REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (16:03): Firstly, I want to be very clear that the Australian Greens will be supporting this disallowance moved by One Nation. It's fair to say that we don't often agree with One Nation, but, on this very narrow circumstance, we absolutely agree with One Nation. We agree on this because cash is absolutely critical in our society and in our economy.
Cash matters, and it matters because so many different people rely on cash for inclusion. They rely on cash for choice. They rely on cash to purchase the essentials of life.
Cash is necessary to ensure basic resilience in our society and our economy when digital systems fail as they inevitably do from time to time. Let's just rewind to when Labor put out the consultation paper on cash. That proposed a far broader cash mandate than the one Labor actually bought into the parliament with the instrument that this debate seeks to disallow.
So Labor watered down their own original proposal. As a result they've presented to this parliament a cash mandate that is extremely narrow in scope. The Greens will vote to disallow this instrument because it would have forced the government back to the table to introduce a cash mandate that was more broad and that provided greater protections and a broader mandate for the use of cash in our society.
It would have done except for one thing, and that is the speech we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I don't know who wrote that rubbish for Senator Cash, but let me be very clear: everyone in this chamber knew the Liberals were supporting this disallowance last week. My first question is how did you get bought off?
What did the government buy you off with to make you change your position from last week? The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan?
Senator O'Sullivan: Impugning motives. I would like to know what the Greens got for their $22 billion— The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, let's not play games. Senator McKim.
Senator McKIM: I withdraw. What I will say is this. Everyone knew that the Liberals in this place were supporting this disallowance last week, and now, today, we find out that they are not going to support it.
In doing so, the Liberals are letting the government off the hook. Let me explain exactly why that is. It's because, in an attempt to make it seem like they're not letting the government off the hook, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has just revealed in her speech that the Liberals are going to table a private senator's bill on this matter which will no doubt contain a broader cash mandate then currently exists.
We all know what's going to happen there. If it's a decently drafted bill and it does contain a broader mandate, I'm not going to speak for One Nation, but you'd assume they'll support it. We'll have a look at it; you could assume we'll support it too.
It will get through the Senate, and do you know what's going to happen then? It's going to go down into the House, and it's going to die a miserable, lonely death down there. It will never be brought on for debate, because the government has the numbers down there, so it will never become law.
What you could have done was vote for this disallowance today and force the government back to the table to bring in an appropriate mandate on cash, one that was far more broad in scope than the one that they're currently proposing. And the reason they are not going to be forced back to the table is that the opposition have squibbed it today. That's why.
That's why the government has been let off the hook. Senator Cash can spare the chamber her crocodile tears and handwringing about cash, because the very reason that cash is not going to be mandated for things like data, communication services and energy bills is that the Liberals backed down and squibbed it today. When people contact us—and, boy, are the emails flowing on this issue, I can tell you—you can be very sure we'll be explaining exactly why the Greens supported this disallowance to force the government back to the table and bring in a far more broad mandate on cash.
We'll be explaining exactly why the government is not being forced back to the table, and that is the opposition completely squibbed it.