War on cash gets the nod after Cash-led Coalition backflip

Michaelia Cash backs down on cash rejection motion

Instead, a legal instrument remains in place that falls well short of society’s expectations, provides no benefit to Australia’s regional majority, and has the potential to even hasten the death of cash.

One Nation, Greens, Independent David PocockUnited Australia Party Ralph Babet and Liberal Alex AnticAll those who took to the floor to vote on the motion agreed that Australia was better off than they were without these flawed regulations.

But despite the Liberal Senator Slade Brockman Sets out reasons why the Coalition supports One Nation’s motion to disallow Malcolm Roberts Senator on March 24 Michaelia Cash He stood up last Tuesday and spoke for both the Liberal and National parties, mocking the proposal and accusing One Nation of trying to do it. “Ban cash”.

This was the same phrase used by Labor senators the previous Tuesday, who used the filibuster to time out debate when One Nation had the numbers to pass the motion.

The vote was lost 28 to 17.

Tasmanian Independent Tammy Tyrrell He sided with the government.

Senator Cash, most of his Liberal colleagues and all citizens, including the Leader Matt CanavanHe disappeared from the House before the vote was taken, leaving the majority to Labor.

understanding movement

Far from wanting to “ban cash” as Labor and Senator Cash mischievously claimed during the debate, One Nation introduced a motion not to allow it in response to calls from cash advocates.

Why were cash advocates, not retailers, calling for the mandate to be repealed?

Because the retail lobby had made a sweet deal.

The cherry on top was that it had an immediate effect Competition and Consumer (Industrial Laws – Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 (Introduced on January 1, 2026, before parliament) would remove liability for refusing cash from retailers.

As Senator Roberts argues: “Instead of coming forward and explaining to their customers why they are no longer accepting cash, they may simply blame the government.”.

Retailers are also happy because the regulations only apply to a small group of businesses and contain exceptional circumstances provisions that would exempt many more.

How small is this group?

Let’s open the package.

A “cash guarantee” sought by cash advocates would protect Australians’ right to pay for all goods and services with physical currency. This includes all retailers and key service areas, including healthcare, utilities, transportation and telecommunications.

The government’s cash authority covers only goods.

Among the goods, it only covers food and fuel.

It only covers purchases of groceries and fuel from large businesses that earn more than $10 million a year.

As of June 2024, only 1.9% of businesses in Australia fell into this group (50,854 businesses), of which only 562 were supermarkets and convenience stores and 502 fuel retailers (2.09% of 1.9%).

This means 0.04% of all Australian businesses are covered by these regulations.

That is, before exemptions are taken into account.

The Treasury confirmed in Senate Estimates in December that supermarkets and fuel retailers, who would normally have to comply with the regulations, could benefit from exceptional exemptions if they were located in an area without banking services.

The biggest impact of this will be felt in Australia’s banking deserts.

By the way According to the Bureau of Statistics, at the time of the 2016 Census, 2.3 million people (9.7% of the population) lived in just over 1,700 “small” (under 10,000) towns.

Just under 700 of these towns never had a bank; A further 600 people have lost all their banks, meaning less than a quarter of towns with a population of under 10,000 will be given any protection by a cash order. (If you’re wondering bank@mailThose seeking exemptions will be quick to point out that access to cash through post offices is not a guaranteed service and is unreliable.)

Because of the cost of maintaining cash service in unbanked cities, most supermarkets and fuel retailers that successfully apply for exemptions will fall within the 0.04% of businesses covered by the regulations.

This leaves less than 99.96% of all service providers and retailers able to tell consumers that the government exempts them from the requirement to accept cash. (Including all retailers in most Aboriginal communities.)

This will create a gradual effect.

Any business that refuses to take cash payments contributes to the erosion of cash access (everything that makes a cash economy work, including cash transit) and moves Australia closer to being cashless, a state where finding your way back is almost impossible. while exploring sweden.

The disallowance motion recognized that no authority could be better than the situation left to us.

Betrayal

When the disallowance motion was introduced to the Senate on 24 March, Senator Brockman stated that the Coalition would support it on the grounds that Labor’s regulations had been prepared in secrecy, fell short of international standards and did not address the critical issues highlighted in the draft. Senate Inquiry Closure of regional banks.

When Senator Cash began debating a week later, he spoke as if he didn’t understand or didn’t care about the details of the issue.

The Coalition had meanwhile openly sold out and Senator Cash had become the government’s spokesman, putting on a spectacular show of gaslighting. requestedexactly like Labour’s Corinne Mulholland I had to defend a week ago “1.5 million Australians use cash for over 80% of their in-person transactions.”

He might have been a little more believable if he wasn’t making clown faces as he spoke and grinning at someone sitting on the Government side of the house.

Senator Cash said as he sat down instead of turning to his colleagues. again looked directly at the Government side of the HouseHe made a namaste gesture of thanks, said a few words, and started giggling.

Senator Cash gave no reason for the broken promise but signaled the Liberals and Nationals would introduce a special senatorial bill to address the issue.

This signaled that the backflip was more about politics and not wanting to be seen supporting One Nation, which has eclipsed the Coalition in opinion polls, rather than a genuine desire to help ordinary Australians.

Greens Senator Nick McKim He said the proposed bill was just a ploy by the Government to allow “independent”:

We all know what will happen there. If it’s a properly drafted bill… it will pass the Senate and do you know what will happen then? He will go into the house and die a miserable, lonely death there. It will never be put to debate, because the Government has the figures, so it will never become law.

What you could have done was to vote today not to allow this and force the Government to come to the table again to introduce appropriate guidance on cash; A power whose scope is much wider than what they are currently proposing…so the Government is off the hook.

Senator Cash can save the House from crocodile tears and cash woes, because the real reason cash isn’t mandated for things like data, communications services and energy bills is because the Liberals are backtracking and belittling it today.

Dale Webster at the opening ceremony buyer Walkley Foundation Free Journalism Grant in Regional Australia. This article was originally It was published Open Regional and republished with permission. You can follow Dale on Twitter @TheRegional_au.