REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Senator MULHOLLAND (Queensland) (20:10): Let's be frank. This disallowance motion isn't just a bad motion; it's a confused motion, and it's actually a revealing motion. In one single act, being this disallowance motion, brought forward by Senator Roberts, we see laid bare something that the Australian public is increasingly becoming more aware of—that the Liberal Party of Australia and One Nation are no longer fellow travellers.
They are no longer occasional collaborators, sometime frien ds. They are politically, strategically and ideologically intertwined. At this point, the Liberal Party are not even a party anymore; they are just a very, very bad One Nation tribute band, and, like with most tribute bands, we are not enjoying the music.
Jokes aside, let us start with the facts. Senator Roberts has moved to disallow the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025, a regulation that is quite simply already delivering exactly what Australians were promised. The Albanese government said that we would guarantee the right to use cash for essential purposes, and we did it.
From 1 January this year, Australians are able to walk into a fuel station or a grocery store and use cash, their own hard-earned money, to pay for essential goods. For the first time ever, there is a legal obligation for businesses to accept cash. This government did that.
Before, there was none. That is the reality. But why does that matter?
Despite all of the noise, the conspiracy laced talking points from Senator Roberts, Labor believes cash still matters. And we go one step further. We want to put more money, more cash, in the back pocket of ordinary Australians, and we've done that with tax cut after tax cut, voted against by that side of politics.
We want to put more cash in the back pocket of Australians. But we didn't stop there. One of the first things we did when we came to government was protect energy rates, something that has always been under threat by the Liberal Party.
They took a run at Sunday penalty rates, and we knew that they would do it again if given the chance. They are always after taking money out of the back pocket of the Australian workers. We didn't stop there.
We made same job, same pay law. Now, we have workers who are being ripped off by up to $30,000 in my home state of Queensland, working hard underground in mines in Central Queensland. That side of politics, One Nation, is very happy to see them being ripped off by $30,000, so we are not going to be lectured about cash by people who want to take cash out of the back pockets of ordinary workers.
We know how important the reliance on cash is to Australian workers. Around one in 10 Australians rely on cash for most of their in-person purchases. That is not trivial.
That is not fringe. That's real people, older Australians, people in regional Queensland, people who rely on the certainty, the accessibility and the control that cash gives them. Around 1.5 million Australians use cash for 80 per cent of their transactions.
Cash is not nostalgia; it is a lifeline. The Albanese Government's has recognised that. But we have also recognised something else.
You cannot simply impose blanket rules without understanding the impacts that that could have on small businesses. We struck a balance—a cash mandate that applies to essential services, such as groceries and fuels, and a cap of $500; operating hours that reflect real-world trading conditions; and an exemption for small business with under $10 million in turnover.
We also built into it a review for three years. That is what responsible government looks like—measured, consulted and targeted. When Senator Roberts comes into the chamber, waving his finger around, you have to ask: what exactly does he think he is achieving here?
This motion isn't just misguided; it is redundant. The legislation he wants already exists thanks to this Labor government. His actions today are frankly an admission that he does not understand the very law that he is trying to dismantle.
Worse than that, if it succeeded, it would strip away the very protections he claims to support. It would remove the obligation for businesses to accept cash. It would make life harder for the very Australians, the battlers, that One Nation claims to stand up for.
Every opportunity they get to stand up for battlers in this place they do not take. They vote against the interests of hardworking Australians time and time again. They voted against same-job same-pay.
They voted against penalty rates. They voted against tax cuts. They do not want cash in your back pocket; they want it in Gina Rinehart's.
This motion is a classic own goal from the One Nation playbook. The same people who tell working people in this country, the battlers, one thing, and, when they come to Canberra and they sit on that leather, they do the exact opposite, thinking that nobody's going to notice. This is another example of bad policy bluff without any detail or sense of reality.
Every time when scrutiny arrives and when real questions are asked of One Nation, their house of cards falls over. We saw that just days ago from Senator Hanson down in Adelaide. She was asked a simple question in South Australia in the election about who would cost One Nation's policies, and she exploded.
I think it's perfectly logical— Senator Bell: A point of order on relevance—I'm not sure what this has to do with the motion we're debating. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Grogan ): I did feel the thread through there, if I work off the basis of the series of contributions we've had on this matter. It does appear, from the original speaker onwards, that it is somewhat about the vibe, but I will make the point to Senator Mulholland to make sure that she is remaining relevant to the topic, and I'll listen very carefully, Senator Bell.
Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr: Just on the point of order, I must say I was so engaged by Senator Mulholland's speech that I actually left my office to come in so I could listen in person—it was so relevant. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you for that contribution, Senator Scarr.
I feel debating the point of order is maybe appropriate for this time of night, but, no, that is not what we are here for. I will take us back to the debate at hand. Senator MULHOLLAND: When asked a simple question about One Nation's election policies, the response from Senator Hanson was: 'Don't ask me stupid questions.
It's got nothing to do with me.' That tells you everything—no detail, no accountability and no responsibility; just performance. That's exactly what we're seeing tonight from One Nation. This is just performative clickbait for their social media following.
Ordinarily, you may say, 'Look, that's One Nation. That's what they do,' but this motion—something in it I think is worth the Australian people taking notice of, particularly the people who are backing this motion. The Liberal Party is backing this One Nation motion—the party that claims to be for small business.
The party that lectures everyone in this chamber about economic responsibility is preparing to vote for a motion that would force businesses to hold large volumes of cash on site, potentially exposing them to theft, increasing their costs and increasing their risk. This motion, and the fact it's being backed by the Liberal Party, is economically incoherent and politically cowardly.
It is at odds with everything they say they stand for. The timing of this could be more telling. Just a few days after the member for Hume, Angus Taylor, declared he would take up the fight to One Nation as the new Liberal leader, he would defend the coalition's credibility, he would draw a line— Senator Scarr interjecting— Senator MULHOLLAND: I have a feeling he doesn't like it now!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr: On relevance: I think the senator is now starting to wander from the topic. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Scarr.
Senator Mulholland, I feel we may judge this by whether Senator Scarr removes himself from the chamber and returns to his office because it is no longer relevant. In all seriousness, Senator Mulholland, if you could please stick to the topic at hand, that would be more appropriate. Senator MULHOLLAND: I would sort of argue that how the coalition's going to vote— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would suggest you don't.
Senator MULHOLLAND: is going to be an interesting part of relevance to this, but I digress. As I was saying, the member for Hume declared he would take up the fight to One Nation. We're not seeing that in tonight's debate.
We're not seeing them take up the fight to One Nation in this motion at all. They're leaving it to the Labor Party, time and time again, to take up the fight to One Nation. They said they were going to draw a line, but what did we get?
We got a conga line instead. It's getting a bit awkward—the dumping of net zero, the mass migration dog-whistles, the 'cash is king' stuff. When One Nation says something wild in the morning, by lunchtime the Liberals are coming into this place saying: 'Actually, we've always thought that.
That's always been our policy.' I'm sure we're going to hear that when they back in this motion tonight. We know that backing in One Nation for the Liberal Party is a fraught endeavour. The primary vote for One Nation exceeded that of the Liberal Party in South Australia.
Hitching your wagon to their star is just going to result in the complete annihilation of the Liberal Party. What is in danger here in this particular motion is something much deeper. This is not just about cash and it's not just about regulation; it's about the type of politics that we allow to take root in this country.
On one side, you have leadership from Anthony Albanese, making it clear that Australia is a modern, multicultural nation. It's a nation that moves forward, not backward. It's a nation that rejects the politics of division and fear.
From the other side, silence, accommodation, complicity. I will acknowledge that, up until recently, there has been one voice on the other side who's been willing to speak plainly on One Nation, and that was Senator Matt Canavan, who has called out the divisive rhetoric that we have seen from One Nation, until today, when he signalled a preference deal with One Nation.
So who is going to stand up to One Nation? It's not those guys. Apparently, on the opposition benches, it takes courage to do the right thing because leadership means more than saying things that are not always popular; it means standing for something.
Senator Kovacic: A point of order, Acting Deputy President. While I think you've given Senator Mulholland a lot of leverage, I think we're crossing over into reflecting on individual members on the other side, and I don't think that's appropriate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Mulholland, shall we wrap up with some very focused points about your position on this specific debating point?
Senator MULHOLLAND: I would love to. It would be my honour. Just to finish off that point, in the spirit of decent politics, we're talking about One Nation bringing a disallowance motion into this chamber purporting to stand up for cash.
That legislation exists; that regulation is there. To move a disallowance motion will remove that right to access cash, to use cash—in petrol stations, in grocery stores. That's exactly what they want to do.
We know that, when they come into this place and talk about cash being king, they only care about putting more cash in the back pocket of Gina Rinehart. At every opportunity that One Nation have had in this chamber to back in the battlers and the working people of Australia, who they come to this place and tell us they represent, they have voted against their interests—voted against penalty rates, voted against same job, same pay.
You voted against same job, same pay. You want to talk about the coalminers in Central Queensland, the people you are quite willing to accept are being underpaid by $30,000 a year. You are quite happy for workers in Central Queensland working underground to be getting paid less just because their company found a loophole.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Mulholland, will you resume your seat please. Senator Roberts, did you have a point of order? Senator Roberts: Yes, I do.
We're the only party that stood up for the workers of Central Queensland and Hunter Valley. The only one. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, this is not an opportunity for you to stand up and debate another senator across the chamber.
A point of order is a point of order. If you have one, can you please make it. Senator Roberts: Yes, it's a matter of relevance, but it's also a matter of truthfulness.
We're the only ones— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. Senator Roberts, resume your seat. This is not for you to debate across the chamber, because you're not enjoying what another senator might be saying.
That is not for anyone in this chamber to do. Your point of order on relevance—I have to say I've been listening very intently, given the contributions of other senators, and I think Senator Mulholland, in this wide-ranging debate, is on track at this point in time. Senator Roberts, again, I'm going to say to you that this is not about a debate.
Do you have another point of order? Senator Roberts: Senator Mulholland is misleading the Senate because— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, resume your seat. That is an opinion.
Senator Mulholland, you have the call. Senator MULHOLLAND: Senator Roberts may want to dispute the facts, but the voting record in this place shows that he voted against same job, same pay. It is there in black and white.
That is your record. You voted against cash in the back pockets of miners in Central Queensland. That is your legacy.