Shadow Portfolio — 31 March 2026

Senator Cash, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, had an active day on 31 March 2026, engaging on two substantively different matters — copyright reform and cash payment regulation — with a consistent underlying posture: support legislative intent where warranted, but signal the coalition's readiness to push back if implementation falls short.

On the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026, Senator Cash backed the legislation, finding it strikes an appropriate balance between modernising copyright law and protecting creators' rights [TA-260331-senate-32a8f9c5c8fe:s028]. The coalition's support was conditional rather than unqualified. Senator Cash identified three specific areas warranting scrutiny: the orphan works scheme, which unlocks use of material where copyright owners cannot be located; the educational provisions clarifying copyright in digital classrooms; and the bill's treatment of emerging technologies including artificial intelligence.

On the orphan works scheme, the coalition's concern is that safeguards must ensure creators' rights are not inadvertently undermined and that ownership recognition continues wherever it can be established. On the educational provisions, the coalition accepted that teachers and students need appropriate access to content, but warned against shifting the balance at the expense of industries that produce educational material.

Senator Cash committed to close monitoring of implementation and flagged the coalition will advocate for adjustments if unintended consequences emerge in any of these three areas [TA-260331-senate-32a8f9c5c8fe:s028]. The AI dimension of the bill — while noted by the coalition — was not the focus of detailed argument in this contribution; it remains an area where the coalition's position may be tested as the technology landscape evolves.

The more combative intervention came on One Nation's disallowance motion targeting the cash acceptance mandate. Senator Cash opposed the motion, arguing that abolishing the regulation would remove the only legal protection currently requiring supermarkets and fuel retailers to accept cash [TA-260331-senate-32a8f9c5c8fe:s060]. The coalition's position here is internally nuanced: it has consistently held that the existing mandate is too narrow — covering only supermarkets and fuel retailers rather than pharmacies, utilities, and other essential services as originally proposed — but Senator Cash drew a clear line between arguing for expansion and accepting abolition [TA-260331-senate-32a8f9c5c8fe:s060].

Abolishing the mandate entirely, she argued, would leave Australians with no legal cash acceptance protection at all. To back this position with legislative intent rather than just procedural opposition, the coalition committed to introducing a private senator's bill to expand the mandate's scope. Senator Cash cited supporting submissions from National Seniors Australia, CHOICE, Financial Counselling Australia, COTA Australia, and business groups — all advocating for strengthening rather than removing the mandate [TA-260331-senate-32a8f9c5c8fe:s060].

The coalition anchored its argument in demographic and equity terms: 1.5 million Australians use cash for more than 80 per cent of in-person transactions, and one in two Australians over 65 use cash regularly. Senator Cash framed disallowance as disproportionately harming older and regional Australians who depend on cash when digital infrastructure fails.

The two interventions share a common thread in opposition strategy: the coalition is not deploying blanket opposition to government-aligned legislative instruments but is instead staking out a position of conditional support with defined red lines and a credible alternative legislative vehicle in the cash mandate context. This approach allows Senator Cash to differentiate the coalition from One Nation's harder disallowance position while signalling willingness to go further than the government on consumer protection.