Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to be very clear that the Australian Greens will be supporting this disallowance moved by One Nation. It's fair to say that we don't often agree with One Nation, but, on this very narrow circumstance, we absolutely agree with One Nation. We agree on this because cash is absolutely critical in our society and in our economy. Cash matters, and it matters because so many different people rely on cash for inclusion. They rely on cash for choice. They rely on cash to purchase the essentials of life. Cash is necessary to ensure basic resilience in our society and our economy when digital systems fail as they inevitably do from time to time.

Let's just rewind to when Labor put out the consultation paper on cash. That proposed a far broader cash mandate than the one Labor actually bought into the parliament with the instrument that this debate seeks to disallow. So Labor watered down their own original proposal. As a result they've presented to this parliament a cash mandate that is extremely narrow in scope.

The Greens will vote to disallow this instrument because it would have forced the government back to the table to introduce a cash mandate that was more broad and that provided greater protections and a broader mandate for the use of cash in our society. It would have done except for one thing, and that is the speech we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

I don't know who wrote that rubbish for Senator Cash, but let me be very clear: everyone in this chamber knew the Liberals were supporting this disallowance last week. My first question is how did you get bought off? What did the government buy you off with to make you change your position from last week?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Impugning motives. I would like to know what the Greens got for their $22 billion—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, let's not play games. Senator McKim.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. What I will say is this. Everyone knew that the Liberals in this place were supporting this disallowance last week, and now, today, we find out that they are not going to support it. In doing so, the Liberals are letting the government off the hook. Let me explain exactly why that is. It's because, in an attempt to make it seem like they're not letting the government off the hook, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has just revealed in her speech that the Liberals are going to table a private senator's bill on this matter which will no doubt contain a broader cash mandate then currently exists.

We all know what's going to happen there. If it's a decently drafted bill and it does contain a broader mandate, I'm not going to speak for One Nation, but you'd assume they'll support it. We'll have a look at it; you could assume we'll support it too. It will get through the Senate, and do you know what's going to happen then? It's going to go down into the House, and it's going to die a miserable, lonely death down there. It will never be brought on for debate, because the government has the numbers down there, so it will never become law.

What you could have done was vote for this disallowance today and force the government back to the table to bring in an appropriate mandate on cash, one that was far more broad in scope than the one that they're currently proposing. And the reason they are not going to be forced back to the table is that the opposition have squibbed it today. That's why. That's why the government has been let off the hook.

Senator Cash can spare the chamber her crocodile tears and handwringing about cash, because the very reason that cash is not going to be mandated for things like data, communication services and energy bills is that the Liberals backed down and squibbed it today. When people contact us—and, boy, are the emails flowing on this issue, I can tell you—you can be very sure we'll be explaining exactly why the Greens supported this disallowance to force the government back to the table and bring in a far more broad mandate on cash. We'll be explaining exactly why the government is not being forced back to the table, and that is the opposition completely squibbed it.

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

I'll keep my remarks quite short. I want to thank the Greens for their support for this motion that Senator Roberts has brought in, and I want to thank the crossbench. I also want to thank the coalition for their support as of 24 March 2026, when they stood in this chamber and argued that we were right. I will quote Senator Brockman:

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.

That was from the coalition as of 24 March 2026. I'll also point out that in his remarks Senator Brockman explained:

What we have from the Labor Party is a deal done behind closed doors with no transparency, no consultation.

I can't help wonder what's occurred in the last week behind closed doors with no transparency and no consultation, because last time we checked with the coalition they did support this, and since that time they've changed their minds. Did they consult with you, Senator Roberts?

No. I'm not sure what happened, but it did happen behind closed doors.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to CHOICE, 65 per cent of Australians still carry cash. It's an everyday support for people in regional areas, for older Australians and for people with a disability. This cash mandate that's up for disallowance, as has been discussed, declares that only large supermarkets and petrol stations are essential. That doesn't cut it. The power of the Senate is to disallow this and send the government back to the drawing board to ensure that the people who currently still want to use cash, still need to use cash, can do that.

Why does the government and now the coalition through their vote—they may say otherwise, but, in not actually sending the government back to the drawing board, they are essentially saying one thing and doing something very different. Why don't they think medication and medical supplies are essential? Public transport—not essential. Utilities—not essential, according to them. Children's clothes—not essential. If you are in the ACT, you can't go to Access Canberra and pay with cash. That just seems totally ridiculous to me. If you are living on the street and need to get an ID or do anything at Access Canberra and don't have a bank card, what are you meant to do? We can say: 'Oh well, it sucks to be you. It's a cashless society.' That does not cut it. We have to actually ensure that we're looking after people who currently use cash, want to use cash or do not have the ability to tap and go like everyone in this place, I'm sure, does.

When you look at this mandate and the impact that it has on regional communities and First Nations communities, you have to say it has a disproportionate effect. We've seen in the other place the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, talk a lot about the need to protect the ability to use cash. Along the 1,200-kilometre stretch of the Sturt Highway in the NT, as I understand it—senators from the NT will be able to correct me here—there's only one large supermarket; otherwise, it's small grocers. So there's only one place along that 1,200-kilometre stretch that's mandated to take cash. Why do we not have a plan to protect access to cash?

Disallowing this forces the government to go back to the drawing board. It's amazing hearing from former Cabinet ministers arguing that that's not how things work and that, if you disallow this, nothing will ever replace these regulations. Everyone knows that isn't the case. Everyone knows that there have to be regulations in place. So let's do that as a Senate.

Since 2017, 2,000 bank branches have closed; more than 8,000 ATMs have disappeared. Yes, for many, using a card or using your phone is more convenient, but for many other Australians that simply isn't a possibility. I do thank Senator Roberts for bringing this forward. I think it's important that this Senate actually looks after the Australians who currently want to be able to use cash.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the disallowance motion be agreed to.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—President, I would like to record Senator Payman's position on that question. Senator Payman supported the disallowance.