It is not excluded from the legislation.
It is excluded via the Regulations because the Regulations - for now - make all private transactions (except real estate) exempt. You can use $10,000+ cash to buy privately whatever you want - cars, drugs, a sex slave, … 
The article uses the words that this is “unintended consequences”. I think that is wrong. The government knows exactly what it is doing but it just doesn’t care. More specifically, when you get legislation being written by agencies whose sole job it is to stop crime, stopping crime is all they care about.
The article raises a very serious flaw with the whole idea of a “cash ban”. What if no bank will let you open an account? (as is actually happening already due to an abundance of caution) Without cash and without a bank account, you can’t work, you can’t eat, you can’t live, … That’s in Australia, never mind about someone starving in a refugee camp in Africa, which is what the article specifically focuses on.
As with most bad (authoritarian) ideas, China is a few years ahead of Australia, but we’re working hard to catch up. 
Looks like it is dead and buried.
Meanwhile, in the UK.
Dead and buried, for now. Not cremated.
Still, a win is a win.
