Posts

The Digital Trap: Don’t Let Them Ban Cash

,

The Albanese government promised to protect cash usage following a private member’s bill from regional MPs, yet he went ahead and introduced regulations that weaken and phase out cash.

Concerns raised by National Seniors Australia noted that pharmacies are omitted from the mandatory cash regulations, which risks leaving vulnerable or non-digital citizens unable to buy vital medication.

The government sides with major banks, which are closing regional branches and driving up digital transaction fee revenues while shifting the burden of cash logistics onto Australia Post and taxpayers.

Political donations from banks have influenced both the Liberal and Labor parties and the government’s attempts to pass these rules using regulation rather than transparent parliamentary debate is shameful.

There is a “war on cash” and we need to do everything we can to protect access to cash.

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move: That the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, be disallowed. 

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— 

The Deputy President: Senator Grogan? 

Senator Grogan: 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.  

The Deputy President: 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.  

Senator ROBERTS: 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. 

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Fake Cash Guarantee

,

One Nation submitted a motion to disallow Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

These regulations are misleading because it allows most businesses to refuse cash. It only requires cash acceptance at supermarkets and petrol stations for purchases under $500 between 7 am and 9 pm, while providing further exemptions for rural towns lacking banks or ATMs.

Cash is vital for cultural customs (such as Lunar New Year and wedding traditions) and essential for the quarter of Australians who are digitally excluded or affected during internet outages, whereby ALL Australians have to rely on cash.

Labor, Liberals and the Nationals are all pushing a cashless agenda because they receive substantial political donations from the big four banks.

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: One Nation has submitted a motion to disallow Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025. These regulations are dishonestly promoted as mandating cash; yet, in a display of rank deceit, these regulations allow every business in the country to not accept cash, unless they’re a supermarket or a petrol station, for amounts under $500, and then only from 7 am to 9 pm—outside that, to not take cash. There’s a further exemption for rural towns without a bank or ATM, which, these days, is most towns. Businesses do not have to take cash. 

In the last parliament, the Liberals and Labor tried to ban cash, and were defeated when One Nation and Labor’s ethnic branches were opposed. Labor is now trying to sneak in a cash ban through regulation. Chinese and Vietnamese give cash during Lunar New Year. Greeks pin cash gifts to wedding dresses. Labor is wiping out all these beautiful customs—gone! Not only is cash cultural for many Australians; a quarter of our people are digitally excluded, yet the Canberra bubble never understands. When the internet goes down, that figure is 100 per cent excluded from cash. Without cash what are people to do in an internet outage? Is the uniparty of the Liberals, Labor and Nationals beholden to the banks because it accepts huge donations from banks? In 2022-23, Westpac donated $193,000; the Commonwealth Bank, $174,000; ANZ, $91,000; and NAB, $138,000. 

/0 Comments/by

One Nation is Protecting Cash – Not the Treasurer

,

Those who heard Senator Michaelia Cash’s speech about One Nation’s decision to vote against Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 might have been left with the impression that One Nation has abandoned cash.

Senator Cash said:

‘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.’

The Senator then implied that the reason Coles, Woolworths, and service stations are required to accept cash is because of this new regulation.

‘This 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.’

I was astonished by this comment from the Senator.

Our reasons for wishing to disallow the Treasurer’s regulation are not bizarre at all. We have explained them clearly and repeatedly.

As has always been the case, our goal is to protect cash in the long-term – not allow its erosion through a thousand pieces of deceptively named regulation.

One Nation has been leading the national conversation on cash protection for decades, including against shameful attempts during the Morrison era to put limits on the size of cash transactions through their wildly unpopular Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. The Liberal Party sought to re-frame cash as the realm of crime, tax evasion, and the black market.

Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:

‘This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists, and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It’s not clever. It’s not okay. It’s a crime.’

He added: ‘Cash provides and easy, anonymous, and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity.’

What an astonishingly bad-faith way to present cash transactions which have been the backbone of this nation. If the government wishes to crackdown on criminal activity, it could always try arresting criminals.

Public backlash forced the Liberals to stall the legislation in 2020, following which One Nation were successful in striking out the legislation.

This vocal opposition came from the same places it comes from today – rural and regional areas, community groups, churches, and even the Labor Party’s own ethnic branches. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals never apologised for forcing Parliament to waste time stopping another unnecessary creep of a paranoid government.

As you can see, the Liberal Party are not friends of ‘cash’ … they never have been.

It is important to understand that the protection of cash as legal tender is something that has always been poorly defined and left to languish in significant legal grey areas as the banking system developed electronic currency.

Our Constitution requires the Commonwealth government to make cash available. The definition of ‘available’ is open to discussion and likely includes electronic transactions. Contrary to common assumption, banks are not required to make physical cash available.

Businesses are expected to accept cash, within reason, unless they put up a sign that explicitly states, ‘We do not accept cash.’ These signs are not common because customers, like myself, are often put-off by anti-cash sentiment.

Online businesses with no physical storefront cannot reasonably be forced to accept cash, nor would anyone ordering from their phone on TikTok expect them to. There are also market stalls or pop-up shops that lack the ability to handle cash safely. And then there are trading hours when it is deemed unsafe to handle cash.

To make things even murkier, a business is not required to take cash when doing so would place their staff at risk, which is fair, or where cash is not readily available. This is most common in rural areas where greedy banks have closed branches and removed ATMs.

The rise of the digital world has created an economic and political interest – particularly within the global banking sector – in discontinuing cash. This has prompted a public call for its explicit protection. In early June of 2024, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, and Dai Le put forward the Private Member’s Bill Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 to seek clarity on – and strengthen – the status of cash as legal tender.

This would have reinforced the legal obligation for all businesses, within reason and where appropriate, to accept cash up to $10,000 (but would not impose a ceiling). In clarifying the Reserve Bank Act (1959), it would then be possible to determine what the bones of the modern and future economy would look like before adding additional complexity through programmable currency and Bitcoin.

In other words … policy housekeeping.

Unfortunately, a proper debate on this important bill never took place, largely because Treasurer Jim Chalmers implied it would be addressed in Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

During the press conference that followed in November of 2024, Chalmers said:

‘Our objective when it comes to payments is to modernise our financial system … to make sure that there’s an ongoing role for cash … we’re making sure that people can pay cash for essentials if they want to and if they need to … what this means is that businesses selling essential items will have to accept cash with some appropriate carve-outs for small businesses and with a particular emphasis on regional areas.’

The Treasurer’s pinky-promise led to the Private Member’s Bill being dropped on good faith.

These regulations eventually manifested as a shadow of their former promise and, in my view, perfectly encapsulate the evil genius of the Uniparty anti-cash movement.

The Treasurer’s final regulation only provides that cash be protected as legal tender in supermarkets and petrol stations between 7am-9pm to a value of $500. That’s it.

For all other situations, the grey area of cash has been clarified – it is no longer protected.

What does this mean for cash throughout the rest of the economy? What about newsagencies? Public transport? Basic shopping? Parking? Pharmacies? Post-offices? Church collections? Buskers? Cultural celebrations? Greek weddings? The million other things that keep society moving…?

By proposing a mandate that only covers supermarkets and petrol stations, the Labor government did not protect cash. They issued an extermination order. The Uniparty are supporting an economy-wide restriction of cash. Remember, 23 per cent of adults do not have a credit or debit card, especially the elderly those challenged by technology.

One Nation predicts that as a consequence of these regulations, banks – who have already shown hostility to cash – will rush to stop accepting cash over the counter. The dwindling supply of ATMs will die out. And cash will drain out of our economy.

Concerned pharmacists came to see me last week to ask for pharmacies to be included, they were not – and yet still the Liberals support these government regulations. Are we going to see people turned away from buying medication because they don’t have a bank card?

An economic change of this significance should be put to the people, or opened to far more scrutiny than a regulation which is not subjected to the same Parliamentary rigour as an amendment.

To be clear, One Nation is not voting against protecting cash. That’s absurd.

We are voting against the specific regulation put forward by the Treasurer which we believe would confine cash protection to a small number of essential suppliers and leave the rest of the economic landscape open to a widespread loss of cash.

These regulations represent a broken promise to Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, Dai Le, and the Australian people.

We want to see banks held to their obligation to provide cash to Australians in a reasonable and easily accessible way. For the banks to be held to account when they attempt to cut regional communities off from ATMs and branches. We wish to see cash maintained as commonly accepted legal tender to ensure Australia has the flexibility to endure blackouts and digital malfunctions, and to take precautions that the banking sector is never in a position to hold money hostage. This is especially important in regional areas where the digital world struggles, and as we approach an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. We have seen conflict target energy grids and telecommunications. It would be insane to remove the protection of cash at this point in history.

Ultimately, what the banks want … what the corporate world wants … and what is best for the security of the Australian economy are not always the same thing and it is our duty as elected representatives of the people to act in their best interests.

Senator Cash has presented the option as a binary choice: support the Treasurer or condemn cash. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation.

One Nation will not void the legal assumption that cash is protected by replacing it with a declaration that it is not. Let’s protect cash properly and permanently.

And, if we really are heading toward a fully digital world, and that march cannot be stopped because of cultural and ideological changes, then we absolutely must sit down and have a proper discussion about safeguarding citizens from the known dangers and exploitation made possible in a digital-only environment.

One Nation demands that this topic be taken seriously and soberly for the protection of Australia’s economic future.

Whether it is basic redundancy from energy and internet disruption, or protection against nefarious banking practices, cash is a vital safety net.

And it is obvious that the public wish to see it preserved.

One Nation is protecting cash, not the Treasurer by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Read on Substack
/5 Comments/by

Stop the Boats’ Rental

,

Why on earth are we leasing Navy patrol boats from the National Australia Bank?

It’s a strange arrangement – handing over $63 million to one of the “Big Four” to rent vessels like the Cape Inscription.

When I asked for the logic behind this, or even the basic cost of the lease extensions, the answers were frustratingly thin. No one in the room could tell me what it would cost to buy these ships back, or even how much total taxpayer money has been paid to the NAB so far.

This feels like a stopgap measure that has turned into a more permanent, expensive one, and I intend to find out exactly who is profiting from it.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. Australian Defence vessels Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy were reportedly being leased from the National Australia Bank for three years from 2017 for $63 million. Why did the Defence Force ever lease a Navy ship from the NAB, one of Australia’s big four banks?  

Adm. Johnston: The Chief of Navy will come to the table. We will be able to explain it in the terms of what the circumstances were at the time, particularly a transition plan, as it was, to the offshore patrol vessels, and where we are now.  

Vice Adm. Hammond: As CDF just intimated, there was a patrol boat transition plan which involved Armidale class and enhanced Cape class and Arafura. At that time the intent was to transition to 12 Arafura class offshore patrol vessels. As we’ve gone through the Defence Strategic Review and then the surface combatant review, that plan has changed. The E-Cape has now become the program of record, for the Australian Defence Force and Border Force, for patrol boat capability. We had two Cape class patrol vessels that we were leasing as a stopgap capability. Now that the Evolved Cape class program is the program of record, that program has changed. The initial basis was around a decision between the cost of ownership for an outright purchase and a short-term lease arrangement, and that was negotiated by the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group. I’ll throw to my colleague Rear Admiral Brad Smith for any further details.  

Rear Adm. Smith: Nothing further to add to that—other than that the program has been in place since 2017.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The lease on these Navy ships was reportedly extended in 2020 for two years. What was the cost of that two-year lease extension?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no-one in the room who can answer that question?  

Rear Adm. Smith: Not at this time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the ships today—the Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy? Are they still on lease from the National Australia Bank?  

Rear Adm. Smith: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the agreed residual value of the two ships that NAB can purchase if the Navy ends the lease?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll also get that one back to you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total amount that has been paid to NAB under these leases for both ships, Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Australian Defence Force leasing patrol boats from a bank that made $7 billion in profit last year?  

Rear Adm. Smith: I think Chief of Navy answered that earlier, Senator.  

/1 Comment/by

Australian Jobs Out, Overseas Workers In

The ANZ Bank has announced 3,500 job losses across Australia. NAB followed with 300, and Bank of Queensland added another 400.

What is going on?

Since 2000, housing loans have ballooned from around 55% to over 80% of the Big Four banks’ loan books. Mortgage brokers account for 77% of new home loans, meaning fewer bank staff is required. Meanwhile, small business and personal lending has plummeted from 40% to just 18%. As a result, banks have shut down 2,100 branches, abandoning the personal and business lending that once formed the backbone of their service.

Today, Australian banks employ 85,000 people nationally, while nearly 40,000 roles have been outsourced overseas. Total employment has dropped from 166,000 to 124,000 over the past decade. Despite this, bank profits have surged—from $27.5 billion in 2015 to $31.5 billion in 2025.

The latest round of job losses won’t be the last. Banks are racing toward a fully online model of operation, focused to only include asset-secured lending. That means personal loans, unsecured small business loans, and overdrafts for those without property as security will cease to exist entirely.

And yet, the Federal Government continues to support the banks with a guarantee that saves banks $3.5 billion in financing costs.

One Nation believes this public support should come with public benefit. We propose replacing the banking guarantee’s extra profit with a new Banking Code of Practice—one that guarantees face-to-face banking, fair compensation for victims of AFCA bank fraud cases, and a ban on de-banking legitimate businesses.

This would buy time to establish a People’s Bank—a public institution that will restore banking services and jobs to everyday Australians.

/3 Comments/by

Labor’s Dirty Power Play: PM Personally Axes One Nation Advisers in Attack on Democracy

,

Just in case anyone in the Labor Party still believes they are the good guys, have a look at this political interference and discrimination. The Prime Minister directly and personally has taken the jobs of the two advisers who worked tirelessly on my re-election campaign. This is my speech in the Senate last night.

After One Nation’s strongest federal election result ever, Senator Pauline Hanson declared: “This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.” And the people are responding—membership is surging, and support is rising. Yet this election wasn’t easy. Conservative micro-parties fought One Nation harder than they fought the left. Calls for a coalition sounded good—but in practice, it was chaos. Australia doesn’t have years to waste on political experiments.

One Nation has stood firm for 28 years—through media attacks, legal battles, and political sabotage. Every challenge has made us stronger, more united, and more determined to take back government for everyday Australians. Meanwhile, real issues are being ignored. Bendigo Bank is closing 10 branches—5 of them the last in their towns. Queenstown, Tasmania, will lose its only bank. Locals will have to drive 2.5 hours over icy roads just to access basic banking. The Albanese government ignored a 15-month Senate inquiry into regional bank closures. 14 months overdue. No response. No action. Just silence while communities are left behind.

And now, the PM is targeting my office—cancelling my advisers’ positions in a disgraceful breach of parliamentary convention. This is not democracy. This is control. One Nation will not be silenced. We will not back down. We are the only party with the courage, unity, and vision to restore Australia’s prosperity—for all Australians. This is just the beginning.

Transcript

Change is coming. Following One Nation’s best ever federal election result in May, our party leader Senator Pauline Hanson declared on national TV, ‘This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.’ The public have already responded, with party membership surging and their post-election poll support increasing. This was a trying election, though. Micro-parties on the conservative side fought One Nation harder than they fought our political opponents on the communist left. So many called for a coalition of conservative parties, an idea that sounds great in theory yet created an unworkable Frankenstein, setting our movement back years to allow the organisation and recalibration needed to merge disparate political positions, if indeed it were possible at all.

Australia does not have years to lose. The lights are going off in this parliamentary term. One more term from Labor or the globalist Liberals and Australia will be past the point of no return. One Nation has been here for 28 years. Our party’s character has been forged in success and in failure, and in legal warfare, media bastardry, lies and party infiltration—even prison charges that were trumped up and ultimately struck down. Every development has made us stronger, more determined, more organised and readier than ever to take the government benches from those who do not govern in the best interests of Australia. Only One Nation has the strength of conviction, the unity of purpose and the courage necessary to restore abundance and opportunity to all Australians. Only One Nation represents the entire Australian people.

Let me give you an example that 12 Tasmanian senators ignored—none of whom are One Nation senators, which is why I’m having to raise this. There’s a new crisis in regional banking services because Bendigo Bank is now closing 10 branches and 28 agencies. Five of the branches are the last banks in their towns. For those communities, that is devastating.

This is happening because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ignored the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia. The government was supposed to respond within 90 days. It’s been 14 months, and the government has simply ignored it. The inquiry lasted 15 months and held 13 public hearings, with locals in town after town testifying that the banks were lying when they claimed people didn’t need branches anymore. The report observed:

When banks close their branches in regional areas, the impact on individuals and communities can be devastating and far-reaching, especially when it is the last bank in town.

This is what Queenstown in Tasmania is facing when it loses its Bendigo Bank branch in September. This is not only the last bank in town; it’s the last bank on the entire West Coast of Tasmania. The locals will have no choice and will be forced to drive 2½ hours over icy mountain roads to the next closest bank, in Burnie. On Tuesday night the West Coast Council passed a unanimous motion calling on the Albanese government to respond to the Senate inquiry—to respond!

There’s no doubt that, had the government responded to the report and its powerful recommendations, it’s unlikely Bendigo Bank would be closing these branches. It’s a scandal for this government to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on an inquiry into rural banking services and then ignore the outcome because it might interfere with the banks’ cashless society agenda. I call on all senators to join me in demanding that the government take the Senate inquiry outcome seriously and fully implement all its recommendations.

I now make note of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s disgraceful attempt to sabotage my office over the last few weeks. The Prime Minister cancelled the positions of my two advisers and then this week arranged their notices of dismissal. I am their employer. They don’t work for you, Mr Prime Minister; they work for me. How dare you terminate my staff? What gives you the right to select my team? Using parliamentary staffing allocations to take all the staff of an Independent or crossbench senator breaks a convention, a trust, going back a hundred years. Denying me and Senator Whitten, Senator Stacey and Senator Payman any advisers at all is a disgraceful act.

One Nation has always welcomed policy debates and contests in the court of public opinion. This prime minister, though, would rather shut the opposition up than debate his rancid, divisive, wasteful policies with the one party prepared to provide real opposition, better policies and a real vision to restore Australia’s abundance—a vision that looks after the Australian people, instead of Labor Party donors, unions and globalist powers. What a bloody disgrace! This is not over.

/2 Comments/by

Predatory Foreign Giants Control Our Banks and Supermarkets

,

We don’t have four banks and two supermarkets in this country. We have one predatory group of foreign investors hiding behind different logos.

BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others own large portions of the banks and supermarkets that are ripping Australians off the most.

Transcript

So, why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They own the four banks, sorry they own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. Same policies, same principles, same strategies, same products, same services. 

Coles and Woolies, again, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Go right through our corporations in this country.  The corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas and what did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? Loaded it up so that foreign multinationals owning the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses. 

/by

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority Faces Scrutiny

,

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), an independent industry-funded agency, handles complaints concerning financial losses due to actions by banks, insurance companies, or superannuation funds. While AFCA has a reputation for avoiding complaints rather than addressing them, their recent accomplishment of collecting $300 million for members of the public affected by financial misbehaviour is a good result.

My questioning of AFCA didn’t start smoothly, as CEO David Locke seemed unaware that the AFCA website explicitly asks that individuals with concerns about a code of practice to submit them via the form provided, as part of their role overseeing the Banking Code of Practice review body, the BCCC.

It took until around the 2 minutes 52 seconds mark to receive a response to what, I thought, was a straightforward opening question. Subsequently, I pursued questions regarding AFCA’s success rates. A significant portion of their response was taken on notice, so I look forward to receiving their answers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Your website invites consumers to lodge a complaint regarding the operation of a code of practice. How many such complaints have you received on the Banking Code of Practice?

Mr Locke: We receive complaints where a consumer has a contract with the bank and they have suffered financial loss. Then they can bring a complaint through to AFCA. So the matter is really if, for example, the bank has failed to comply with its legal obligations or they’ve suffered loss through some misconduct or inappropriate action on the part of the bank. We have to determine what’s fair, and, in looking at that, we have to have regard to the banking code. That’s how the banking code comes into effect. We had 56,000 complaints about banks and other credit lenders last year. In terms of a freestanding complaint about the banking code, though, that would normally go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee, which is a separate body, and their role is to enforce the banking code. The banking code is relevant to us in our jurisdiction and we do look at it, but, if it’s just about a financial firm breaching the banking code obligations on its own, then that would be a matter that would go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: So you would only field the complaint if it was a breach of the banking code?

Dr Smith: We can take complaints about breaches of the banking code if the consumer can show that there has been a financial loss suffered as a result of that breach or indeed that they have suffered non-financial loss as a result of that particular breach. For example, a breach of the provision under the banking code related to guarantees and whether or not the guarantor was fully informed of their rights before they entered into that guarantee might be a matter that we would take as a complaint.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if someone was just concerned about a potential change or a possible change in the banking code, which is coming up, they would not be lodging a complaint with you?

Dr Smith: The conduct needs to have occurred. But, in terms of future issues, there has obviously been a recent review of that code and no doubt that person could also voice those concerns to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you had any communication with the Australian Banking Association regarding their review of the banking code?

Mr Locke: Yes. We were consulted in a fashion by the Australian Banking Association in the course of their review. They commissioned an independent review of the banking code, which was carried out, and then they undertook an informal consultation process with a number of bodies, including us. Following that, they approached the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for approval to change the banking code. This is a code that has been approved by ASIC, so any changes need to be approved by ASIC. ASIC decided to undertake its own consultation, and we participated in that and made a submission to it as well. So we’ve engaged with the ABA and we’ve engaged with ASIC with regard to the ABA’s review.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I get a copy of your comments to the ABA and ASIC, please.

Mr Locke: Certainly. We’ll take that on notice. We have made a public submission, and it’s available on our website, but we can certainly send the link through to your office.

Senator ROBERTS: From the data on your website, for the year 2023, the number of complaints resolved in favour of the complainant was only 31 per cent, with 69 per cent in favour of the bank or financial institution. However, only five per cent of complaints reached the decision stage. Some were rectified early on and some were refused process. Of the complaints over banking disputes—just banking—how many complaints were received, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant and how many were withdrawn for 2023?

Mr Locke: I can provide all those details on notice, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.

Mr Locke: What I can tell you is the way our process works. A consumer will have gone through an independent dispute resolution process with the bank and then come through to AFCA. AFCA sends it back to the bank for them to have one last opportunity to resolve the matter before we otherwise start working on it. What we’re finding is that about 65 per cent of the time the banks resolve the matter at that point.

Senator ROBERTS: Once you step in?

Mr Locke: Yes. Obviously we would prefer for that to have been done and for people not to have to come to AFCA, but we’re finding that 65 per cent of the time there. What we then find is that we are able to resolve the majority of cases through our case-working process—through mediation, through recommendations and through negotiation. Only about five per cent of matters actually go through to decision. What you will see is that the matters that resolve when we go back to the bank or the matters that resolve through our processes—that is a situation where the consumer is effectively happy with the agreement that they’ve reached with the bank. So you would expect that the small number that go through to determinations are probably the ones where it’s more contentious, more of a binary decision. You would expect that, where the consumer had a better claim, the banks would have resolved the cases earlier in the process. But I can set all of that out on notice so you’ve got that.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you also break down the information into value groups so that I can see the success rate at progressively higher amounts of claim. My feedback is that AFCA are great at getting back $1,000 but not so good at getting back $100,000. The banks’ clutches are maybe a bit stronger.

Mr Locke: I’ll certainly provide you with whatever we have in terms of the breakdown. Last year our work secured $304 million in compensation and refunds for consumers and small-business owners, but we can give you the amounts that relate to that. I don’t think it is the case that it’s just lower value amounts that have been settling. We do settle a number of matters where the settlement is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ll provide you with some information on that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m hearing settlements are a fraction of the claim but the complainant accepts something rather than nothing. On notice, of all complaints settled on behalf of the complainant, what was the value of claim verses the settlement accepted or awarded?

Mr Locke: I don’t think we would have that information, but I can certainly let you have the information that we have available.

Mr Untersteiner: The challenge with that is: if something is settled between the parties before it goes to determination, there’s no obligation for them to disclose to us what the settlement was, so we typically won’t have visibility. We have some visibility, and, on notice, we can share with you what we do have, but it will be a small cut of the overall data.

Mr Locke: There are three cohorts that I talked about. The first cohort, when we go back to the financial firm, is given an opportunity to resolve. We don’t normally know what the resolution of that matter is. We just know the consumer’s happy and doesn’t want us to do anything further. That is what we call IDR data, internal dispute resolution data. The firms have, since January, had to report that through to ASIC, so ASIC would have some of that data. The data that we will have are those cases that don’t resolve and that are then resolved through our caseworking process or the matters that go through to decision, which you have mentioned. With regard to that, I can certainly provide that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, if you could do that. When AFCA were set up, you were allowed to go back to 2012 to take on older cases. On notice, of all banking cases referred to you for the period 2012 to 2018 for an amount over $200,000, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant, and what was awarded as opposed to what was claimed?

Mr Locke: I will take that on notice. I think, in total in that look-back jurisdiction, if I recall right we had just under 1,500 cases. A majority of those did relate to banking and credit matters. We will certainly take that on notice and provide you with what information we can.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Finally, for that group of claims, are there any claims still outstanding from 2012 to 2018?

Mr Locke: No. They’ve all been dealt with.

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. The next question is about your administration. Are you still closing your office at 2 pm on Wednesdays so the staff can go home in the name of productivity?

Mr Locke: We don’t close the office, but we do give staff—it’s effectively a bit like compressed hours—three hours to spend on wellbeing or to use for their time. This was an initiative we trialled during COVID, when we were seeing a lot of burnout and stress amongst our people. We discussed it with our people. We didn’t change any of our productivity measures, so the same amount of work had to be completed within the five-day week as was completed with this three-hour period. What we actually found was that productivity increased, and we’ve found that’s continued to be the case. We actually have higher levels of productivity now than at any time in the operation of the organisation, by caseworker. We found giving people that small amount of flexibility has actually made sound business sense. The initial intent behind it was about wellbeing, particularly when we were seeing a lot of and stress and challenges during lockdowns. Of course the majority of our staff are Melbourne, and they had prolonged lockdowns at that time. But what we’ve actually seen is that productivity has increased and continued to increase. So that is something that we do, but we don’t close the phones. It is an optional thing. Many staff work during that period but use it just for quiet time without interruption, but some staff use it to pick up the kids or to look after older relatives or to arrange appointments. As I said, the same amount of work has to be done during the working week.

Mr Untersteiner: I’ll just add that we did measure and we saw our attrition rates drop, we saw absenteeism drop, we saw productivity go up, we saw cost per complaint go down and we’ve seen employee engagement go up. Just from a general business initiative and a cost perspective, it’s been cost positive.

Chair: I need to share the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have another question?

Senator ROBERTS: I can put two on notice, but I’ve got one final question. Are financial institutions afraid of AFCA, or do they see you as another pesky bureaucracy that needs to be surmounted or brushed aside?

Mr Locke: Well, I hope—

Senator ROBERTS: I know you said 65 per cent of complaints are resolved.

Mr Locke: I can’t speak on behalf of—there are 44,000 members. About three-quarters of those are people who have ACRs, and the remainder are different firms with Australian financial services licences. I don’t think there’s any unified view with regard to that. What I hope, Senator, is that financial firms recognise that we play an important role. We do our utmost to act independently and fairly to determine intractable matters that otherwise people would presumably be coming to their elected representatives for or going to the media about. We seek to give people closure on matters, whether that goes in their favour or not. We act in accordance with the rules, and we apply our fairness jurisdiction in accordance with the way that we articulate there. I don’t seek for anybody to be afraid of us. I hope that industry see us as playing a constructive and useful role and recognise our legitimacy, but I hope that they also recognise that we will call matters as we see them and we will treat all parties fairly and independently. That’s our role as an alternative to the court system.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice if there’s any sign, evidence or statistic that reflects that the financial institutions respect what you’re doing.

Mr Locke: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a difficult one.

Mr Locke: It’s a difficult one for us to answer really.

Senator ROBERTS: It is; I accept that.

Mr Locke: We hope that parliamentarians, financial firms and people who act on behalf of consumers, whether that’s law firms or consumer bodies, respect the role that we play and believe that we do that to our utmost ability.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

/by

ASIC Confirms Fees for No Service Still Problematic

ASIC is a failed agency that instead of holding the banks accountable has let them get off scot-free.

I asked questions about fees for no service at estimates and wasn’t reassured.

Read More
/1 Comment/by

How Banks are Forcing a Cashless Society & Digital ID: ABC Afternoon Briefing with Greg Jennett

,

I discussed with Greg Jennett the cash drought and the news that Armaguard is in financial trouble, which could have repercussions for cash.

Armaguard is owned by transport magnate Lindsay Fox. His business interests extend not just to trucking but airports also. The Prime Minister attended Lindsay Fox’s lavish birthday party last year – a direct relationship there. Armaguard thinks it can use its connections with the Prime Minister to put its hand out for taxpayers money when there are other options available.

Banks are crying poor over the cost of their ATMs, but with profits at $31 billion last year, the banks could simply pay Armaguard more for their services. They could also stop blocking out smaller competitors like Commander Security, a small Australian cash handling company that wants to move cash for clients. Yet the banks refuse to accept their cash deposits. Why are banks forcing out profitable competitors? It appears so they can cry poor and put their hand out to the taxpayers.

The excuse that nobody uses cash anymore is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Banks are forcing people to use online transactions by closing bank branches – 2000 in the last 6 years, and by pulling out ATMs – 700 in the last 12 months. Banks charge fees on electronic transactions. They make nothing if you pay in cash and as they don’t know what you purchased, they can’t use that information to build your data profile.

The Optus outage last year demonstrated just how easy electronic commerce is to disrupt. Even before that outage drove people back to cash, usage had actually stabilised in Australia at $30 million cash withdrawals a month, with more than $100 billion of cash in circulation. Rumours of its demise are wishful thinking from our greedy, self-interested banks.

Banking is an essential service. If the banks are not going to fulfil their obligations and readily provide people with cash, then we need a people’s bank to do it.

Transcript

Greg Jennett: Now the use of less and less cash by Australians appears to be a choice made freely by consumers. But the problem is it’s having side effects right down the line all the way to the authorised secure trucks that transport cash from where it’s printed to the big four banks that buy from the Reserve Bank of Australia. Arma Guard is the one and only operator left in that market, and it’s in deep financial trouble with this side of its business that’s become a headache for the Big four banks, but also for some remote country towns, which you’re finding it hard to even get their hands on cash in some cases. One Nation, Malcolm Roberts, has been keeping an eye on the couch cash drought for quite a while now. He joined us here in the studio a little earlier. Malcolm Roberts. Welcome back to Afternoon Briefing. It’s been a while, so we’re glad you can join us. I know through monitoring committees and other aspects of the parliament here, you’ve been monitoring the decline of cash and its repercussions for quite some time. I thought we might focus today on some reporting about the possible decline of not one, but both cash in transit firms. These are the ones that officially transported around the country. Amaguard is under financial stress. What happens if they go under?

Malcolm Roberts: Well then banks need to find a way to move the cash. And what I think is going on, Greg, is that, well, first of all, Armaguard is owned by Lindsey Fox, who also owns other trucks, trucking businesses and also airlines. And he’s very close to Anthony Albanese who was at his birthday party recently. So, I think there’s some questions that need to be asked about that. But what’s happening is that Armaguard did a deal with the competition Consumer Commission just four months ago saying they promised if they were amalgamated, they would stay afloat for quite some time as a

Greg Jennett: … monopoly.

Malcolm Roberts: As a monopoly. And four months later they’re talking about shutting up shop. So that causes problems for the movement of cash and the banks want to get the taxpayers on the hook.

Greg Jennett: Alright, so who would or should pick up the tab if Armaguard is struggling here? Is it a government subsidy to them? Is it a renegotiated rate of payment from the Big Four banks? How does their financial predicament right now be alleviated?

Malcolm Roberts: There are competitors to Armaguard and one of them is Commander Security. It’s a small firm that can move cash around, but the banks refuse to deal with them. And the banks I think are even talking about banking commander security. They’re trying to wipe out competition. The other thing to remember, Greg, is you’ve taken a surprisingly strong stance for the banks. The banks have a social licence to fulfil. The banks operate in banking, and they must provide legal tender. That’s a fundamental to banking if you’re in banking, provide legal tender. And so, what we’re seeing is the bank’s trying to drive out cash and they shut 2000 branches in the last six years and they’ve shut 700 ATMs in the last 12 months. What they’re trying to do is drive out cash so that you have to use the bank digital transfers, which means you incur fees, which they’re missing at the moment, and also they miss your data. They want your data to build profiles about you.

Greg Jennett: Sure. So, in some country towns where bank branches are already thin or non-existent on the ground, I believe Australia Post has been playing a bit of a de facto role as a bank flying in cash in some cases at their own expense just to keep a town ticking over with cash. If we’re thinking laterally about solutions here, could Australia Post come into play with a funded obligation to be, I suppose, the bank of last resort in a country town?

Malcolm Roberts: Definitely the Australia Post licenced Post office is actually providing those services now, many banking services now, and they’re doing it for fees that some of the banks won’t disclose. Others will disclose. So, we would like to go beyond that and see if People’s bank, because the original Commonwealth Bank before it was privatised in 1995, was back in 1910 when it was formed by the Fisher Labour Government. It provided a vital service. It put our country on its feet, and it provided enormous competition to the globalist banks that own our big four banks. And so, what we need now is that same kind of competition from a people’s bank and the post office is one form of people’s bank that could be extended not just to a post office with banking services, but to a proper bank.

Greg Jennett: And should they be funded because under their obligations at the moment, Australia Post are in effect funded to do certain things but not the transportation of cash.

Malcolm Roberts: I think if they’re providing a service, they need to be compensated for that service. They need to be funded. And cash is a vital service. The availability of cash is vital because it provides competition, it provides choice, it provides freedom to escape the tyranny of the major banks.

Greg Jennett: As you’ve asked questions of different agencies in various committees on this over time, are you satisfied that they are focusing their attention on what looks like a pretty tight squeeze right now on Armaguard? We’re in an urgent state of resolution, aren’t we? Yes.

Malcolm Roberts: I think there’s an underlying premise to your question too, Greg. And that is that cash is dying. It’s not dying. It has declined until the recent years, but we still have 30 million cash transactions for withdrawal of cash [monthly] at the moment. A lot of people need cash. The Reserve Bank itself did a survey recently that said one in four older Australians can’t handle the internet – they must have cash. We also have $100 billion in cash in the economy. And so, cash is here to stay. And what we’ve seen is, I’ve been on a committee to inquire into the closure of bank branches in rural towns. And what we’ve seen is a deliberate push. It is deliberate, Greg to shut down bank branches and to shut down ATMs to drive people to towards cash. So, it’s people that decline in cash until recently when there’s been an uptick in cash, the decline has been driven by the banks for their own short-term and long-term money.

Greg Jennett: So, you’re saying this isn’t entirely market led by the customers, it’s actually being driven by them, but that’s irreversible, isn’t it? This trend towards bank closures only Last week in Western Australia, Bankwest converted itself as a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia into virtually a digital only bank. And we’ve had people on this programme, Malcolm suggest to us that that is a bit of a test bed for where others will certainly follow.

Malcolm Roberts: I think the banks will try to do whatever they can to minimise their costs and to maximise their revenue. But we must remember that banking is an essential service. Banks should not be controlling it at the moment, people. So, what we need is banks that provide a service and fulfil their social licence, they have an obligation to satisfy customers all over the country. And that’s what we need. And if they can’t do it, then let’s have a people’s bank like the Commonwealth Bank used to be.

Greg Jennett: Alright, well we’ll leave you to keep an eye on all things related to Cash Gold and the Malcolm Roberts in your work as a senator. And thank you once again for joining us today on this emerging story around Armagaurd. Thanks so much.

Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Greg. Pleasure to be here.

Greg Jennett: Alright, we’re pretty much done with afternoon briefing for today.

/17 Comments/by