Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, 'Why does One Nation want to ban cash?' Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does. Right now, today, if any Australian walks into a Coles or a Woolworths anywhere in our country, that store, because of the regulations that One Nation is seeking to disallow, is legally required to accept your cash. So, Mum and Dad, if you go down to your local Woolies or Coles today and you want to hand over a $50 note, you are entitled to. It's the same with a fuel station. If you fill up your car at a BP or an Ampol or a Shell, you could actually walk into one of those servos and hand over your $50 note or $20 note and, because of this regulation, they are legally required to accept your cash.

That is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow. So if this motion passes the Senate, when you walk into Coles or Woolies and when you walk into Ampol or Shell or BP, then, because of the actions of One Nation, when you pull out your wallet and pull out your 50 bucks or your 20 bucks and seek to provide that as legal tender, they can look at you and say, 'Thanks to One Nation, the bad news is, we no longer have to accept that.'

I honestly do not understand why, when cash is still so important to so many people in Australia, a political party—in this case, One Nation—would seek to disallow a regulation that does what we all want to do: ensure that as much cash as possible is required to be accepted as legal tender in Australia. If this motion passes, as I said, the obligation disappears—immediately. Don't try to walk into Coles or Woolies with money in your wallet, because they will not be legally required to accept it. They do not have to take that money.

And what replaces it? What is One Nation's big plan to replace the obligation on these big companies to take your money? What replaces it? Well, nothing. So the bad news, for those people who still like to use cash to fill up their tank or nip into their local Coles or Woolies, is that they will not be able to, because those places do not legally have to accept it. No alternative regulation has been put forward. There's no bill on the Notice Paper. However, the coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals, will be seeking to address that. But there's no framework suddenly sitting in the top drawer of Treasury.

The effect of this disallowance is that we would go back to the position that existed before 1 January this year, which is that no company in Australia has any legal obligation to accept cash for anything. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. So if the Senate supports One Nation's disallowance motion today, Woolworths and Coles can literally turn around tomorrow and say they are 100 per cent cashless. So can the fuel companies. They can turn around and say: 'We are 100 per cent cashless. You cannot use that $50 note or that $20 note here as legal tender'—because for some strange reason One Nation wants to ban cash.

So I'm going to ask again: why would any senator who says they care that there are people who use cash in the economy actually want to remove the only cash acceptance obligation that has ever existed in Australian law? Quite frankly, the tactic of One Nation is bizarre. It's a bit like a politician complaining about getting only $15 million in funding to fix roads in their electorate when $50 million is needed and saying, 'I'm not going to take any money.' Well, guess what? You now have zero.

So let me be very clear about the coalition's position. Is the cash mandate adequate? No, it is not. And we have been very clear on this. It does not go nearly far enough. We agree with Senator Roberts on that point. The government themselves failed when it came to bringing in a regulation that aligned with the promise they'd made to the Australian people, which was a broad mandate covering essential goods and services. In fact, the Treasurer himself said in 2024 that pharmacies should be covered. The original consultation paper included medicines, utilities and children's clothing. For some reason—and we would like to get to the bottom of this—all of that was quietly dropped. That is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

What we did end up with was a mandate covering supermarkets and fuel retailers—and nothing else. That is plainly too narrow. The coalition have said so, we will continue to do so, and we will be bringing in a private senator's bill to address this issue.

But where we have to part company with Senator Roberts is on what you do about it. You do not fix a mandate that is too narrow, one that says Coles, Woolies and the servos have to accept cash, by abolishing that mandate. Quite literally, you would then be at the whim of the Australian government; Australians would have no protection at all. I have to say, Senator Roberts and One Nation, I think it's great that you live in hope, but hope is not going to be good enough for these people who are going to turn up to a supermarket, Coles or Woolies, and be told, because of your actions, 'You cannot use that here'—that $50 note, that $20 note, that $10 note—because that is exactly what the law will entitle them to do.

If you go back and review the submissions that were presented when this was looked into—let's have a look at what those organisations themselves, which actually represent some of the greatest cash users in society, said. National Seniors Australia are the peak body for nearly nine million Australians over 50. They described the cash mandate as 'a step forward'. They're happy with the cash mandate, because, as they pointed out, there is currently no obligation at law on any retailer to accept cash. In fact, the recommendation of National Seniors Australia to the inquiry was to actually expand the mandate, not to scrap it.

CHOICE, together with Financial Counselling Australia, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and three other community organisations, admitted, just as the coalition does, that the government has 'watered down' its original proposal—as I said, shame on the government for doing that—but they did say that the mandate itself does, at least, cover supermarkets and petrol stations. They did underline how limited it is, but, again, their recommendation was not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It was to support the mandate—even though, yes, it is in a limited form—and to restore the original scope and strengthen it.

COTA Australia are the leading advocacy body for older Australians. Do you know what they called the mandate? They called it 'sensible reform'. But, yes, they did say it needs to go further, and we agree with them. Not even the business groups—COSBOA, MGA, ACAPMA—called for the mandate to be removed, not one of them.

So I have to say this to One Nation: Which consumer groups support what you are proposing? Which seniors organisations? Which disability groups have called for the answer to a mandate that does not go far enough to be no mandate at all? The answer is none of them—not one.

There are currently 1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80 per cent of their in-person transactions. One in two Australians over the age of 65 uses cash regularly. In regional and remote communities, as we all know, cash is not a convenience; it is the payment method that works when the power goes out, the internet drops or the card terminal fails. These Australians absolutely deserve better than what the Albanese Labor government has given them, and the coalition will continue to press for the mandate to be extended.

But I have to say I am surprised that anybody in this chamber would actually support the disallowance of a regulation that—if it were the will of the Senate today to take it away—would make Australians immeasurably worse off. You would be taking away the one legal protection that Australians currently have. It may not go far enough, but, at least, tomorrow, when they front up at Woolies and Coles and the servos, they will still be able to use cash. It won't be because the One Nation, and it won't be because of the Australian Greens. A vote for this disallowance doesn't send a message to the government—for goodness sake. Seriously—it doesn't pressure the government to do any better. All it actually will do is remove the legal right of Australians to pay for their groceries with cash at Woolworths and Coles. It'll remove the legal right of Australians to pay for their fuel at the servos, at BP, at Ampol, at Shell and at others. The reality is: it doesn't matter how you argue for this disallowance.

You can live in hope that the government will do something, but you will then need to go and answer to CHOICE, Financial Counselling Australia, National Seniors Australia, COTA and all of the others who have said: 'The mandate doesn't go far enough. But, please, for the sake of our members—the people who do use cash each and every day—do not get rid of it. Do not take away the ability for them to pay for their groceries. Do not take away that legal right that they have when they walk into Coles, when they walk into Woollies and when they walk into their servos to pay that bill. Please ensure that, when they open up that wallet, there is a legal mandate on these companies to say to them, "Yes, that is legal tender, and we have to accept it."' As I said, we will oppose the disallowance. Why? Because we actually believe in the right of all Australians to use cash. It is legal tender in this country. We do not agree with the Australian Greens—this is going to be very ironic because I'm saying it in the same sentence—and One Nation, who want to take away the one protection that these people have. In particular, again, when I look at the statistics, one in two Australians over 65 use cash regularly.

Well, guess what? The coalition today is going to stand with the 1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80 per cent of their in-person transactions. We are going to stand with the one in two Australians over the age of 65 who use cash regularly. We are going to stand with National Seniors Australia, the peak body for nearly 9 million Australians over 50. We are going to stand with CHOICE together with Financial Counselling Australia, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and other community groups who have said: 'Please. We are with you that the cash mandate does not go far enough. We absolutely agree with you there, but please. You are the Australian parliament. Do not take away from us, when we so desperately need it, that one legal right that we have, and that is the ability to walk into Coles, to walk into Woollies, to walk into the servos and to actually use cash.'

To the Greens and to One Nation who mock me and laugh at what I say: shame on you. The outcome is: you don't support cash, and you don't support the right of those Australians.