Posts

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
/0 Comments/by

The Truth About Tokenisation

,

I’ve been keeping a very close eye on the Reserve Bank’s moves toward a digital future. During this exchange with Governor Bullock, I pressed for clarity on exactly where they are headed with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and the “unified digital currency” the big banks have been whispering about.

I asked about developments in both domestic and international settlements. The Governor admitted that while they ran a pilot back in 2023, the focus has shifted. They aren’t looking at a “retail CBDC” right now, which would be digital cash for everyday shopping. Instead, their focus is firmly on looking at how to settle “tokenised assets.”

Tokenised financial products, also called asset tokens, are a way to turn traditional money-related things into digital versions that live on blockchain technology, the same as that used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. These could include shares, real estate, artworks and precious metals.

Normally these are hard to buy and/or sell quickly, especially in small amounts, and often involve lots of paperwork, middlemen and high minimum investments. Tokenisation changes that by creating a digital token that acts like a certificate of ownership for a piece (or all) of that real thing. The token is recorded on a blockchain, which is theoretically secure.

You would be able to buy a share of a home, business, art or precious metals within minutes, allowing small investments to grow your savings more than bank interest would do.

Note: This technology is not there yet! The RBA is scoping it out – as many institutions are.

I will continue to monitor these experiments to ensure that this doesn’t come at the cost of our financial privacy or sovereignty.

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?  

Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?  

Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?  

Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.  

/by

The Digital ID Will Change the Lives of Every Australian – For the Worse

,

As much as the Government attempts to downplay the importance of introducing a single central digital identifier for all Australians, the truth is that this legislation is the most significant I’ve encountered during my time in the Senate.

t’s the glue that holds together the digital control agenda by which every Australian will be controlled, corralled, exploited and then gagged when they speak or act in opposition.

The government knows Digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a Digital ID.

The Digital ID will, in effect, create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts and associates containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as a first step in a wider agenda. Tech giants have been building huge data files on every Australian for years.

Those huge data files that contain every website you visited, every post you made on their social media, everything you have ever bought online. Keywords scanned from conversations overheard by Siri and Alexa in your home are now unmasked.

Until now, that data was anonymised using a unique identifier rather than name and address, which has always been there as well. However, tech companies were not allowed to use it or share data with others that included the person’s name and address. Until Now.

Look for the tech giants to ask for your Digital ID as a requirement of using their service. The point of that exercise is to ensure they put the right name on the right data treasure trove.

This is why the Liberal Party have moved amendments to the Digital ID Bill to bring private corporations into this roll out earlier. All those treasure troves of data worth billions, trillions, that have been accumulated for years illegally, by retailers, tech and data companies – all that unrealised profit just sitting there has been too much of a temptation for the Liberal Nationals to resist and is now joined with Labor in pushing Digital ID.

There will be no escape from the digital ID.

Australians now have a digital version of “papers please” and Australians will never be the same.

Transcript

Life is about to change for every Australian. As much as Senator Gallagher seeks to downplay the significance of introducing one central digital identifier for each and every Australian, the reality is that this is the most significant legislation I’ve seen in my time in the Senate. It’s the glue that holds together the digital control agenda by which every Australian will be controlled, corralled, exploited and then gagged when they speak or act in opposition.

The Digital ID Bill will be misused because this bill is written to be misused. The government knows that digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a digital ID. The digital ID will, in effect, create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts and associates, containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as the first step in a wider agenda. Google, Facebook and other tech giants have been building huge data files on every Australian for years. Those huge data files contain every website you’ve visited, every post you made on their social media and everything you have ever bought online, and the keyword scan from conversations overheard by Siri and Alexa in your home are now unmasked.

Until now, that data was anonymised using a unique identifier, rather than name and address, which has always been there as well. However, tech companies were not allowed to use it or to share data with others that included a person’s name and address—until now. Look for the tech giants to ask for your digital ID as a requirement of using their service. The point of that exercise is to ensure they put the right name on the right data treasure trove. It’s not just the tech giants heading into the data gold rush. Those reward cards you scan at the checkout have included terms and conditions to allow Coles and Woolies to make a record of every purchase you have made for years. This is why the Liberal Party has moved amendments to the Digital ID Bill to bring private corporations into this rollout earlier. All those treasure troves of data worth billions or trillions have accumulated for years illegally, and all that unrealised profit just sitting there has been too much of a temptation for the Liberals and Nationals to resist, and they have now joined with Labor in pushing digital ID.

Those listening at home may be wondering how an individual could avoid being drawn into this net of data trading and surveillance. The simple answer is: you can’t. This Labor government has already passed the Identity Verification Services Bill, which makes it legal for every Australian’s photo or video likeness to be used to verify that person against the database containing their biometric data. Biometric data simply means a digital representation of your face that allows for instantaneous electronic matching. Just days after that bill passed, the first thing the government did was to send an email to people with a myGov ID to update their myGov record by providing a facial scan on their phone. Yes, that really happened. This is what these people are doing to you. This is not voluntary.

Ten million Australians have a myGov ID. Most of those were forced into it to access Centrelink benefits. It’s cruel. There are another two million Australians who were forced to get a myGov ID to register as a company director, despite the director identity enabling legislation not even mentioning myGov. The government did it anyway! The database the government is using for data surveillance is the national driver’s licence database which has 17 million records—everyone who has, or has had, a driver’s licence. This government doesn’t need an excuse to further digital control for everyday Australians. Socialists love control. Socialism needs control. For socialism to exist, there must be control. The government knows control will be used by government to identify people who say mean things on social media to speed up enforcement of our new laws against saying home truths to crazy or dishonest people. No hiding behind anonymous accounts or false addresses; you can expect a knock on your door at home, work or school, as we’re seeing happening in other countries with digital identity already in place. Only by being able to keep tabs on citizens 24/7 can the government possibly hope to introduce the wealth heist they have planned.

Anyone viewing this topic for the first time can see the detail of what I’m talking about on my website. The committee report on the digital ID bill was a travesty. The committee made a recommendation to pass the bill which was simply not supported by the evidence they received during the inquiry. Witness after witness testified that this rancid evil bill failed to protect privacy, failed to establish that the ID would be voluntary, failed on human rights grounds and failed on technical grounds. One blackout, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yet all these valid criticisms from leading organisations who, unlike the government, know what they’re talking about were simply ignored.

/31 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

WEF Control of Money — “The party seeks power purely for its own sake” (George Orwell, 1984)

,

The World Economic Forum is not just an economic ‘think tank’. It isn’t just some bizarre entity that tries to insert itself into our lives with rules about how often we wash our jeans, drive our car, or eat red meat.

It’s the mouthpiece of the unseen hands manipulating world events.

All WEF vassal states, including Australia, are working on central bank digital currencies (CBDC) while simultaneously closing bank branches, eliminating cash and negatively influencing independent crypto currencies. By manipulating the price of Bitcoin (pump, dump, repeat), the unseen hand destroys trust in the non-CBDC. Explicitly, these governments are doing to nothing to protect or regulate crypto because the want private crypto currencies to fail.

How does this affect you? CBDCs are the ultimate control tool for governments. Censorship of free speech using misinformation laws is even more easily achieved when people’s finances are tied to a digital currency controlled by the government. A government promoting a dystopian future.

One Nation stands strongly opposed to the Labor party, the globalist Liberals and Greens promoting this dystopian future and coveting the power that comes with it. The choice for voters is clear.

Transcript

A popular quote reads: ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people. Who controls the energy can control a whole continent. Who controls money can control the whole world.’ Only the ignorant could possibly look at the world as it is in 2024 and think, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Farmers who are having their land confiscated under net zero measures are spraying effluent at politicians. Immigrants complaining about their handouts are causing violence across the West, including in our own Queensland communities. Anyone who sees our stagnant national wealth growth being divided among 10 million more people over the last decade knows there is less for everybody. Apparently no-one, having done the sums [inaudible], can deny this. War has broken out in multiple locations, and the mainstream media are doing their best to fan those flames into a third world war. 

The unseen hands that guide these world events have shown themselves via their mouthpiece, the World Economic Forum. Yesterday, I spoke of how the World Economic Forum was trying to control the world’s food and energy supply. Today, it’s the third element of the doctrine of global control: money. At the recent World Economic Forum Davos meeting, Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, announced a digital currency for the European Central Bank to ensure they remain the anchor of the European financial system to protect their power and control over money. All World Economic Forum vassal states, including Australia, are producing a central bank digital currency while at the same time closing bank branches, eliminating cash and manipulating nongovernment crypto. By 2030, the only payment mechanism will be their own digital currency and digital ID. It’s control of money. 

Then there’s a final element: a set of misinformation and disinformation laws that will ensure any attempt to speak as I am speaking here today will result in having my digital ID and digital currency turned off for misinformation. The ALP, globalists, the Liberals and the Greens are promoting this dystopian future, coveting the power that comes with it. One Nation stands strongly opposed. The choice for voters is clear. 

/3 Comments/by

Digital ID Bill Passes First of Three Stages

The Labor Government is pushing ahead with their globalist control agenda by introducing the Digital ID bill. This proposal is nothing more than a 21st Century version of Soviet Russia’s favourite measure – papers please.

Senator Gallagher says myGov ID is not compulsory: that is “misinformation”. The Director’s ID legislation didn’t mention myGov IDs yet every director was required to get one. The reason 10 million Australians have a myGov ID is because 10 million Australians were coerced into getting one.

One Nation will be fighting this terrible bill at every stage.

/23 Comments/by

Australia Post Flies in the Face of a Cashless Agenda

,

Australia Post’s Bank@Post is expected to fill the hole left by banks closing branches in many rural and regional towns around Australia. I asked Group CEO and Managing Director, Paul Graham, for his views about how that’s going so far. His forthright response confirmed what bank closures mean in the communities where Australia Post is left to try and pick up the pieces. It is not the automatic solution the banks have suggested during the bank closures inquiry, which I knew from constituent feedback through my office.

Customers, explained Paul Graham, are looking for a broader scope of services than they are equipped to deliver. Small businesses particularly feel that they’re not able to access what they used to through their banking branches. Provision of cash has become an issue. Whilst there are those who say cash is going to die, Mr Graham certainly doesn’t see that in many demographics and areas of Australia.

With support from banks, Australia Post could extend the range of banking services. Whether for small businesses, the provision of cash, or even managing large numbers of gold coins following fundraisers, Australia Post rightly sees its over-the-counter Bank@Post services as essential.

More regional and remote towns are being left without a bank. Coober Pedy is a good example of a cash town given the nature of its work. Australia Post is now flying cash into that town on a weekly basis because the banks have all left.

There is obviously a vacuum left by the bank closures and post offices are well positioned to fill it with the right support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. My questions are fairly short. At the Senate inquiry into regional bank branch closures, I asked Westpac CEO Mr King, ‘How much do you pay Australia Post for a community representation fee?’ The response on notice was: Westpac is happy to provide a specific figure, including the Community Representation Fee, however our contract with Australia Post requires both parties to agree to the release of any commercial details within the contract. Westpac would agree to Australia Post providing these details to the Committee. Are you happy to share those details today or on notice?

Mr Graham: No, we are not. Those are commercially confidential. We have a number of agreements with many banks and institutions. They differ from bank to bank. That would disclose what we believe is
commercially sensitive information.

Senator ROBERTS: Westpac is happy for you to disclose their contract.

Mr Graham: Again, they may be happy but that’s one side of the contract. We have contracts with over 81 financial institutions and would not be comfortable sharing that sensitive information.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked the Commonwealth Bank the same question and also on notice received the same reply, as one would expect from an oligopoly. Are you able to share the Commonwealth Bank’s community representation fee today or on notice?

Mr Graham: No, Senator. We will take the same approach to that. As I say, we have many contracts with many banks. It is commercially sensitive. Disclosing what one bank pays versus what another bank pays would create commercial risk for Australia Post.

Senator ROBERTS: How so? The bank is happy.

Mr Graham: In that we are negotiating with 81 different companies and, if they were aware of what other companies are paying, that would put us under a very difficult commercial situation.

Senator ROBERTS: Show them the high-price contracts.

Mr Graham: It would be good if we could do that, but it’s unfortunate the way that the negotiations would work.

Senator ROBERTS: It would help you if you picked the top one. Are you happy with the fees you’re receiving from your banking partners in Bank@Post for providing their customers with services?

Mr Graham: When the Bank@Post agreement was put in place three years ago, the scope of that was for what we would call rudimentary or very basic consumer banking services—the ability to deposit some money and take out some money. It’s fair to say that since that service has been put in place and since we’ve seen an increase in the number of bank closures the pressure that has been placed on our post offices that provide Bank@Post has increased. Customers are looking for a broader scope of services. Small businesses particularly feel that they’re not able to access what they would traditionally access through their banking branches. And the provision of cash has become an issue. Whilst a lot of people say cash is going to die, we certainly don’t see that, particularly in certain demographics and also in certain neighbourhoods where cash is still prevalent.

When we were set up, we were never established, from both a physical and a service perspective, to deal with cash. We’re happy to extend the range of services we provide to our customers at Bank@Post, be it small business or the provision of cash, but we would need that to be funded by the banks. A good example is Coober Pedy. It is a cash town given the nature of its work. We are now flying cash into that town on a weekly basis because there are no banks remaining in Coober Pedy.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very pleased to hear that you’re supporting cash and keeping it alive. A lot of people are starting to swing back now, because they know it’s essential for freedom. Would Australia Post like to offer a wider range of banking services from an existing partner, such as Suncorp? If so, what services would you like to provide?

Mr Graham: As I referred to in my previous answer, we are seeing an increasing desire by regional towns, particularly when we are the only banking service remaining, to increase the range of services for small business—be that cash floats for the local hairdresser or the local coffee shop. One example recently was a footy team and the Country Women’s Association both ran a gold coin fundraiser over a weekend and our post office was inundated with 1,800 gold coins on the Monday. It was never equipped to handle that type of cash. We see there’s an ability for us to increase the range of services we provide, certainly for small businesses, and for the provision of cash for those small businesses. However, that would need an investment—in some cases in physical infrastructure, for safes and security, and also additional systems and training for our team—which we are prepared to do. That would obviously require support from the banks to enable those services to be extended.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’d welcome something like Suncorp, which is for sale right now? It’s sale to ANZ was blocked.

Mr Graham: We provide services to Suncorp today through Bank@Post—they are a Bank@Post customer—and 81 other financial institutions.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to commit to Suncorp or anything like that, but does the concept of having a bank with branches already, albeit not as many as you have, appeal to you?

Mr Graham: That’s a question of policy, which is for the government. We’re very happy to provide our over-the-counter services, which we are well-equipped to do, certainly for basic banking services. But as I said, if we were to extend the range of those services we would need to look at those post offices on a case-by-case basis. A town in the Snowy is another case in point where the last bank left and our post office there does not have disability access, so, again, that challenge comes on Australia Post and we work with the banks to try to solve that. We see over-the-counter services and providing Bank@Post services, particularly in regional and remote areas, as essential services and we continue to be invested in those services.

Senator ROBERTS: Something Christine Holgate did a very fine job of doing was to listen to and address the problems of the LPOs—the licenced post offices. We haven’t heard much from them lately, so that is probably a pretty good sign, but I’d like to know what you think of your relationship with the LPOs. How’s that going? They’re fundamental.

Mr Graham: Yes, they are. They make up more than two-thirds of our branch network. They are partners in our network. We deal with both the key associations. I think our relationship is a very positive one. We are very transparent on what we are doing, the investments we’re making. We’re currently rolling out our PostPlus new point-of-sale system through every post office in the country—the largest single investment that Australia Post has ever made, over $250 million. This will create efficiencies for both our corporate and licenced post offices, and also create a better service experience for our customers.
Our relationship with them is healthy. We certainly listen to them. We spend a lot of time out in their post offices, understanding their needs and their challenges. I also spend a lot of time out; it’s one of the best parts of my job. But we also see, in certain areas, where they are financially challenged because of the reduction in foot traffic, because of the digitisation of services, and, as I mentioned in my opening address, certainly metropolitan areas where there can be significant overlap, we do see cannibalisation of licenced post offices by their fellow licensees in some of those areas. It is a changing financial environment for many of them, and we look to continue to support them where we can. Bank@Post certainly helps, as does the growth we’re seeing in our parcel business, and also investing in new systems which helps them become more efficient and better at serving their customers.

/3 Comments/by