Australia's fresh cash mandate came into effect at the start of 2026, requiring supermarkets and petrol stations to accept physical money. But pro-cash advocates are already pushing for the rules to go further, arguing that major retailers have slipped through a significant loophole.
The rules, which take effect between 7am and 9pm for transactions of $500 or less, represent a win for cash users who have faced increasingly cashless experiences. But they apply only to groceries and fuel. That means big household names—Bunnings, Kmart, McDonald's, Tyrepower, and major utilities—remain free to reject your banknotes entirely.
Jason Bryce, founder of Cash Welcome, the peak advocacy group pushing for change, recently told supporters that the mandate could easily expand to "all large retailers at the very least." He argues the costs of distributing cash ought to be shared by major merchants rather than falling on banks, consumers, and small businesses that do choose to accept it.
Who the current rules protect, and who they miss
The case for mandatory cash acceptance rests on a genuine reality. Around 1.5 million Australians still rely on cash for over 80% of their in-person payments, with higher concentrations among older people, rural residents, and those without easy access to digital banking. National Seniors Australia CEO Chris Grice said keeping cash available for basic payments is important, particularly for backups during emergencies and for the stability of the broader financial system.
But the current mandate has left gaps. Small independent supermarkets and petrol stations with annual turnover below $10 million can still refuse cash. Meanwhile, many large and small businesses have escaped the rule, with coffee shops, clothing shops, and the country's largest sporting and entertainment venues free to choose which payment types they accept.
Businesses subject to the mandate who refuse to accept cash can face a maximum penalty of $198,000, making it a serious obligation. Yet exemptions mean coverage remains patchy.
The case for wider rules, and the trade-offs involved
Advocates see obvious logic in expanding the rules. If cash matters enough to mandate it for groceries and fuel—essentials, in other words—why should Bunnings or Kmart be free to go cashless? Both are major retailers selling items many Australians need. Extending the mandate would remove the uncertainty and frustration of never knowing which shops will take your money.
Yet there are legitimate counterarguments. Digital payments are cheaper to process, faster at checkout, and create better records for fraud prevention. For many retailers, card payments have become so dominant that maintaining cash-handling infrastructure feels inefficient. The infrastructure costs do matter; cash distribution is expensive and difficult to sustain as usage falls. As cash usage declines, the cost of transporting and distributing it escalates.
Asking major retailers to accept cash adds compliance burden, even if the scale differs from small shops. The question becomes: how much friction is worth imposing on business to protect a minority's payment preference?
The practical reality
Interestingly, many major retailers including Kmart, Bunnings, and department stores David Jones and Myer do continue to accept cash, even without legal obligation. This suggests the case for expanding the mandate may be overstated; many businesses choose to accept cash anyway, recognising customer value.
That said, voluntary acceptance is fragile. The mandate will be in place for three years before it is reviewed for its effectiveness, giving parliament a chance to assess whether the current scope adequately protects those who need cash. If voluntary participation from major retailers drops, the case for mandating their involvement will strengthen.
For now, the government has drawn a line: essentials like groceries and fuel warrant mandatory cash acceptance, while other retail falls into the discretionary space. Whether that line sits in the right place depends partly on what happens next.