Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, be disallowed [F2025L01580].

These regulations were a broken promise from the government. In the other place, the House of Representatives, Mr Bob Katter MP, Ms Dai Le MP and Mr Andrew Gee MP, submitted a bill called the Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024. This bill highlighted the importance of cash to the regions and to the cities and sought to ensure the continuation of banking services in rural and regional areas to support the use of cash. The Albanese government did not support that bill, but there was a communication between Mr Gee and the government which resulted in the production of a set of regulations which claimed to guarantee the continued use of cash, yet these regulations failed to achieve the promised outcome. They undermined cash and helped destroy it.

As I said hurriedly this afternoon and can now say with more clarity, the promise of protecting the use of cash has been broken. It was a deceitful lie. The Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Grogan?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe Senator Roberts is deeply misleading and is throwing around some pretty heavy language. I would seek to ask you to get him to withdraw.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My opinion is that this is a debating point. You have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I will seek some advice. I will stand by my first thought. Senator Roberts, you have the call. I will caution you to consider your language.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will prove my point as I continue. The Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 are promoted as mandating cash, yet, in a display of rank dishonesty, these regulations allow almost every business in the country to not accept cash. That's why I say it's deceit.

Firstly, small businesses with a turnover of under $10 million are exempt, which is 97 per cent of businesses in Australia. Then every other business is excluded from the regulations except fuel stations and supermarkets. Then this mandate is shrunk even further through limiting the cash that fuel stations and supermarkets can take to only $500 at a time. It's reduced further again with a provision that only requires that cash be accepted between 7 am and 9 pm. I'll say it again: cash can only be accepted between 7 am and 9 pm. So there's no cash anywhere between 9 pm and 7 am—none anywhere.

But wait, there's more. Further exemptions can be given to a business where accepting cash is not feasible. In Senate estimates, the ACCC gave the example of a country town with no bank to give or receive cash. In that town, the cash mandate would not apply to their supermarket or petrol station—if they have one. These regulations, which are promoted as protecting cash, have the effect of limiting cash acceptance to perhaps one per cent of businesses, and only during certain times of the day. Outside of those hours: no cash. What a scandal!

There is an agenda here, which I will now go into. We've seen many inquiries into bank closures in rural and regional Australia. The big four banks have thumbed their noses at these inquiries and continued to close branches even as the Senate inquired into bank closures. That is a fact. I was on that inquiry. A cash mandate would ruin their plans to shut down all of their presence in the bush, dumping the provision of limited banking services on Australia Post via Bank@Post. This provides a real problem for licensed post offices in the bush because they are not set up to handle large amounts of cash. They simply can't get it into town or out of town. The money they make from the transaction, coming from the banks, is insufficient to cover their costs in many cases. The banks will save a fortune through the closure of their branches, dumping the cost on Australia Post and ultimately on the taxpayers. Always with Labor, the taxpayers pick up the bill—we, the people, pay.

Labor voters will have to ask themselves why the Labor Party is so quick to provide the big four banks with additional profit, as if $30 billion a year between them already isn't enough. Could it be the millions the Australian Labor Party put in their pockets in gifts, known as donations, every election cycle from the banks? I read the list out earlier today. It's right there as public record. Even the Guardian reported on it. I can remember for the 2022 election that ANZ had the smallest donation, at almost $100,000, Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank gave nearly $200,000 and NAB gave $138,000. In the last election, the banks gave $1.3 million to Labor and the Liberals and Nationals. One Nation has taken nothing—zero—from the banks. Our policy is to put everyday Australians first, not big business or big banks, as the Labor Party does.

The Liberal Party tried this on a few years back and were defeated when One Nation combined with the Greens and the Labor Party branches—your own branches—to vote down a bill that was nowhere near as bad as these regulations are. This occurred because the Labor Party's ethnic branches, in particular, got wind of their support and forced the Labor Party to oppose the bill. The decision to sneak—yes, sneak—an effective cash ban through in regulation was an attempt to hide what the government is doing from their ethnic branches. You want to hide it from your own people. Bad luck—One Nation saw you, and you've been caught.

This morning I met with representatives from National Seniors Australia, whose members are distraught at the prospect of losing their ability to pay in cash. They were in my office here in Canberra. Many of their members do not operate electronic banking, cannot pay for computers and internet or live in areas where the service is so poor that cash is still the most common method of payment. That is a fact. The government's failure to make the NBN work in rural and regional areas and their decision to shut down the 3G network is an argument for another day. I could pile into that here, but I won't tonight.

The Canberra bubble, who reside here in their ivory towers and author regulations like this, have no idea how an economy works in the bush, nor in the cities. They refuse to accept that many Australians are not engaged in digital transactions. Many protect their constitutional right to use cash. The Canberra bubble's fingerprints are all over this inscrutable, dishonest document.

National Seniors Australia pointed out a glaring hole in these regulations: pharmacies. If you are an Australian who does not have an active credit or debit card and you need medication, as many seniors do, what will the outcome be? Do you come back when you can pay with a card? People could die because of these regulations. I accept that chemists may choose to keep accepting cash for now, but what happens when the local ATMs go—as is happening all over Australia, in the bush, in the suburbs and in the metropolitan areas—and people can no longer get their hands on cash to pay for pharmaceuticals? What happens when a rural business closes their local branch, then the one in the next town and then the one in the next and petrol is $3 a litre—thanks, Labor, for that, by the way. If a supermarket is not in this town, you have to drive hundreds of kilometres to the next town to get food and come back. It's a matter of life and death.

This regulation allows businesses that are suffering profit-decline to look at the cost of maintaining cash and say, 'Look, I want to support cash, but I can't afford to.' Instead of having to front their customers and explain why they no longer accept cash, they can simply blame the government and the policies of the banking industry.

And the banks—what's in it for them? Control—control over cash and control over fees, because, whenever you use an electronic method, there's a fee involved.

This is the outcome these regulations are framed to create. This is a war on cash. It's a war on Australian lifestyles and freedoms.

Banks want everyone to pay with a card, and to pay the banks for the privilege with a transaction fee. And Labor is helping the banks to greatly increase income from fees. They're helping the banks, who already make $30 billion in profit, to increase their profits. Once consumers have no choice except to pay that fee, the fees will go up—and up, and up, and up, because you won't have a choice.

These regulations will provide one of the world's worst environments for cash payments, if not the worst. I'd remind people that Liberal and Labor supported the bank bail-ins in 2017 and 2018. These banks can never lose, because you've enabled that to happen. You privatise the profits for the banks and you socialise the losses. This banking industry has got so little risk.

It is being done without the debate this sort of a move should have. At least the Liberals had the guts to put their cash ban in a bill, put it on the Notice Paper in plain sight and have a fair debate—even though you supported them in the lower house. The Albanese government, instead of being open, has tried to sneak it through, lie about it and be deceitful. Yet you still have the hide to talk about transparency. What a joke, and what a cruel joke.

Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands have realised their cash bans were a mistake, and they have wound them back. These countries have introduced regulations to actually encourage the use of cash and the provision of cash through their banking system.

Labor's regulations are already behind international best practice. They are a mistake. They are a deceit. They will cause untold suffering. And I ask the Senate to disallow them.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I almost can't find the words to respond to that absolute—I probably shouldn't say it; I've been trying to find a word that's not unparliamentary—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue trying to find it!

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

just absolute rubbish that we've heard from Senator Roberts. Is it wilful ignorance, blissful ignorance or wilful misinformation? Are they living on a completely different planet, or perhaps, I wonder, have they just spent a little bit too much time on Gina Rinehart's private jet? But, you know, the reason One Nation goes on about this stuff is that they want to distract Australians from what's really going on.

So here's the thing. On 1 January 2026, Labor introduced a cash acceptance mandate, which means that fuel stations and grocery stores have to accept cash for in-person transactions of up to $500 between the hours of 7am and 9 pm. Until we introduced this mandate, there was no obligation on businesses to accept cash in Australia—no obligation. But now there is—thanks to Labor; thanks to our government—because we know that cash still plays an important role in our economy. Done. Problem solved. You're welcome.

So what exactly is it that Senator Roberts and his colleagues are outraged about? Genuinely, I would love to know. But this is what they do: they twist words; they target Australians who are doing it tough; they manufacture outrage out of thin air; they want to make people angry. And it's like they think: 'Oh, we've won a couple of lower house seats in South Australia,' and suddenly they're ready to run the country! I mean, mate, give me a break! What they continue to demonstrate in this place is that they are not up to the job of making the serious decisions that Australians need. The coalition breaks up and makes up all the time. I can't imagine the chaos of adding a third party to that dysfunctional marriage. It won't end well.

One Nation clearly love cash. They've made that pretty clear. Don't get me wrong—they love money; they love gifts. If you read the news, you would have seen that Senator Hanson has spent a bit of time on the private jet of Australia's richest person, Gina Rinehart, but she's forgotten about it. Don't get me wrong; I love a girl's trip. But I'm not sure I'd be jumping on Gina's jet anytime soon, and, if I did, I reckon I'd probably remember it. When asked whether she'd received free flights from Australia's richest person, Senator Hanson said she couldn't remember. I mean, can you imagine?

Let's have a look back at the travel diary. Where in the world has Senator Hanson been on Gina Rinehart's private jet? Florida—lovely and sunny. I hear it's a lovely place to retire, Senator Hanson. I'm sure plenty of people might love your act over there, but they do have alligators, not crocodiles, just so you know. What did Senator Hanson get up to in sunny Florida? Well, she spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference, partied with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago and stayed in Rinehart's Palm—

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Deputy President, what's the relevance of this?

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are generally wide-ranging debates, Senator Roberts. I will bring Senator Whiteaker back to the item we are actually debating. We do need to be broadly relevant to the item we are debating. Senator Whiteaker, I will remind you of what we are debating, but you have the call.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. I'm happy to explain why this is relevant. The party at Gina Rinehart's Palm Beach mansion sounds like a blast. It's not exactly my cup of tea, but it sounds like what ordinary Aussie battlers are doing on the weekend—jumping on Gina's private jet and heading to the US. One Nation is the party that claims that it's fighting for the 'forgotten Australians', but I think they actually mean 'forgetful Australians'—you know, those ordinary battlers who forget that they travelled on a private jet. I speak to those Western Australians all the time in my home state! Who hasn't forgotten to declare a free trip to Florida on a private jet? It happens all the time—a totally easy mistake to make.

Senator Roberts said in his contribution that he believes all Australians should live a life of wealth and prosperity. He wants to make sure that every Australian can use cash when they need to. But that's not true. In fact—and I'll use one of the words that Senator Roberts used earlier in his contribution—it's a lie. It is not true. But that's One Nation in a nutshell: talk up the battler, fly with the billionaires.

If Senator Roberts wants to talk about cash so much, why doesn't he want Australians to have any? Why have One Nation stood in the way of every single cost-of-living measure that our government has delivered? Why have One Nation stood in the way of every effort our government has taken to increase wages for ordinary working Australians? That's the real work that Australians want their government to do, not spread lies and misinformation in an attempt to distract from what One Nation senators are actually spending their time doing: pretending that they stand up for the battlers while flying with billionaires.

While they waste time in this chamber on conspiracy and clickbait, they're trying to get rid of the only real protection that Australians have to use cash for the things that they need. Let's be honest, that is what this disallowance would do. It would take away the only protection that Australians have to use cash. What would ordinary Australian battlers have to say about that? Senator Roberts talks about some weird digital money that doesn't exist, but he's stopping people from being able to use the cash they actually have in their wallets. Make it make sense! Right now, tonight, in this chamber, Senator Roberts and One Nation are moving to take away the only guarantee that Australians have to use cash for the essentials. It's not protecting cash. It's not standing up for ordinary Australians.

This is part of a pattern of behaviour by One Nation. They are not actually committed to taking action on cost of living. They are not actually committed to standing up for ordinary Australians. They pretend that's what they care about, and then they come into this place and they try to take away the protections that Australians rely on. They try to stand in the way of our actions on cost of living. But we will continue to call them out, because Australians deserve better than what One Nation are offering.

One Nation love to talk about protecting your freedom, but actually they are trying to take away your ability to use the money that you have in your wallet. Well, I tell you what, Senator Roberts, that ain't freedom. It's a complete contradiction. If you're serious about protecting cash then you should support the only mandate—the mandate that this government introduced on 1 January this year—to protect that. But if you continue with this disallowance, you are taking away the ability of Australians to use cash. You should be upfront and honest about that. When you say that you stand up for everyday Australians, they expect you to do just that.

But when the chips are down, when there are headlines to chase and clicks to get, One Nation go behind Australians backs. They'll say one thing in the street and do the opposite in the chamber. But we should be honest about who they are really standing up for. This is a party that pretends they care about ordinary Australians, but they are cosying up to billionaires and their powerful interests when it suits them. That is their record—not delivery, not outcomes, just outrage.

Tonight they are trying to take away the simple cash guarantee that Australians rely on. All Australians should be able to walk into a shop, pull out a pineapple and pay for the basics. That's what Labor believe, and that is what we have delivered. That is what Senator Roberts and One Nation are trying to take away from Australians in this chamber tonight. And I really hope the opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, don't use this as an opportunity to continue to cosy up with One Nation like we saw in recent weeks in South Australia, where they cosied up and did a nice little preference deal—it didn't work out so well for the Liberals in South Australia, did it? I hope they have learnt their lesson. But I suspect that I might be sorely disappointed and that we might see One Nation and the Liberals and the Nationals cosying up again to take away the things that Australians rely on.

I want to talk a little bit about why we introduced this mandate and why it's so important. Labor introduced this mandate on 1 January 2026. It means that most fuel stations and grocery stores have to accept cash for in-person transactions of up to $500 between 7 am and 9 pm. Before this mandate there was no obligation on businesses to accept cash in Australia, and now there is—unless, of course, this disallowance motion passes the Senate, in which case Australians will no longer have that protection. That's what Senator Roberts and One Nation are asking us to do tonight, to take away the ability of Australians to use cash.

One Nation talked a little bit about locals being able to pay their bills, and I think that's really important because we know that most utility providers don't actually have retail shopfronts. There are more than 4,000 post offices around the country—more than 2½ thousand of those in rural and remote areas, areas that Senator Roberts likes to pretend he cares about—and so Australians are able to make cash payments at those outlets. This approach, our approach, has been supported by stakeholders. COTA Australia, representing older Australians, says:

Mandating businesses to accept cash for essential goods is sensible reform that will protect older Australians and others who rely on cash from being locked out of everyday life …

Sounds pretty good to me, but, as we've come to expect from One Nation, their arguments are light on detail and far from reality. I said earlier, but I'll say it again because it's a really good line: are they living on another planet or are they just spending too much time in Gina Rinehart's private jet?

What I would like to see from Senator Roberts and One Nation is for them to be upfront with Australians about what they are actually doing here tonight and what they're asking senators in this chamber to do, which is to say to Australians, 'Look, Labor introduced this mandate to make sure that you are able to pay cash for the things that you need, but what we are trying to do, what One Nation is trying to do'—and what I hope that the Liberals and Nationals don't do—'is vote to take that capacity away.' If this chamber votes in favour of this disallowance motion tonight, that is what will happen, and Senator Roberts and One Nation should be honest about that. They should be honest to the around one in 10 Australians that the RBA found use cash for the majority of their in-person purchases. They should be upfront with us about what it is they are trying to do.

What's the coalition's record on regional banking? Between 2017 and 2022, the number of regional bank branches across Australia fell by 29 per cent—that's 700 regional bank branches that closed on their watch. What has Labor done about that? Since we came to office, we've negotiated a moratorium on branch closures for 2½ years to ensure that there are no regional branch bank closures by the major banks before 31 July 2027. We've secured investments in Bank@Post, which has over 3,350 locations across the country, and we've delivered the cash acceptance mandate, guaranteeing, for the first time, that all Australians can use cash for their fuel, groceries and essential services. That's the mandate that Senator Roberts wants to take away from Australians tonight.

Our support for regional banking for Australians who want to use cash is having a real impact in communities across Australia. Under the Liberals, when they were in government, we saw nearly a third of regional bank branches close. It's only Labor that has done the work to make sure that those banks continue to operate.

We know there's more work to do, and we are absolutely committed to doing it. We know that local banking services are important to Australians, and we are committed to keeping those banks open. My message to Senator Roberts and One Nation tonight is, if you're serious about protecting cash, then you should withdraw this disallowance motion. My call to other senators in this chamber is not to vote in support of this motion, because what it will do is take away the only protection that Australians have right now to pay cash for the essential services that they need, and that would be an absolute outrage.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this disallowance motion. The coalition will be supporting this motion, and I will explain why. We just saw from Senator Whiteaker how unseriously the government takes this issue, and it is a serious issue. It is a serious issue of economic freedom. It is a serious issue that other countries are taking very important notice of.

I want to go through what some other countries have actually done in this space. Let's not try and paint these countries as radical, right-wing nut-job countries. How about Norway, which has a strict law requiring merchants to accept cash, particularly for in-person services? Denmark—another very right-wing country, I hear—maintains that most shops and businesses accept cash payments. Spain mandates that businesses must accept cash transactions for up to 1,000 euros. France has strict regulations in place requiring the acceptance of cash for all retail transactions. Hungary and Slovakia—have in place these kinds of mandates because they realise that cash is integral to sovereignty and is integral to individuals' economic freedom. What we have from the Labor Party is a deal done behind closed doors with no transparency, no consultation. They've completely failed to respond to the regional banking inquiry, which delivered its recommendation 660 days ago, an inquiry I sat for. The fact is these are very important issues and issues that must be taken more seriously than has been displayed by those opposite.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be frank. This disallowance motion isn't just a bad motion; it's a confused motion, and it's actually a revealing motion. In one single act, being this disallowance motion, brought forward by Senator Roberts, we see laid bare something that the Australian public is increasingly becoming more aware of—that the Liberal Party of Australia and One Nation are no longer fellow travellers. They are no longer occasional collaborators, sometime frien   ds. They are politically, strategically and ideologically intertwined. At this point, the Liberal Party are not even a party anymore; they are just a very, very bad One Nation tribute band, and, like with most tribute bands, we are not enjoying the music.

Jokes aside, let us start with the facts. Senator Roberts has moved to disallow the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025, a regulation that is quite simply already delivering exactly what Australians were promised. The Albanese government said that we would guarantee the right to use cash for essential purposes, and we did it. From 1 January this year, Australians are able to walk into a fuel station or a grocery store and use cash, their own hard-earned money, to pay for essential goods. For the first time ever, there is a legal obligation for businesses to accept cash. This government did that. Before, there was none. That is the reality. But why does that matter? Despite all of the noise, the conspiracy laced talking points from Senator Roberts, Labor believes cash still matters. And we go one step further. We want to put more money, more cash, in the back pocket of ordinary Australians, and we've done that with tax cut after tax cut, voted against by that side of politics. We want to put more cash in the back pocket of Australians.

But we didn't stop there. One of the first things we did when we came to government was protect energy rates, something that has always been under threat by the Liberal Party. They took a run at Sunday penalty rates, and we knew that they would do it again if given the chance. They are always after taking money out of the back pocket of the Australian workers. We didn't stop there. We made same job, same pay law. Now, we have workers who are being ripped off by up to $30,000 in my home state of Queensland, working hard underground in mines in Central Queensland. That side of politics, One Nation, is very happy to see them being ripped off by $30,000, so we are not going to be lectured about cash by people who want to take cash out of the back pockets of ordinary workers.

We know how important the reliance on cash is to Australian workers. Around one in 10 Australians rely on cash for most of their in-person purchases. That is not trivial. That is not fringe. That's real people, older Australians, people in regional Queensland, people who rely on the certainty, the accessibility and the control that cash gives them. Around 1.5 million Australians use cash for 80 per cent of their transactions. Cash is not nostalgia; it is a lifeline. The Albanese Government's has recognised that. But we have also recognised something else. You cannot simply impose blanket rules without understanding the impacts that that could have on small businesses. We struck a balance—a cash mandate that applies to essential services, such as groceries and fuels, and a cap of $500; operating hours that reflect real-world trading conditions; and an exemption for small business with under $10 million in turnover. We also built into it a review for three years. That is what responsible government looks like—measured, consulted and targeted.

When Senator Roberts comes into the chamber, waving his finger around, you have to ask: what exactly does he think he is achieving here? This motion isn't just misguided; it is redundant. The legislation he wants already exists thanks to this Labor government. His actions today are frankly an admission that he does not understand the very law that he is trying to dismantle. Worse than that, if it succeeded, it would strip away the very protections he claims to support. It would remove the obligation for businesses to accept cash. It would make life harder for the very Australians, the battlers, that One Nation claims to stand up for. Every opportunity they get to stand up for battlers in this place they do not take. They vote against the interests of hardworking Australians time and time again. They voted against same-job same-pay. They voted against penalty rates. They voted against tax cuts. They do not want cash in your back pocket; they want it in Gina Rinehart's.

This motion is a classic own goal from the One Nation playbook. The same people who tell working people in this country, the battlers, one thing, and, when they come to Canberra and they sit on that leather, they do the exact opposite, thinking that nobody's going to notice. This is another example of bad policy bluff without any detail or sense of reality. Every time when scrutiny arrives and when real questions are asked of One Nation, their house of cards falls over. We saw that just days ago from Senator Hanson down in Adelaide. She was asked a simple question in South Australia in the election about who would cost One Nation's policies, and she exploded. I think it's perfectly logical—

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance—I'm not sure what this has to do with the motion we're debating.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did feel the thread through there, if I work off the basis of the series of contributions we've had on this matter. It does appear, from the original speaker onwards, that it is somewhat about the vibe, but I will make the point to Senator Mulholland to make sure that she is remaining relevant to the topic, and I'll listen very carefully, Senator Bell. Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the point of order, I must say I was so engaged by Senator Mulholland's speech that I actually left my office to come in so I could listen in person—it was so relevant.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that contribution, Senator Scarr. I feel debating the point of order is maybe appropriate for this time of night, but, no, that is not what we are here for. I will take us back to the debate at hand.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When asked a simple question about One Nation's election policies, the response from Senator Hanson was: 'Don't ask me stupid questions. It's got nothing to do with me.' That tells you everything—no detail, no accountability and no responsibility; just performance. That's exactly what we're seeing tonight from One Nation. This is just performative clickbait for their social media following. Ordinarily, you may say, 'Look, that's One Nation. That's what they do,' but this motion—something in it I think is worth the Australian people taking notice of, particularly the people who are backing this motion.

The Liberal Party is backing this One Nation motion—the party that claims to be for small business. The party that lectures everyone in this chamber about economic responsibility is preparing to vote for a motion that would force businesses to hold large volumes of cash on site, potentially exposing them to theft, increasing their costs and increasing their risk. This motion, and the fact it's being backed by the Liberal Party, is economically incoherent and politically cowardly. It is at odds with everything they say they stand for.

The timing of this could be more telling. Just a few days after the member for Hume, Angus Taylor, declared he would take up the fight to One Nation as the new Liberal leader, he would defend the coalition's credibility, he would draw a line—

I have a feeling he doesn't like it now!

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance: I think the senator is now starting to wander from the topic.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Scarr. Senator Mulholland, I feel we may judge this by whether Senator Scarr removes himself from the chamber and returns to his office because it is no longer relevant. In all seriousness, Senator Mulholland, if you could please stick to the topic at hand, that would be more appropriate.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would sort of argue that how the coalition's going to vote—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest you don't.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

is going to be an interesting part of relevance to this, but I digress. As I was saying, the member for Hume declared he would take up the fight to One Nation. We're not seeing that in tonight's debate. We're not seeing them take up the fight to One Nation in this motion at all. They're leaving it to the Labor Party, time and time again, to take up the fight to One Nation. They said they were going to draw a line, but what did we get? We got a conga line instead.

It's getting a bit awkward—the dumping of net zero, the mass migration dog-whistles, the 'cash is king' stuff. When One Nation says something wild in the morning, by lunchtime the Liberals are coming into this place saying: 'Actually, we've always thought that. That's always been our policy.' I'm sure we're going to hear that when they back in this motion tonight. We know that backing in One Nation for the Liberal Party is a fraught endeavour. The primary vote for One Nation exceeded that of the Liberal Party in South Australia. Hitching your wagon to their star is just going to result in the complete annihilation of the Liberal Party.

What is in danger here in this particular motion is something much deeper. This is not just about cash and it's not just about regulation; it's about the type of politics that we allow to take root in this country. On one side, you have leadership from Anthony Albanese, making it clear that Australia is a modern, multicultural nation. It's a nation that moves forward, not backward. It's a nation that rejects the politics of division and fear. From the other side, silence, accommodation, complicity.

I will acknowledge that, up until recently, there has been one voice on the other side who's been willing to speak plainly on One Nation, and that was Senator Matt Canavan, who has called out the divisive rhetoric that we have seen from One Nation, until today, when he signalled a preference deal with One Nation. So who is going to stand up to One Nation? It's not those guys. Apparently, on the opposition benches, it takes courage to do the right thing because leadership means more than saying things that are not always popular; it means standing for something.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Acting Deputy President. While I think you've given Senator Mulholland a lot of leverage, I think we're crossing over into reflecting on individual members on the other side, and I don't think that's appropriate.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mulholland, shall we wrap up with some very focused points about your position on this specific debating point?

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would love to. It would be my honour. Just to finish off that point, in the spirit of decent politics, we're talking about One Nation bringing a disallowance motion into this chamber purporting to stand up for cash. That legislation exists; that regulation is there. To move a disallowance motion will remove that right to access cash, to use cash—in petrol stations, in grocery stores. That's exactly what they want to do. We know that, when they come into this place and talk about cash being king, they only care about putting more cash in the back pocket of Gina Rinehart. At every opportunity that One Nation have had in this chamber to back in the battlers and the working people of Australia, who they come to this place and tell us they represent, they have voted against their interests—voted against penalty rates, voted against same job, same pay.

You voted against same job, same pay. You want to talk about the coalminers in Central Queensland, the people you are quite willing to accept are being underpaid by $30,000 a year. You are quite happy for workers in Central Queensland working underground to be getting paid less just because their company found a loophole.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mulholland, will you resume your seat please. Senator Roberts, did you have a point of order?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do. We're the only party that stood up for the workers of Central Queensland and Hunter Valley. The only one.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, this is not an opportunity for you to stand up and debate another senator across the chamber. A point of order is a point of order. If you have one, can you please make it.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it's a matter of relevance, but it's also a matter of truthfulness. We're the only ones—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Senator Roberts, resume your seat. This is not for you to debate across the chamber, because you're not enjoying what another senator might be saying. That is not for anyone in this chamber to do. Your point of order on relevance—I have to say I've been listening very intently, given the contributions of other senators, and I think Senator Mulholland, in this wide-ranging debate, is on track at this point in time. Senator Roberts, again, I'm going to say to you that this is not about a debate. Do you have another point of order?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mulholland is misleading the Senate because—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, resume your seat. That is an opinion. Senator Mulholland, you have the call.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts may want to dispute the facts, but the voting record in this place shows that he voted against same job, same pay. It is there in black and white. That is your record. You voted against cash in the back pockets of miners in Central Queensland. That is your legacy.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I think has been made pretty clear by my colleagues tonight, the government will be opposing this disallowance motion. Frankly, it's not a very complicated debate, but I thought, perhaps by way of example, I would make an illustration of the point.

Imagine, as maybe has happened in my household from time to time, it's a school day. You've had a very busy week at work, and you may have slept in because your phone may have gone flat, and the alarm didn't go off. You wake up with not long before the kids have to get to school, and you rush to the fridge to make breakfast for them and to get their lunches ready, and you find there is no milk in the fridge, and there is no bread in the pantry. So you throw your thongs on, you get into the car and you drive down to the servo to get bread to make the kids lunch to take to school. But the servo doesn't take cash, so the kids have to go to school without a sandwich. That is what this motion seeks to do—to have kids go to school hungry, with no bread, no sandwiches, no time to go to another shop before getting them to school. This is what this motion seeks to do, which is just outrageous.

We're talking about whether Australians can use cash to pay for the essentials that they need, like bread to make a sandwich to go to school and milk for before you go to school. What is being proposed does not protect that right; it gets rid of it. While Australia is undoubtedly becoming an increasingly digital economy, if your phone runs out of battery and you can't use tap and pay, and if the petrol station doesn't have the ability to take your cash, then the kids go hungry. That's the reality that the Albanese government understands. It doesn't just matter to families and busy mums and dads and carers with kids, who've got to get their kids to school on time with food in their tummies; it matters to the people in regional and rural communities, it matters to older Australians, and it matters to people experiencing financial vulnerability.

Debate interrupted.