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

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

Bank Guarantee Raises Serious Questions

,

In a recent Senate hearing, I questioned the government on its decision to include a standing appropriation—an open-ended budget allocation—in its Pacific Banking Guarantee legislation. This approach bypasses the annual appropriation process, removing Senate oversight and public transparency.

The Pacific Banking Guarantee is a scheme whereby the Federal Government guarantees the operation of banks across the Pacific. If these banks encounter financial difficulties, the Federal Government will bail them out. Why this is the business of the Australian Government escapes me. Why banks such as the Commonwealth and ANZ require a Federal Government guarantee, despite earning profits exceeding $15 billion annually, is a question they refused to answer. The Guarantee itself is worth no more than $2 billion—even in the unlikely event of a total loss. This Guarantee has been provided to give the Big Four banks a competitive advantage over other banks and financial institutions. With this Guarantee, they can borrow money at lower rates, thereby increasing their profits and creating an “I owe you one” sense of obligation to the Federal Government. I assume Minister Bowen intends to leverage this influence to “encourage” investment in wind and solar energy, despite the questionable economic viability of such ventures.

This is how government operates: influence-trading using taxpayers’ money.

Standing allocations cannot be questioned, and the only way to halt this flow of money to our major banks is through legislation that overturns the allocation. Given that the Greens have supported big banking in this country throughout the Albanese Government’s term – alongside the Government itself – any effort to restore accountability to the Pacific (big) Banking Guarantee is going to fail.

This reflects the contempt of the Albanese Government. The ALP is proving to be even bigger corporate lapdogs than the Liberals were.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills requested a justification for why this bill includes a standing appropriation rather than being included in the annual appropriation bill, which would give the Senate oversight. Please explain why a standing appropriation is required. 

Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts, for the question. A special appropriation is more suitable for meeting possible liabilities than annual appropriations. While the likelihood the Commonwealth will need to make a payment is very low, we may be urgently required at any time to meet liabilities arising under a guarantee, which may fall outside the usual budget cycle. This means the annual appropriation process may not be available within the timeframe any liability falls due.  

Without a special appropriation, it is possible parliament will be recalled to pass an urgent appropriation or the Commonwealth can risk defaulting on its liabilities. The special appropriation is not proposed to have a direct dollar limit, as this provides the Commonwealth with flexibility to ensure it achieves a significant national interest objective, securing an Australian banking presence in the Pacific over the long term.  

The Commonwealth would not provide an unlimited guarantee, however there may be circumstances where the maximum amount guaranteed under the appropriation could change. This includes if the Commonwealth entered into a new agreement with another Australian bank and the legislation limits on the types of guarantees the government can provide to guarantees—only from an ADI banking business in the Pacific region. Specifically, the legislation limits the guarantee to only the ADI’s Pacific operations. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an open-ended budget allocation. The guarantees being provided by this government are commercial-in-confidence. This means the Senate will not have oversight on what the government is agreeing to. Is that correct? 

Senator CHISHOLM: In terms of reporting obligations, any Pacific banking guarantee, including the ANZ agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations. This includes regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities and the compliance with bank commitments as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: The duration of the ANZ guarantee is 10 years, meaning this government is binding future governments. Can the federal government withdraw from a guarantee at any time in those 10 years? If so, is there any sunset clause or time limit to the guarantees? 

Senator CHISHOLM: It’s a commercial agreement that’s been entered into with the Commonwealth. There is no sunsetting clause. 

Senator ROBERTS: I am told the World Bank is also working on a plan to assist correspondent banking intermediaries in the Pacific. Why didn’t you join that international effort, and will you use what they come up with as a way of sunsetting this arrangement? 

Senator CHISHOLM: Any Pacific banking guarantee is expected to complement the World Bank’s Pacific Strengthening Correspondent Banking Relationships Project, the CBR project. The government strongly supports the World Bank’s work on this in terms of the work they are doing in the Pacific. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you have strong confidence in the World Bank, why not let the World Bank do it? 

Senator CHISHOLM: Phase 1 of the World Bank project will establish a correspondent banking relationship provider of last resorts, which countries can call upon should they lose their financial correspondent banking relationship in a particular currency. It is intended to be a fallback for when there is no other commercially viable option. 

Senator ROBERTS: This bill does not specify what is being guaranteed, so let me ask. Does the guarantee extend to the Australian government guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations? 

Senator AYRES: Senator Roberts, we’ve just had a small changeover. I’m just trying to ensure that I can give you accurate information. The Commonwealth provides a limited guarantee to ANZ, under this legislation, in connection with banking operations in nine markets across the Pacific and Timor-Leste.  

Those markets are Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. The guarantee only covers certain eligible liabilities, and it is only triggered if certain trigger events occur and result in a loss to ANZ. The Commonwealth has only provided the guarantee for certain eligible liabilities in order to minimise the risks and potential costs of any Pacific banking guarantee to the Commonwealth and to mitigate any potential competition or market distortion risks in Pacific financial markets and the Pacific banking sector.  

To preserve the non-distortionary mechanisms in the guarantee, the government will not be disclosing the specific terms of the guarantee, including the types of exposures that are covered. If it assists Senator Roberts, the government was, of course, provided with extensive commercial advice on the guarantee, including around the risks, and commercial risk assessments found the likelihood of a default to be very low. 

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your statement that you’d like to give me accurate information, but you didn’t answer the question. I take it that you can’t answer the question of whether or not the Australian government is guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations. 

Senator AYRES: I’ll try and answer a little bit more directly, if it assists. The reason that I answer it in the way that I do, Senator Roberts, is that the advice that is provided and the terms of the guarantee are, of course, commercial in confidence, for policy reasons, in particular so that they don’t distort the banking and financial services markets in the Pacific. I’ll get the team behind me to correct me if I answer this incorrectly.  

The question about the support that the Australian government provides to Pacific island countries is quite different to this set of arrangements, which is about ensuring that banking services are provided and that there is trade, the free movements of goods, investment and all of the things that go with having banking services provided with the facilitation and support of the Australian government. I hope that assists; I’m not sure that it will. If you’ve got further questions, I’ll endeavour to answer them. 

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll come back to it later. Minister, Australian banks like the ANZ raise money to lend in the market, issuing bonds and debt securities. If the intended use of that capital is to issue government-guaranteed loans to Pacific nations, which this bill would allow, does that not give banks like the ANZ a competitive advantage in the capital market? And is any oversight intended of the capital raising of Australian banks to make sure they are honest in their representations to the capital market? 

Senator AYRES: Any banking guarantee in the Pacific, including this agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations, which include regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities, and to ensure compliance with bank commitments. There are measures undertaken in order to deal with that concern, which is at present, I would argue, theoretical.  

I hope that the financial markets in this area lift to a point that is consistent with the kind of development, growth, investment and trade that the Australian government is working with our Pacific partners to facilitate. That is in their interest and in our interest for that to occur. The kinds of measures that you’re talking about—I’ll put that backwards—do not have a distortionary effect on capital markets or on financial markets.  

There is extensive work that sits behind this that has been directed towards achieving that outcome. ANZ has made a number of commitments to its Pacific operations in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in exchange for this guarantee that includes maintaining face-to-face banking services and enhancing the ANZ Bank’s services, including digital services. That is important for people and businesses and economic growth and investment in each of those states.  

It supports ongoing access to correspondent banking services in the Pacific and international money transfers, including the Australian dollar but also the New Zealand dollar and the US dollar. It will also maintain fee-free remittances for ANZ customers. That is important for facilitating more trade and more transactions. It will involve investing an additional $50 million to enhance the ANZ’s digital banking offering in the Pacific, excluding in Papua New Guinea, again, mobilised by some of the issues about making sure that the effect here is to support providing banking services where they are at risk.  

The uplift that is engaged there will impact the ANZ’s retail banking operations everywhere, except for Papua New Guinea, where ANZ today currently only offers institutional banking services that play an important role for the mining sector and other parts of the Papua New Guinea economy. Alongside this, there are efforts to continue to support and promote financial inclusion and literacy, and ANZ will continue to support Pacific countries in terms of their infrastructure financing, in line with the bank’s credit risk policies.  

That is the nature of the impact of the guarantee, in terms of capital markets. It should not be conflated, of course, with the efforts that the Australian government engages in through EFA and various efforts to support infrastructure development and economic development more broadly in the Pacific. This is about supporting the banking infrastructure—maybe I shouldn’t say ‘infrastructure’, because it’s confusing—the banking retail network and digital services that sit alongside that throughout the Pacific states.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that, in starting that answer, you used the words, ‘I hope that the financial markets lift’—I hope—to the trade, yet, in Australia, we had severe breaches of the law by senior banking and financial institution officials and no-one went to jail—no-one! You also said that you’d like to maintain face-to-face banking services in the Pacific islands, yet we can’t get that here in Australia. Minister, is this bill just putting more money in the pockets of the big four banks by lowering their borrowing costs relative to other banks? 

Senator AYRES: The short answer to that question, Senator Roberts, is no. It does not achieve that objective in any practical way. It’s not one of the principles that’s engaged here. Australia does have a very well-regulated banking sector, and that is a national asset for Australia. That is important for our capacity to deliver investment and growth and financial transactions and security for borrowers and lenders and projects.  

In times of financial stress, our well-regulated banking sector is a fundamental part of Australia’s economic resilience in what is a pretty challenging world that we live in. That is not related to what is being provided for here. There will always be, as you’ve alluded to, bad actors, bad things happening, malfeasance, errors, omissions or whatever in any system. I have no argument with that. That is what the regulatory sector is designed to deal with. This situation is about extending banking services that might not otherwise be extended to a part of the world that needs banking services, and it is in Australia’s interest for those to be provided.  

This ensures that, through arrangements supported by this legislation and also by the commercial and non-distortionary measures, it’s provided in a way in which there is no disadvantage to the Australian banking sector—and, when I say ‘banking sector’, what I mean is the kind of services that customers and businesses would need and expect from the Australian banking sector. Quite the contrary to the final suggestion in your question, this is not a matter of the government paying an amount to the ANZ; in fact, it’s quite the reverse.  

The ANZ pays an annual fee with respect to the guarantee, and the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth’s commercial advisor have provided advice on the annual fee. That fee amount, for some of the reasons that you’ve alluded to in some of your previous questions and in order to ensure that it doesn’t have a distortionary effect, is commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed publicly. The guarantee isn’t a subsidy. It’s not a bailout. The government will not be providing any direct funding to Australian banks for their Pacific operations. 

Senator ROBERTS: That sounds like a protection fee. Let’s get this straight. Banks have no risk—they have a guarantee if they have any losses—so banks cannot lose, so that sounds like a protection fee. Minister, who drafted your bill for you? The banks? 

Senator AYRES: Certainly not. That is certainly not the case. This bill is drafted, this arrangement has been struck, in order to support regional communities in Australia and Pacific nations to access banking services. That is in Australia’s national interest. That is fundamentally what is engaged here. For Pacific nations, remaining connected to global finance is one of their highest priorities because it supports their own economic development and their economic resilience. Investment in capability; investment in new businesses; microfinance for small businesses; and making sure that project finance can be accessed for the kinds of mining, development, manufacturing and other projects that deliver good jobs, stable investment, national economic growth, regional interdependence and economic resilience in the region—all of that is in Australia’s national interest.  

Those are the questions that are being engaged here. In terms of regional Australia, this government has secured commitments from the banks that previous governments have failed to secure—a moratorium on regional bank closures from the four major banks, as well as an agreement to increase their commitment to, and their investment in, Bank@Post. I grew up in a little country town. I know how important those services are. And I know you would not be so mischievous as to suggest that there is a relationship between the services provided to regional Australians through their banks and the government’s determination to protect that— 

CHAIR: Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but it’s 1.30. 

Progress reported. 

/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

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

Media Release: Suncorp Deal a Wasted Chance for People’s Bank

,

The ACCC ruled last year that allowing ANZ to buy Suncorp would reduce banking competition. Today, the Australian Competition Tribunal disagreed and allowed the merger.

The Tribunal’s decision is a wasted opportunity when Suncorp should have been bought and turned into a People’s Bank. There is some logic to the Tribunal’s decision. Australian banks are, at best, a cartel and at worst, a monopoly – one bank with many logos. In short, there must be competition before that competition can be lessened. Our banks do not compete – they work together.

This is a result of the same foreign merchant banks holding controlling shareholdings in all of Australia’s major banks. In turn, the banks behave in exactly the same way, offering almost identical risk management, products, fees and charges.

Banks are working in collusion to close bank branches and eliminate cash, to force everyday Australian consumers into more electronic banking services, from which banks profit.

Banks are acting together to de-bank competitors like crypto exchanges and bullion dealers, using their market power to squash their competitors. The result is obscene profits ($35 billion last year), much of which is sent as dividends to foreign merchant banks.

This is what the Tribunal has decided is an acceptable way to run banking in Australia.

Last year I proposed using the Future Fund to buy Suncorp for their asking price of $5 billion and then turn it into a people’s bank, one that would operate with their customers’ interests at heart, in a fair, ethical and honest manner.

One Nation will continue to campaign for a people’s bank and I call on Treasurer Jim Chalmers to use his powers to direct the ACCC to investigate collusion, common ownership and restrictive trade practices being conducted by the Big 4 banks.

It’s time to force real competition between the banks and establish a People’s Bank.

Media-ReleaseDownload
/by