Robbie Barwick from the CItizen’s Party and I discuss the report which landed late today.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/CurrencyCashBill2019/Report
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
"Intelligent Insight"
Robbie Barwick from the CItizen’s Party and I discuss the report which landed late today.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/CurrencyCashBill2019/Report
The New Zealand Reserve Bank has launched a new future-proofed payment settlement system, replacing New Zealand’s inter-bank settlement system and central securities depository.
The new platform replaces a 20-year-old system with two separate systems, ESAS 2.0 and NZClear 2.0. The new platform comprises the Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and Central Security Depository (CSD) applications supplied by SIA – a European technology and banking infrastructure leader and its wholly owned subsidiary Perago. Infrastructure support services are supplied by Datacom Systems Limited.
The extent of change is significant, says Assistant Governor/Chief Financial Officer Mike Wolyncewicz.
“Every day, transactions with a value of more than $30 billion are settled, so there has been a focus on getting this right, and not rushing out a replacement until we were confident that it was ready.
“The buy-in from the industry has been fantastic. This week’s successful changeover is the result of months of rigorous testing and we appreciate the cooperation of the system’s key users.”
The Reserve Bank’s payment settlement system is used by 57 member organisations including banks, custodians, registries and brokers. This equates to around 600 users of the system, from New Zealand, Australia and Asia.
“Our members now have access to far more modern, future-proofed and leading edge systems for them to manage their day-to-day interactions with the Reserve Bank,” Mr Wolyncewicz says. The systems replacement follows a strategic review of the incumbent payment and settlement systems operated by the Reserve Bank, completed in 2014 in anticipation of the need to align with today’s operational and technological standards.
Economist John Adams and Analyst Martin North looks at the latest AFR salvo, as the establishment fight back to try to keep the cash bill in play.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/why-fiscal-policy-fine-tuning-ignores-political-reality-20200204-p53xj4
Robbie Barwick from the Citizens Party and I discuss the countdown to the Cash Restrictions Bill Senate Report, on the 7th February, and what we can still do to impact the outcome following the hearing in Sydney last week.
The Cash Restrictions Bill just keeps giving as Economist John Adams and Analyst Martin North reveal a dirty secret.
With a few days before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee delivers their report following the recent hearings, what does this say about the political processes which drives our legislative machine? No wonder the proposed Bill is a mess..
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/CurrencyCashBill2019
Today I want to consider the social impact of going digital, and the problems associated with financial stability in a disaggregated digital payments world.
More evidence I think that banning cash is clueless.
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap107.pdf
https://www.bis.org/review/r200123c.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/24/new-york-city-ban-cashless-businesses-discrimination
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/psb/2019/trends-in-payments-clearing-and-settlement-systems.html
The Senate will hold a hearing in Sydney on 30th January 2020.
John Adams will be appearing to give evidence.
The hearing will be in public at the Portside Centre which is located at 207 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/CurrencyCashBill2019
The Senate hearing on the 12th December 2019 relating to the Restriction of Cash Transactions Bill revealed the lack of facts, data and rationale for the proposed legislation. This is a 5 minute highlights package underscoring this – and something which your Senators and MP’s must see before its too late.
It is not too late to take action to help drive home that point that this Bill should not be passed.
What I Said To The Senate On The Restrictions On The Use Of Cash Bill
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6418
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/CurrencyCashBill2019
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members
The CEC just released a “highlights” package drawn from the Senate hearings. There is no evidence of the effectiveness of the ban, no business case, no data; just anecdotal hearsay. This is ideological claptrap.
What a vague basis for supporting a bill which narrows our human rights. A public disgrace!
Over the past few months we have been tracking the passage of the Cash Restrictions bill, which proposes to restrict cash transactions between companies and individuals over $10,000. Our post on the Real Issues surrounding the Cash Ban is our most watched show, ever.
As we highlighted recently, following the December Senate hearings, there is no clear rationale for the $10,000 dollar limit, it will have limited impact on money laundering and gang finances, and yet will remove a right we currently have to use cash as we please, thus narrowing the definition of legal tender. Some will be effectively debanked. And there is no clear business case at all. See our Post the Cash Ban Cowards Cannot Hide The Truth.
Plus the recent bush fires underscored the need for cash as an alternative to electronic payments see my post “Another Reason to Smash the Cash Ban”, where I argue that cash in a crisis is the only game in town – and the claimed protections proposed in the bill are unsatisfactory.
This bill has already been passed in the lower house, during a pretty shameful and poorly attended debate, but the Senate determined to investigate it before allowing it to pass. Good on them. As well as the minor parties, Labour supported this inquiry which is due to report on the 7th February. My suspicion is that the report has already been written, ahead of another hearing which is tentatively scheduled for 30th January in Sydney.
Things have gotten more complex because the Labour party member Senator Gallagher, who asked some important and penetrating questions in the first round of hearings, has announced that he will take no further part in the review due to ill health. We wish him well.
As a result, it is not clear yet whether Labour will offer up another Senator to continue the investigation, or whether this effectively marks the end of any attempt to stop its passage. Indeed the 30th hearing is now not ever certain.
All eyes are now on Labour, who appear from a distance to be disengaged on the issue, despite their earlier support for the Senate inquiry.
So I wanted to highlight three important points.
First, the reduction of our personal freedoms to use cash as legal tender is a big deal. The $10,000 limit will be eroded by inflation over time and may be reduced in a subsequent bill to $2,000 or less, as has been done in a number of other countries.
Second, the structure of the bill is a total restriction on cash transactions above $10,000 for any purpose, then diluted by a parallel regulation, which excludes for now cash withdrawals and payments from a bank, transactions between individuals for non-commercial purposes, and payments using cryptocurrencies. However, all these exclusions can be changed at a stroke of a pen, without any further direct Parliamentary intervention. This leaves the door open to restricting cash transactions more widely, for example in a banking crisis, including restricting cash withdrawals, as happened in the Bank of Cyprus crisis a few years back. And cryptos could be included later, if their use expands. The $10,000 limit is actually in the bill.
Third, the authorities carefully steer around the recent IMF papers and blogs, where they discuss the need to take interest rates firmly into negative territory, to react to a financial crisis. Typically, a cut of around 4% would be required they say. Given we are already have a 0.75% cash rate, negative rates may follow. But in a negative rate environment, people will pull funds from the banking system, and hold cash, as their value will not be eroded, relative to negative rates, where depositors must pay for the privilege of keeping money in the bank. The link to monetary policy was discussed in the Black Economy Task-force papers, yet has been downplayed since in official circles.
So, the risks of the cash ban being made law are real.
Which begs the question, what can we do if we want to resist this bill?.
Well, first it is not too late to contact your members and senators and make sure they are aware of your concerns, and I think we should focus on Labour Party members – on two fronts, demanding they nominate a replacement for Gallagher, and that they resist the bill. Make sure they know you are opposed to the bill. Contact details for every member and senator are available in the Government website.
Second, I think it is worth writing to your local newspapers, and highlighting the issues around the cash ban. I made an earlier show when I went through all the main points – see “What I Said to The Senate On The Restrictions On The Use Of Cash Bill” in my video, and on the DFA blog. I included a series of arguments which you can leverage.
Third, please share this post via your social media channels to widen the awareness in the community of this issue. I still find many people are unaware of the implications of this bill – and because they never make big cash payments, do not see it as an issue. But I want to underline that personal freedoms are being eroded again, on the flimsiest of arguments; that we will be trapped inside the banking system, and thus forced to pay for banking services; and that the Senate has the ball but might just hook it if they are allowed to.
We literally have less than 3 weeks now to make a difference. Our civil liberties depend on it….