National is continuing to support a surcharge ban, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Cameron Brewer says, despite its lack of backing from coalition partner ACT while its other coalition partner, NZ First, thinks it's going nowhere.
The Greens do not support the proposal as it currently stands, while Labour has not guaranteed its support but has put forward amendments.
If National worked with Labour, they could get some sort of surcharge ban across the line, but with Labour’s proposed amendments, it may not be how National initially envisioned it.
Speaking to interest.co.nz, Labour commerce and consumer affairs spokesperson Arena Williams said the party supported the principle that consumers should pay the price they see on the shelf, but was concerned that the Government had gone about this in the wrong way.
“They’ve put the cost of updating the system, keeping it running, making sure that there is innovation within retail payments all onto small businesses and retailers at a time when rising costs are meaning that many of those businesses, particularly hospitality businesses, are going to the wall,” said Williams.
Williams said that was not the appropriate part of the system to bear that cost.
“Where does that leave you? Banks and others like Visa and Mastercard have a role in this. They make money from the retail payment systems we use in New Zealand and so it seems right that they would share some of the burden here,” she said.
When asked for an update on the surcharge ban bill and if there had been any further conversations with Labour, Brewer told reporters on Wednesday: “There’s no update to give … Our caucus position stands and that is we support a ban on merchant surcharges.”
“We’re working through that and we will have something to say shortly.”
In terms of support, Williams told interest.co.nz that Labour would reserve its position until the Bill's second reading - depending on what shape it is delivered in.
Impasse
Brewer, who recently took over the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio from Scott Simpson, has inherited the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill.
The Bill was first announced by Simpson in July last year and it was expected to be in place by May this year.
However, it hit an impasse with reports in February suggesting the Bill had stalled.
In March, ACT leader David Seymour told interest.co.nz his party had pulled its support and put up a counter proposal.
"There shouldn't be a blanket ban. We know that people hate those charges, but the right thing is to say, you can charge for payWave if you offer EFTPOS and cash which are free, so long as you've got a free option."
‘This Bill doesn’t need to die’
Business lobby groups and the Greens have also put forward alternative options.
The Greens have put forward a proposal to cap merchant fees to 1% and to give the Commerce Commission power to evaluate this cap afterwards.
Greens commerce and consumer affairs spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March told interest.co.nz the Bill was; "lying deep in the Order Paper" but “we think that this bill doesn’t need to die”.
“What we know is that small businesses ultimately are paying the price of huge companies setting relatively high merchant fees that ultimately put pressure on them," Menéndez March said.
“And the feedback we’ve received from small businesses is that if the Bill goes as it stands, they may need to pass some of those costs to consumers - just as a way of surviving.”
Menéndez March said: “I do not support this bill just languishing and/or dying. I think different political parties have clearly opened up to the idea of finding a way forward, as opposed to just pretending that surcharges are not an ongoing issue for consumers.”
‘A good way to move forward’
Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said her understanding was the ban wouldn’t be going ahead this term.
Retail NZ, a lobby group for retailers, has long been advocating against the Bill.
“We’re pretty clear that the ban that was presented by the prior minister won’t be going ahead as planned this term. Certainly it doesn’t have support across Cabinet and across the coalition," Young said.
Asked about Retail NZ’s stance if National teamed up with Labour, Young said; “we could absolutely get behind it if National and Labour agreed to proceed on the basis that there’s a surcharge ban because the banks are paying the fee and not the merchant.”
But that would require negotiations with the banks, she said.
“I’m just not optimistic that’s feasible.”
Retail NZ were still keen on having the Commerce Commission do work they were originally planning on doing around surcharges - this would have involved a full consultation to understand all of the implications and ramifications of a surcharge ban, Young said.
The group has reached out to Brewer to have a meeting with him about the surcharge ban bill and other topics.
“We’re really keen to be able to sit down and chat and say, ‘we really want to support a good way to move forward.’”
*This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and how to subscribe.
1 Comments
There's an assumption that people act rationally. I struggle to see rational behaviour when people use pay wave and pay for doing so rather than swiping/entering card and using pin.
I live in an area with a significant percentage of the population in the lowest socio-economic segment, who count pennies pretty consistently except when it comes to pay wave. They wave away.
Is it a behavioural status display? A demonstration of being tech savvy? Or is the perceived inconvenience of entering card, select account and enter pin good value for 2% of the transaction - can't see that. Maybe for a $5 transaction ($0.10) valuing one's time at $12/ hour but for $150 ($3.00) that valuing one's time at about $360/hour.
As a percentage of transaction cost, the banks are creaming it. I expect it costs the banks the same amount of time to enact a $5 transaction as a $500 transaction.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.