In an age where digital transactions are becoming the norm, many people still rely on cold hard cash for their daily transactions.

However, the sudden spike in cash withdrawals among Australians raised eyebrows and sparked a conversation about the future of physical currency.

According to the Reserve Bank's recent data, there has been a noticeable increase in ATM withdrawals, with a 2.7 per cent jump between July and August this year.

Many people are speculating: is cash on the brink of obsolescence, or is it making a comeback?

The trend fuelled intrigue, considering the significant reduction in bank-owned ATMs across the country.

Certain demographics expressed their preference towards cash over card transactions. Image Credit: Shutterstock/SvitlanaRo

From nearly 14,000 in 2017 to just about 5,700 by mid-2023, ATMs have dwindled in numbers.

Yet, Australians are more eager to get their hands on cash.

This spike led cash campaigners to urge banks to meet consumer demand by improving access to physical money.

Jason Bryce, the founder of Cash Welcome, pointed out that around one million ATM withdrawals are made daily in the country.

Despite this, consumers continue to face surcharges to access their own money, while bank-owned ATMs continue to decline.

'Banks continue to close down our access to cash, but Australians are clearly looking for ATMs, travelling further to get cash and paying fees to access their money,' Mr Bryce stated.

The August spike in ATM withdrawals amounted to an additional 767,600 transactions nationwide.

While the number of withdrawals remained stable over the last three years, it's a far cry from the 70 million monthly withdrawals recorded in 2008.

Finance writer and editor Gemma Acton noted that only about seven per cent of transactions are done with cash.

'It's not a big amount, but for some people, cash is an essential source of payment,' Ms Acton shared.

'Senior Australians tend to use more cash. Regional and rural communities also tend to use more cash.'

During times of economic strain, people showed their preference towards cash, as it could give consumers a tangible sense of spending and saving.

Handing over notes and receiving change could make the impact of expenditure feel more authentic compared to tap-and-go transactions.

'There's also been a backlash on surcharging recently. You pay for a $4 coffee, and suddenly it's $4.17 instead. There are many reasons why cash is still very much alive and well, even if not used by a majority of people, Ms Acton added.

​

Despite the recent uptick in cash withdrawals, the future of cash remains uncertain.

Recently, Westpac scrapped its cardless cash withdrawal feature across all ATMs.

Macquarie Bank recently went cashless, and Bankwest started transitioning into digital banking.

Some businesses, like Nandos and Gloria Jean's Coffee, even tried cashless transactions in their stores.

'We have heard calls for a cashless society for a very long time, often promoted by banks and card providers,' Ms Acton noted.

'We will probably head down that track, but I can't see cash being phased out completely any time soon.'

Key Takeaways

• The number of ATM withdrawals in Australia has increased, suggesting a potential comeback of physical currency.
• ATM numbers have been declining, which led to concerns over accessibility to cash and higher surcharge fees.
• Cash usage has been valued for its privacy, reliability, and budgeting advantages, contrasting with digital payments.
• Despite a significant drop in cash usage over recent years, it is unlikely that Australia will soon become a completely cashless society.

Have you been withdrawing more cash lately? What do you think of a future with no tangible banknotes? Share your opinions with us in the comments below, and let's navigate the future of money together.

 

[lkgr]

Cash is King. What happens when we eventually have a global outage. It will happen. I always have plenty of cash on hand if this eventually happens.

 

[NotNats]

From nearly 14,000 in 2017 to just about 5,700 by mid-2023, ATMs have dwindled in numbers. And they wonder why it looks like people are not using cash.

 

[Leenie]

More control by banks and government, CASh is king ,use it or lose it

 

[novezar]

70 million monthly withdrawals per month in '08. Wasn't that's when the stock market crashed & a recession took place ?

 

[novezar]

From nearly 14,000 in 2017 to just about 5,700 by mid-2023, ATMs have dwindled in numbers. And they wonder why it looks like people are not using cash.

I'd still "Luv" to have a couple thousand shares in each of 'em.

 

[glennkidd]

Once we go totally cashless, Govts can monitor and control what you spend your money on. Don't think it won't happen? How do you think the Cashless Credit Card works in the NT?
OOOPS! Sorry Sir. You have already bought 3 Big Macs and a bottle of whiskey this week!

 

[Giannidifirenze]

I was embracing the card (& small fees) until I came upon this logic.
If I went to the butcher and spent $100 with plastic (incurring a $2.50 bank fee) then the butcher went to the baker and spent that $100 using plastic (also incurring a $2.50 bank fee)
Then the baker went to the candlestick maker and spent $100 using plastic (also incurring a $2.50 bank fee) ….. and so on.
After 10 different spends the bank has made $20.50 in fees off the initial purchase, whereas if cash had been paid the $100 is still $100.
How many card transactions a day in Australia? How much in fees do the banks rake in?
Yep try and pay in cash now.

 

[Shane O'Neill]

Yes cash is king it's because people are being lazy that the cashless society is emerging a $50 note can be handed to 50 people and it is still worth $50 digital payments have fee's be it cents or dollars by the time it is sent through the system it's worthless and the person has payed fee's so they are being ripped off from the bank's to access your money not theirs so CASH IS KING it doesn't devalue at each transaction

 

[Larcol]

I prefer using cash as I can keep ahead of what I have spent and what I need in reserve. I can't always get to ATM's half the time they are already closed or cannot give amount entered. Cash should never be stopped as a source of payment in any field.

 

[Annna]

From nearly 14,000 in 2017 to just about 5,700 by mid-2023, ATMs have dwindled in numbers. And they wonder why it looks like people are not using cash.

Yes, banks are behind the push towards a cashless society. All banks went through the last 2+ decades promoting online and other non branch/ATM options.

Banks imposed branch use fees and monthly transaction limits to hit customers in the hip pocket. They converted to a user pays system, charging their customers for banking and withdrawing money while using their customers' money to earn profits via lending.

The push towards tech banking was and still is evident in branches today where bank staff pull customers out of lines (where branches still exist that is) to teach them how to use the tech options.

People over this time bought into the heavily promoted'convenience' reasons for moving to online options.

Banks then meticulously gathered stats on reduced customers' personal attendances at branches/ATMs and started removing ATMs and closing branches.

These organisations today continue to maintain that customers were the ones that had initiated the trend.

Not one bank is forthcoming with the practices those organisations established to changed customers' banking habits.

 

[Kahlan28]

I think the only reason there is a big drop in people not using cash, is the banks dictating to us what we can and can't do. If ATM's are disappearing in large numbers (because banks are saying they weren't being accessed as much??) how can people get access to cash, banks are also phasing out cash transactions in their branches as well. People would use cash if the access was still there.

 

[smithy60]

I say "CASH" for sure! I like to see what i`m spending and how much. I have more control. So many people prefer cash, its easier and more controlable. And going "cashless" means the Government, Departments and so on. can see what your spending :-(

 

[Dynamo]

Yes. I draw out cash inside a bank as I have had to cancel 2 cards after non authorised withdrawals. I suspect ATMs are easier to tamper with.

 

[Ol Ethel]

I say "CASH" for sure! I like to see what i`m spending and how much. I have more control. So many people prefer cash, its easier and more controlable. And going "cashless" means the Government, Departments and so on. can see what your spending :-(

Yes the Government doesn't want you to have any money that can't be tracked

 

[Zorro56]

No surprise to me. I always keep cash on hand. With more and more hacking and bank system outages, you cannot transact in those circumstances unless you have cash. In a cashless society, the banks and other large businesses will save billions of dollars, and the consumer will be the loser and have no choice in how they transact. Once cash is gone and we have no choice, suddenly the banks will charge us more to have a plastic card to assess our money.

 

[Zorro56]

Yes, banks are behind the push towards a cashless society. All banks went through the last 2+ decades promoting online and other non branch/ATM options.

Banks imposed branch use fees and monthly transaction limits to hit customers in the hip pocket. They converted to a user pays system, charging their customers for banking and withdrawing money while using their customers' money to earn profits via lending.

The push towards tech banking was and still is evident in branches today where bank staff pull customers out of lines (where branches still exist that is) to teach them how to use the tech options.

People over this time bought into the heavily promoted'convenience' reasons for moving to online options.

Banks then meticulously gathered stats on reduced customers' personal attendances at branches/ATMs and started removing ATMs and closing branches.

These organisations today continue to maintain that customers were the ones that had initiated the trend.

Not one bank is forthcoming with the practices those organisations established to changed customers' banking habits.

You are spot on with what you have said. As a former banker, I know how they operate.

 

[mylittletibbies]

I would like to know why our banks have so much power.
Where is our government in all this schmozzle.
We get less and less places to access OUR cash, get charged fees to access OUR cash
Meanwhile banks continue making more and more astronomical profits every year whilst using OUR money
Without OUR money they would be out of business.

 

[Annna]

Once we go totally cashless, Govts can monitor and control what you spend your money on. Don't think it won't happen? How do you think the Cashless Credit Card works in the NT?
OOOPS! Sorry Sir. You have already bought 3 Big Macs and a bottle of whiskey this week!

I won't comment on government scrutiny except to say that monitoring will definitely be possible.

My experience is with banks/lenders that have historically wanted to know that funds loaned were going to frugal minded borrowers who would likely repay in accord with the lender's terms and conditions.

Frugal used to be a positive word, it indicated you were careful with money (that you had some left over at the end of the fortnight to save maybe?). In recent years however, the term frugal has transformed to suggest a frugal person is a stingy, cheap miser. No one wants that label so lots of people are driven to live beyond their means by borrowing and/or maxing out credit card/redraw facilities.

Traditionally, banks/lenders would determine the merit of a loan applicant via interview and the examination of an application that contained a statement of assets/liabilities and budget/expenditure record.

Bottom line, the approval came when the applicant demonstrated s/he was a good risk. This method relied on docs and on applicants' own representations.

In the last decade this has changed and lenders require several months worth of statements that loans staff examine very closely observing who the applicant is doing business with to determine how the applicant is spending her/his money.

Refusal to granting the loan may come if applicants' spending is deemed irresponsible. This could include money transfers to anything judged thoughtless or reckless. This is at the lender's discretion.

I've always earned, withdrawn cash and spent my money using cash (this makes my bank statements look pretty ordinary, not much to see here folks).

A lender I dealt with several years ago was critical of me because the representative could not see who I was paying money to.

I had to provide a declaration detailing how cash withdrawn was used.

The lender informed this was necessary despite that the proposed loan:

1. Was for only 25% of the purchase property; and

2. It would have a mortgage on title for 100% of the property I was purchasing.

So the loan was small, the security was large, the lender was to be first and only mortgagee but it's rep insisted that the organisation had complete details of who I dealt with and paid money to.

On the subject of absolute discretion, a friend's application was denied because he had transfers to a betting business. His account was always in credit, he was employed full-time and his application was for approximately 40% of the property he was looking to purchase but that did not count in the circumstances, he was not granted a loan.

My point is that lending institutions are already looking at people's spending habits.

Is that an increase in a controlled society or have people developed riskier habits and become liars to hide their behaviour?

 

[mylittletibbies]

I won't comment on government scrutiny except to say that monitoring will definitely be possible.

My experience is with banks/lenders that have historically wanted to know that funds loaned were going to frugal minded borrowers who would likely repay in accord with the lender's terms and conditions.

Frugal used to be a positive word, it indicated you were careful with money (that you had some left over at the end of the fortnight to save maybe?). In recent years however, the term frugal has transformed to suggest a frugal person is a stingy, cheap miser. No one wants that label so lots of people are driven to live beyond their means by borrowing and/or maxing out credit card/redraw facilities.

Traditionally, banks/lenders would determine the merit of a loan applicant via interview and the examination of an application that contained a statement of assets/liabilities and budget/expenditure record.

Bottom line, the approval came when the applicant demonstrated s/he was a good risk. This method relied on docs and on applicants' own representations.

In the last decade this has changed and lenders require several months worth of statements that loans staff examine very closely observing who the applicant is doing business with to determine how the applicant is spending her/his money.

Refusal to granting the loan may come if applicants' spending is deemed irresponsible. This could include money transfers to anything judged thoughtless or reckless. This is at the lender's discretion.

I've always earned, withdrawn cash and spent my money using cash (this makes my bank statements look pretty ordinary, not much to see here folks).

A lender I dealt with several years ago was critical of me because the representative could not see who I was paying money to.

I had to provide a declaration detailing how cash withdrawn was used.

The lender informed this was necessary despite that the proposed loan:

1. Was for only 25% of the purchase property; and

2. It would have a mortgage on title for 100% of the property I was purchasing.

So the loan was small, the security was large, the lender was to be first and only mortgagee but it's rep insisted that the organisation had complete details of who I dealt with and paid money to.

On the subject of absolute discretion, a friend's application was denied because he had transfers to a betting business. His account was always in credit, he was employed full-time and his application was for approximately 40% of the property he was looking to purchase but that did not count in the circumstances, he was not granted a loan.

My point is that lending institutions are already looking at people's spending habits.

Is that an increase in a controlled society or have people developed riskier habits and become liars to hide their behaviour?

A bit of both I should imagine.