Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026, Cash Distribution Framework (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:40): My late father, Lance, was a wise person, and I can remember when I left home at 22 to get married to my wife Catherine all those years ago—in 1986—he gave me $50 and said, 'Keep it in your wallet, and make sure you always have cash with you.' If I reach in here, into my coat, I've got $10. Government members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK: There are no moths coming out there, member for McEwen or member for Corangamite, but it's certainly important to always have a bit of cash on you because you never know when you're going to get caught short.

You never know when the technology is going to fail or when the point-to-point Visa operators or electronic payments systems fail. Certainly, in regional Australia, this is very much the case. I've been interested to hear the contributions from those opposite.

I had shadow ministerial table duty last night, and I spent a lot of time listening to Labor members talking about this particular bill—the Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026. I was pleased that so many of them talked about people in country areas. It's good to hear Labor members talking about the regions because, all too often, in any bill before this chamber or the House, we don't hear about how any bill is going to affect regional people.

We know that regional people are the ones who keep the lights on. We know that regional people are the ones who grow the food and fibre. We know that regional people are the ones who support our resources, minerals and mining industries to ensure our exports and balances of payments are what they need to be.

Indeed, we are the very backbone of Australia, and cash in regional areas—regional economies—is so very important. I heard the member for Swan, and I like the member for Swan, but, in that contribution, I was interested to hear the reference to, last year, the Treasurer securing commitments from Australia's big banks to hold off regional bank closures until the middle of 2027.

That's slightly cute because we can't give the Treasurer too much credit in that regard. I have to say, the big banks were certainly making sure that they did the right thing, as far as the regions are concerned, for once, finally, a bit earlier than that. Certainly, the Commonwealth Bank, on 7 July 2023, put out a media release, and the introductory paragraph read: Commonwealth Bank is maintaining banking services and employment in regional Australia by keeping all CBA regional branches open until at least the end of 2026, a three year extension on its current commitment.

That, obviously, is a rolling commitment by the CBA. They too, have finally been dragged kicking and screaming to the table to support and protect regional communities. A lot of those banks have big holdings from what's popularly termed in country areas as 'old money'.

That old money might have come off the back of a sheep, it might have been traditional money from an area that has been very wealthy in the past, passed on down through the families and is still in those banks. Those banks have then all too often, through the late eighties and since then, started to desert regional communities. It's not right that those banks are happy to have the cash holdings of that old money, and even just average customers with average holdings in those banks, and then close the branch.

I appreciate that we're in 2026. I appreciate that many people—most people—are now paying via electronic means, via their phone, with tap-and-go, with credit cards or the like. But cash is still important, and that's why this legislation is vitally important.

I know that the member for Page, in his responsibilities as assistant shadow Treasurer, has moved an amendment to this bill. That's important, too, and I will get to that. But I just want to make some comments in relation to the banking inquiry of 2023.

It was at that time, when the CBA had its initial moratorium on bank closures, that Senator Mathew Canavan and former Liberal senator Gerard Rennick were going around the regions and holding these important fora to look into banking closures. Senator Canavan, now the federal leader of the Nationals, has never wavered in his view that banks are vital and cash is important.

It was the hearing for that inquiry at Junee that had a lot to do with the CBA's decision, with other banks following suit, on the importance of cash as king, in regional economies in particular. The thing about Junee is that it is 42 kilometres from Wagga Wagga. If the CBA had closed its branch there, that would have left age-old enterprises such as the Co-Op, a very successful business, and the Junee Licorice & Chocolate Factory, probably one of Riverina's best tourism destinations, without cash on the premises when they opened of a day or forced to make a daily commute to Wagga Wagga—as I said, the distance of a good marathon away—to get cash to have in their tills for those people for whom cash is the only means of paying for goods and services.

That is not right. It is not fair. The CBA came to its senses and put in place the moratorium—and good on them for doing that.

I said at the time that Junee was going to have a great opportunity to speak up against bank closures in their community. I commend the then mayor, Neil Smith, who, with me, fought for the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport to hold a hearing for the inquiry into regional bank closures in what is a rail-and-jail town—but a very important town.

Junee is halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, on the main rail line. It's been a huge agricultural producer. Like many of those regional towns, it deserves and needs banking services.

It's got a community of 6½ thousand people. Without a local bank, many people would have had to make the one-hour round trip to Wagga Wagga—and that would probably mean going a bit fast, to do it in within 60 minutes—just to access simple banking services. That was not good enough, and I'm pleased that Junee is still getting banking services.

That's where I commend Regional bank and like-minded organisations for starting up premises throughout country areas, particularly in the Riverina, to offer an option, an alternative to the big banks, who have not been as forthcoming as perhaps they should have in providing services and the branches in regional areas. When NAB, the National Australia Bank, pulled out of Temora, the spokesperson for that particular organisation phoned me and said that a limited number of customers were going through the bank each week or each fortnight and they were the same customers.

I appreciate that. Some of those banks have huge premises and they cost a lot to run. But, still, our country communities, which keep this nation going, deserve to have banks, particularly when some of the holdings of those customers are quite substantial.

Without bank branches, businesses, farms and particularly the elderly suffer immense disadvantage when compared to their city counterparts. They do so because, if you don't have banking services and you therefore don't have cash availability, older people—our populations in regional Australia are ageing—aren't able to access those vital banking services and that cash as quickly and as easily as somebody would in a metropolitan area.

I said at the time that I didn't want to see older people who've lived in those towns their entire lives being forced to perhaps move to larger population areas just to get the sort of access to services that they need and deserve. So that inquiry at Junee on 21 September 2023 was important to what we're discussing now and the actions of the bigger banks to stay open and remain in those country communities.

We are not going to oppose this bill, but I do commend the member for Page for the amendment that he has brought to this debate because it is important that that we refine the bill such that it is better than in its current form. In June 2023, going back to that year when we had the Senate inquiry going around the countryside, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission approved the merger of Australia's two largest cash-in-transit companies, Armaguard and Prosegur.

That decision handed a single company control of up to 90 per cent of the market—a private monopoly over how cash physically moves around Australia. Now, I know the ACCC would have looked into all the whys and wherefores about that particular merger, but, still and all, we know also how mergers and monopolies, moreover, can cause such disadvantage particularly in regional Australia and especially in those country communities.

This particular bill recognises that cash distribution is a form of critical national infrastructure. I again say I'm interested to see how many Labor members are speaking on this particular bill. I've heard Labor member after Labor member talking about how, generally—and they're right, by the way—infrastructure refers to rail, roads, dams, ports and airports and those sorts of things.

But cash is an important part of national infrastructure, and we are very fortunate in Australia that our cash reserves, the cash that each and every one of us has in our wallets and purses and handbags et cetera, are of the polymer type. It's world-leading technology introduced many, many years ago; it's not of the paper variety. It's another one of those Australian inventions that is world leading, which is a very good thing.

I can see the member for McEwen nodding. He agrees with me. We should be very proud of what our technology has enabled us to do in the cause of protecting cash.

I know that our police are very vigilant on our highways and byways to make sure that one of the now biggest distributions of illegal trade—that is, vapes and illegal cigarettes and the cash that flows with them, alongside them and behind them—is very much part and parcel of their day-to-day investigative operations. Australia's cash-in-transit network is dominated by Linfox Armaguard.

As I said before, it handles roughly 85 to 90 per cent of the market. I know the ACCC continues to monitor such things. This particular legislation that is before the House is important.

It's good that there is relative agreement across the chamber, but I do urge and encourage that the amendment brought forward by the member for Page is followed and adopted.