them budget more effectively by physically seeing what they have available to spend. Many live in regional and remote communities where reliable telecommunications cannot always be taken for granted. Others simply value the privacy and certainty that cash provides. None of those Australians should ever be made to feel as though they are somehow behind the times. None of them should lose access to cash simply because the supporting infrastructure has been allowed to disappear.

Technology should expand opportunity; it shouldn't remove choice. That principle sits at the very heart of this legislation.

Australians have always had a unique relationship with cash. It forms a unique part of our vernacular. Every one of us knows what it means to have a bit of 'shrapnel' rattling around in our pocket. We know exactly what someone means when they pull out a 'redback' if you're in Victoria or a 'lobster' in other parts of the country or a 'pineapple' to pay for something special. I know my grandfather used to have plenty of 'redbacks' in his back pocket, wrapped up with an elastic band. Those expressions have endured because cash has been woven into the fabric of Australian life for generations. They are reminders that money is not merely an electronic transaction; it is something Australians can hold, they can count and they can trust. That trust deserves protection.

The Albanese government has made a clear commitment that Australians will continue to have access to cash for as long as Australians want to use it. This legislation delivers on that commitment. It complements the government's cash acceptance mandate, which commenced on 1 January this year. That mandate requires supermarkets and fuel retailers meeting prescribed criteria to accept cash between 7am and 9pm for purchases of $500 or less.

Protecting the right to pay with cash is one side of the equation. Making sure businesses can actually obtain cash is the other. That is exactly what these bills seek to achieve, because a mandate requiring businesses to accept cash means very little if those same businesses cannot access notes and coins at a reasonable cost. That is why the Cash Distribution Framework Bill and the accompanying Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill are so important. Together, they establish a modern regulatory framework designed to support the long-term sustainability of Australia's cash distribution system. They recognise that, while Australians continue to value cash, the industry responsible for distributing it has come under increasing pressure. As electronic payments have grown, the volume of cash moving through the system has gradually declined. This has led to commercial pressures.

Today, Australia effectively relies upon a near-monopoly provider for many critical cash distribution services. Whenever an essential service becomes dependent upon a single major provider, governments have a responsibility to ensure appropriate safeguards exist. That is not about interfering in the market; it is about recognising that some services are simply too important to fail. Cash distribution is one of those services. The framework before the House acknowledges that reality. Rather than waiting until a crisis emerges, it establishes regulatory settings that allow the sector to return to a more sustainable footing while ensuring Australians continue receiving reliable access to cash regardless of where they live.

The legislation establishes a comprehensive framework built upon practical measures rather than an unnecessary bureaucracy. Oversight of designated critical cash distribution providers will be shared between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Reserve Bank of Australia. Each regulator has a clearly defined role, as each brings expertise appropriate to the responsibilities entrusted to them. The ACCC will oversee commercial arrangements within the sector. It will have the ability to approve standard terms covering services and pricing, ensuring businesses are treated fairly and transparently. Those standard terms will create a baseline offer for customers while still allowing providers and businesses to negotiate alternative arrangements where appropriate. Importantly, designated providers will be will be required to negotiate in good faith. That obligation matters.

Businesses should never find themselves at the mercy of opaque pricing structures or discriminatory treatment simply because there are limited alternatives available. Good-faith negotiations promote fairness. They promote transparency and confidence through the supply chain. Businesses using these services will also gain access to formal dispute resolution and arbitration pathways. That provides certainty not only for providers but also for the thousands of Australian businesses that depend upon reliable access to cash every single day. The framework before the House is about much more than regulating an industry. At its heart, it's about protecting confidence in Australia's payment system, confidence that businesses will continue receiving the cash they need, confidence that communities will continue accessing banking services, and confidence that Australians can continue choosing how they pay for everyday goods and services.

The bill establishes a practical regulatory framework designed to place the cash distribution sector on a sustainable footing for decades to come. Oversight of designated critical cash distribution providers will be shared between the ACCC and the Reserve Bank of Australia, with each regulator bringing expertise to different aspects of the framework. The ACCC will oversee the commercial operation of designated providers, including the ability to approve standard terms covering pricing and service delivery. Those arrangements are intended to provide certainty for businesses while ensuring providers continue operating on fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory terms. Importantly, designated entities will be required to negotiate with customers in good faith. That obligation should not be underestimated.

Businesses, particularly those in regional Australia, often have very limited alternatives when it comes to accessing cash distribution services. A requirement to negotiate fairly helps create confidence across the entire supply chain while ensuring commercially negotiated outcomes remain the foundation of the sector. Should disputes arise, businesses will have access to formal dispute resolution and arbitration processes.

The ACCC will also be empowered to establish minimum service standards following public consultation, recognising that Australia's geography presents challenges unlike almost anywhere else in the world. Delivering cash to a business in the middle of Sydney is vastly different from servicing a town hundreds of kilometres from the nearest regional centre. Those differences deserve to be recognised within the regulatory framework. The bill also requires designated providers to maintain appropriate reporting and record keeping obligations. Good regulation depends upon good information. By improving transparency, regulators will be better placed to identify emerging issues before they become significant disruptions. Equally important are the safeguards established, should the unexpected occur.

Essential infrastructure cannot rely upon hope alone; it requires preparation. The cash distribution framework introduces crisis readiness and resolution powers, enabling the Reserve Bank of Australia to intervene where a designated provider becomes insolvent, enters administration or proposes ceasing critical cash distribution services. Those powers include issuing directions, appointing a statutory manager and, where absolutely necessary, facilitating the transfer of services to maintain continuity. Similar crisis management arrangements already exist across Australia's banking and financial services sector. Extending comparable protections to the cash distribution network is simply responsible planning.

The accompanying Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill ensures that the transition to the new framework is equally well managed. Schedule 2 provides the ACCC with temporary directions powers, should a significant risk to cash access arise during implementation. Those powers are deliberately limited. They expire after 24 months and exist solely to bridge the gap, while longer-term commercial arrangements are established under the new framework. This legislation also complements the government's broader reforms protecting cash access. The cash acceptance mandate, which commenced on 1 January 2026, requires eligible supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash for transactions up to $500 during standard trading hours. Protecting the right to pay with cash is only meaningful if businesses themselves can obtain notes and coins. Alongside commitments from the major banks to pause further regional bank closures, together with strengthened investments in Bank@Post, these reforms form part of a broader strategy to ensure Australians retain access to essential banking services regardless of where they live.

Markets are excellent at driving innovation, but governments have a responsibility to protect inclusion. Cash remains an essential part of Australia's economic resilience. It supports people during natural disasters, telecommunications outages and emergencies. It remains the preferred payment method for many older Australians, lower-income households and regional communities. No Australian should lose access to cash simply because the infrastructure supporting it has been allowed to decline. These bills recognise that simple principle. They protect choice, strengthen resilience and, most importantly, ensure Australians will continue to have access to cash as long as they choose to use it.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Spence for that speech. It was interesting to hear cash described as 'unofficial important infrastructure for the nation'; I would absolutely agree with that. Realising that one in 10 people use cash for the majority of purchases does indeed say that this is important infrastructure. It's interesting because these days you can pay for your coffee with the tap of your phone, the flick of your watch or even, as I learnt today, a ring on your finger.

The pace of change within the digital economy has been extraordinary, and it has, indeed, made our lives more convenient, but, like all things, these advancements don't always work 100 per cent of the time for 100 per cent of the people. For example, when your iPhone or smartphone goes dead or your watch battery dies or when your ATM card stops working at the local cafe because the chip has broken or the machine goes down at your local cafe, cash is the one thing that still works.

I remember when my husband went shopping with the two kids at the local grocery store, and he had a couple of cards on him. He doesn't have his cards on his mobile phone, and neither of his ATM cards worked, and he'd bought about 30 bucks of groceries. He was standing there with two little kids and was like, 'Okay, I can't pay for this. I'm going to have to leave,' and a stranger then went and paid for his groceries, which was very gracious. The thing that I always do is have $20 in the back of my phone. Let's see, do I have it today? Oh, I don't know! My hot tip is that it's useful to make sure that you've got a little bit of cash on you at all times because cash is a universal currency. Luckily, my husband was able to give the kids lunch that day, and I have to say that cash has a really important role.

In a world where more of our daily lives are automated and made seamless, often this is at the expense of human interaction, and we can lose sight of the moments that cash still creates, such as a someone paying for a stranger's groceries or chatting with the person at the till as someone counts your change or joking about the mental maths of calculating the right amount of change, which I love doing and I'm teaching my son how to do that as well.

Cash gives us more chances to connect with people around us, and many older Australians rely on this. It's what small businesses fall back on when the terminal fails. It is what gets tucked into a birthday card—and Grandma Mary, who lives in Warracknabeal, is known for still slipping in a $20 note for birthday cards—or when you've got a raffle tin at the footy club or when you hand over $5 for a punnet of strawberries at local farmers' markets. My preference for weddings is making sure that you put green notes in the wedding card. That's a tip for punters at home. For any parent running the sausage sizzle or a cake stall or a teenager earning their first pocket money through a babysitting job or making lemonade for the neighbourhood, which is something that regularly happens in my neighbourhood, cash remains essential. It is still how a large amount of ordinary life gets paid for.

In 2025, the Reserve Bank of Australia reported that around one in 10 Australians use cash for most of their purchases. That's nearly 2.8 million people, particularly consisting of older Australians, lower income households and those in rural and regional communities. No-one should be left behind in payment systems. That is why the government is introducing the Cash Distribution Framework Bill. This bill will establish a regulatory framework for cash distribution so that systems that get cash into ATMs, into bank branches and into the till at the local IGA can keep on running.

Right now, that system is under real strain. Demand for cash has been falling over two decades. The cash-in-transit sector, the businesses that physically move cash around the country, has consolidated down to one dominant provider with a market share of more than 90 per cent. This has consequences. In parts of regional Australia, it has already meant that there are fewer ATMs and that the ones that remain are often further away. For someone in a country town, it can mean a long drive to withdraw cash. For an older Australian without a car or without the ability to make that trip easily, it can mean going without or relying on neighbours or a family member to get to the nearest branch. Access to cash should not depend on how far you live from the nearest town or how many suburbs away the closest shopping centre is.

Through the framework of this bill, the Reserve Bank will have the power to designate an entity as significant to the cash distribution system, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will have the power to oversee the terms to ensure that providers do not manipulate or take advantage of their dominant market share. The bill also provides regulators with information-gathering and enforcement powers they need to actually make this framework work in practice, including civil penalties for entities that do not meet their obligations. We know that maintaining a cash network is getting more expensive to run as fewer people use it for everyday transactions. This framework does not pretend that these problems disappear. What it does do is put fair rules around how those costs are shared, instead of leaving a near-monopoly provider free to set its own price and its own priorities and instead of leaving regional and vulnerable Australians to simply lose access because the market found it convenient to withdraw.

There is also a question about what happens if a provider gets into real trouble. This bill gives the Reserve Bank the power to step in before that happens. If a designated provider is at risk of becoming financially unviable, the bank can issue directions, appoint someone to manage the business or oversee its transfers so that cash distribution does not simply stop while a company works through insolvency in the background. These powers mirror the crisis and resolution framework that already applies to banks, insurers and clearing and settlement facilities in Australia's financial system.

This bill builds on commitments that this government has already made. Since January 2026, major supermarkets and fuel retailers have been required to accept cash for everyday purchases. Last year, the Treasurer secured commitments from Australia's big banks to hold off regional bank closures until the middle of 2027. This bill follows those decisions to make sure that Australians who rely on cash are not left behind. We are also building resilience in our economy. When the power goes out, when the internet stops, when a flood or bushfire takes down the local network, cash still works, especially Australian cash, since we have our fancy polymer notes, which are waterproof. When a community faces a natural disaster, there is usually no signal and no power. Card readers don't work. Online banking doesn't work. During these times, Australians rely on cash to buy fuel, food and water and pay for emergency repairs and to get by in the days before power and communications are restored. A payment system that only works on a good day is not a resilient payment system, and this bill treats cash distribution as the piece of critical infrastructure that it indeed is.

Cash still matters to millions of Australians, and the system that delivers it should not be allowed to fail simply because it became less profitable to run it. That is the standard that this government holds itself to across the board, not just on cash. The Albanese Labor government understands that inclusion is not just something you achieve once; it's something that you work on every day. It shows up in the decisions we make and in the people who make them. This is the most diverse parliament in Australia's history, and, for the first time, women make up more than half of the Labor caucus. That matters because, when the people at the table come from a diverse range of backgrounds, the injustices facing everyday Australians are less likely to be missed. It is why we made cash acceptance mandatory at the check-out. It's why we kept bank branches open in the regions. It's why this bill exists—to make sure that the systems behind the till keep working for the people who need it most, not just for the people who had the privileges of adapting to the digital age.

Access is not something you legislate once and move on from. It is something that you keep on building into every part of government. This includes something as ordinary as how people actually pay for their groceries. Cash is an important part of the Australian economy. We will make sure that all communities continue to have access to this. Because of these amazing changes, I commend the bill to the House.

Madonna Jarrett (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember when I started my first paid job. I was babysitting or pouring tea at the local church event. I then progressed to working at the supermarket and then the hospital. I always got a pay packet, and it always had notes and coins in it—predominantly notes, thank goodness! I'd take out what I needed for the week to buy my groceries or pay my rent, and I usually needed a little bit of that for some fun on the weekend. When I had the time, I raced to the bank to deposit what I had left over.

Today, though, many of us don't use the amount of cash that we used to. But cash is still extremely important to every Australian, regardless of where they live, how old they are or how they choose to pay for their everyday purchases. As the saying goes, 'cash is king'. That may sound counterintuitive, especially when, for many Australians, our pay is automatically deposited into our accounts. We tap our phone card. We pay with our watches. All of this is becoming second nature. Digital payments are fast. They're convenient, and they're increasingly common. But, despite this technological change, cash does remain essential.

For older Australians, people living in regional and remote communities, vulnerable people escaping family, domestic and financial abuse, and anyone caught in a power outage or a telecommunications failure, cash is not old-fashioned; it is essential. It's essential for our local schools and charities who fundraise—selling cakes, homemade gifts and raffle tickets—or for the little local entrepreneur who might be selling lemonade at the roadside. The Albanese government recognises this. Rather than allowing Australians to drift towards becoming a cashless society, our government has acted to ensure Australians continue to have access to notes and coins for essential purchases.

That's why—and we heard this earlier tonight—we've introduced Australia's first national cash acceptance mandate. From 1 January this year, most major supermarkets and fuel retailers are legally required to accept cash for in-person purchases of up to $500. The rules apply between normal hours, 7 am to 9 pm, with exemptions for many genuinely small businesses. This reform sends a clear message: cash remains legal tender, and Australians who choose to use it should not be excluded from buying life's essentials.

Our approach is practical. This government understands that digital payments are growing rapidly. Most Australians now pay electronically most of the time, and Labor is not trying to reverse technological progress. Instead, we're making sure that progress doesn't leave people behind, and that reflects the really important Labor value of 'no-one left behind'. Economic modernisation should improve people's lives, not create new forms of disadvantage.

For many Australians, cash isn't simply a preference; it's how they budget. There are some who still do what I did when I first started work. Many households deliberately withdraw a weekly amount of cash. They know what they've got to spend, and it helps them manage their budget and their spending. Using notes and coins allows families to avoid overspending and stay within a budget.

Labor recognises that people should remain free to manage their finances in a way that works best for them, and the reforms also recognise that Australia's payment system must remain resilient. In recent years, we've all experienced technological failures, bank outages, internet failures, power blackouts and natural disasters. It was only a month ago that the entire Telstra network, pretty much, went down. This affected everyone from the joggers who were out on their morning run trying to buy a coffee afterwards to the Uber drivers who were taking people to the airports and were wanting to use their platforms and get paid and elderly residents who might be lining up at the chemist to buy their essential medicines. So many more jobs and ways of working and living were affected.

When electronic payment systems fail, cash continues to work. There's no internet requirement, no mobile signal, no battery and no software update required. Cash provides an important back-up during emergencies. Labor's reforms help ensure Australians can continue purchasing food and fuel even when digital systems experience disruptions. These reforms are particularly important for regional Australia. Many rural communities still experience unreliable telecommunications.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Brisbane, you'll have leave to continue your remarks tomorrow.