Ditching payment systems a right: cafe owner
Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson announced this week the government planned to ban some surcharges for in-store payments by May next year.
"Shoppers will no longer be penalised for their choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping or using their phone's digital wallet."
The ban would cover most in-store payments made using Visa and Mastercard, including contactless and eftpos, but not online payments, foreign-issued cards, travel cards or cards issued by other networks.
The Swan and Commons Eatery owner Dane Wall believed a lot of businesses would end up increasing their prices.
Both his businesses had surcharges, but at a rate where it did not make or lose him any money, and he was "not super salty" about a ban going ahead.
"I think it's great that the government are actively trying to free up money in the back pockets of everybody."
Consumers still had the choice as to whether they paid using credit card and PayWave, and the impact on them would depend on how often they dined out, Mr Wall said.
"I think if anyone is really concerned about how much this is going to cost their business, they are well within their right to disable PayWave and disable credit card payments.
"That's not uncommon in a lot of small businesses in New Zealand."
The Perc Central, Exchange and Plaza co-owner Sarah Hussey said they had never placed surcharges on credit card and contactless payments, but had for the past two years charged an extra 15% on public holidays due to "skyrocketing" wage and food costs.
"We did look into it, and we thought it's just not worth it because people are quite against it.
Surcharges annoyed more customers than what it was worth, Mrs Hussey said.
"I honestly think that people stop going places because people have the surcharge on there.
"The last thing you want is losing your customers at the moment."
She believed a lot of vendors were charging consumers more than what the transaction services were costing them.
"I was somewhere ... where they were charging 2.5% — and if they are paying 2.5% for their merchant facilities then they are paying too much.
"I often think that people are capitalising on it."
The Commerce Commission earlier this month issued a decision to reduce the interchange fees paid by New Zealand businesses to accept Visa and Mastercard payments.
This would reduce the estimated $1 billion annual cost to businesses by about $90 million per annum — saving the average small business about $500 each year in fees.
New Zealand consumers paid up to $150m in surcharges every year, including "excessive surcharges" of up to $65m, Mr Simpson said.
Surcharges were "a hassle and an unwelcome surprise when shoppers get to the till".
"That pesky note or sticker on the payment machine will become a thing of the past.
"We're banning surcharges so consumers can shop with confidence knowing how much they will pay for their purchases."
tim.scott@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Heather du Plessis-Allan: Is the Govt so desperate they announce any half-baked idea?
Of all of the above, it's the ban that's going to give them ongoing headaches. On the face of it, it's great retail politics. Everyone hates being stung 2% for using the credit card at the sushi shop. But there will be consequences. The surcharge is there because it costs to use your credit card. Someone has to pay for it. Either you or the retailer. Currently, it's you in the form of the surcharge. After the ban, it'll be the retailer. And we're talking a lot of money. Interchange fees alone – the fees Visa and Mastercard charge – suck nearly $1 billion out of NZ businesses a year. Add what retail banks charge on top of that and we're talking several billion apparently. One retailer reckons they were paying $2500 a month just in merchant fees. That's $30,000 a year. They realised they were basically subsidising everyone's credit card loyalty schemes. So, they introduced the surcharge. No savvy small or medium-sized retailer will suck up a cost like that. If they can't get that back through a surcharge, they'll get it back by upping the price on products. So, while the Government can sell the story that they're saving consumers money through the ban, they're not. Pity the poor travel agents especially. Let's say they book flights to London for a family of four at the cost of $15,000. If the family put it on the credit card, which most of us would do, there is a $225 merchant fee. Once the ban kicks in, the travel agent will essentially be helping the family pay for their holiday. So, you can see why retailers are up in arms. They're so angry they've managed to mobilise the country's chambers of commerce into banding together in a statement criticising the ban. Their point is a fair one: the Government should really be dealing with the source of the problem, which is banks and credit card companies charging too much for a basic service. Ministers choosing to beat up on Kiwi retailers instead of sorting out big foreign bankers is bizarre. Even more so because SME owners are traditionally National Party and right-leaning voters. The Government is burning its own support base here. Which brings us to the weirdness of this. It should have been entirely predictable that this would blow back badly. So, why did they do it? Are they so desperate to get good coverage that they take any half-baked idea pitched at them by a minister at the weekend to announce the following Monday? Did they run out of time to interrogate the idea before announcing it? Or did they anticipate all the problems but ignore them in their desperation to get a cost-of-living announcement out? It also begs the question, why are they so panicked? The answer is probably that it's not just the Government's vibe that has shifted. It's the country's vibe too. It's the middle of this Government's term and the middle of winter and the tail end of a very long and hard recession. The goodwill towards the coalition Government is suddenly depleting. It's possibly recoverable. Summer and an economic recovery should improve things again. But even when we're warm and flush, it won't stop the Government stuffing things up itself if it keeps making weird announcements like this. Watch now for how they get out of this. And they'll have to. They can't be doing this to their own voter base just months out from next year's election.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Taxpayers' Union Launches Campaign Against Dirty Deal Between Big Banks, ANZ, ASB, And The National Party
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union has today launched a major campaign targeting Scott Simpson's Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, which includes retrospective provisions that would extinguish a live class action brought by tens of thousands of bank customers against ANZ and ASB banks. The campaign has been launched with National Party's annual conference attendees being delivered love letters from the Big Banks to recognise their special relationship and bank bailout. In the coming days, a digital advertising, billboard, and grassroots mobilisation campaign demanding that Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Minister of Consumer Affairs Scott Simpson drop the retrospective clauses from the Bill will be launched. Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said: 'This is a disgraceful case of retrospective lawmaking that undermines the rule of law and destroys trust in New Zealand as a stable place to do business." "Last month the NZ Herald reported that the Bill is a result of backroom discussions between the Government and the Aussie-owned big banks which excluded the consumer-side parties of the very class action litigation the Bill is intended to extinguish." "Across the Tasman, the Aussie banks were hauled over the coals for misconduct and dishonest practises. But in Wellington, they are doing deals with the Beehive to be bailed out and 'protected' from consumer class actions. It's perverting the course of justice for tens of thousands." "Not only does the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill run roughshod over the rule of law, it is specifically designed to bail out the powerful at the expense of ordinary Kiwis.' 'Tens of thousands of Kiwis are part of a live class action over alleged unfair fees. Instead of letting the courts do their job, Nicola Willis and Scott Simpson are stepping in to shut it down with the stroke of a pen. That's not justice — that's Parliament playing defence for its mates.' The Union says the Bill makes a mockery of the Government's own rhetoric about restoring New Zealand's reputation as a safe, rules-based place to invest and do business. 'The same Ministers pushing the so-called Regulatory Standards Bill – which rightly warns against retrospective legislation – are now ramming through a bill that does exactly that. That's usually called hypocrisy.' 'When governments change the rules mid-litigation to protect the well connected, it sends a chilling message to investors, consumers, and taxpayers alike: the law in New Zealand is only as stable as the political connections of the people you're up against.' Williams concluded: 'This campaign isn't just focused at the Government. It's to hold to account and expose the disgraceful behaviour of ANZ and ASB banks to undermine their own customers' rights. This is about not just honesty and integrity and customer disclosures, but New Zealanders having the ability to enforce consumer protection law against the big end of town.' 'Either the Government walks the talk on stable, principled lawmaking, or they admit they're no better than the last lot. Kiwis deserve better than this grubby stitch-up.' The social media, digital and advertising campaign launches next week along with some more creative plans to ensure this bill gets the public scrutiny it deserves. 'Watch this space.'
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Hawke's Bay retailers could suffer after ban on card surcharges
'They are going through a rough enough time as it is,' she said. 'The PayWave options are a really quick and easy option for us to go and pay for something, but that might be taken away, because why would the business owner want to pay for that when they can't on-charge? 'We are going to go backwards. 'They will remove the flexibility and the convenience of us just using our phones and going 'ding'.' Pip Thompson on Napier's Emerson St. Photo / Gary Hamilton-Irvine She said, alternatively, business owners would be forced to up prices to absorb the cost. There is no merchant service fee for Eftpos payments, such as when you insert your card. Thompson questioned why banks weren't doing more to support local businesses with reducing the merchant service fee (for which the surcharge covers). 'I think we have cut the pie only in half, and they need to sort the other side of the pie out, so to speak, and go to the banks and say how are you going to help this process?' Banks say they do not receive any benefit from surcharges, and the merchant service fee is required - part of which goes to Visa and Mastercard. 'New Zealand is unique globally in that our domestic card payments network [Eftpos], which is used for Eftpos cards and debit cards when they are inserted, is free for merchants, even though there is a cost to run this network,' an ANZ spokeswoman said. 'However, as in other jurisdictions, there are fees for accepting other means of payment including PayWave, credit and international cards. 'ANZ recovers its costs of providing our customers with payment facilities through a merchant service fee.' She said the average merchant service fee was 1% of a transaction. A merchant service fee is made up of 'scheme fees' and 'interchange fees', as well as some other costs. The 'scheme fees' portion goes to either Visa or Mastercard (dependent on the card used), and the 'interchange fees' portion goes to the bank to cover costs such as fraud prevention, handling disputes, and authorising transactions. The merchant service fee is initially paid to a 'payment acquirer' which can either be a bank or another provider like Windcave. 'Banks don't set or require surcharges - they are added by retailers/merchants at the point of sale,' a BNZ spokesman said. 'If it's more than what they're charged in fees, they keep the difference. Not the bank, not the acquirer, and not the card company.' What local businesses think Vinci's Pizza in Napier owner Vincent Michaelsen said he was supportive of the surcharge ban. 'We do PayWave and we don't do surcharges,' he said. 'I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong [on whether you do surcharges or not]. 'But my perspective, from a customer angle, is that I just want to make it easy.' He said he felt that was the best decision for his business. 'I think as a business operator, you need to know your costs and make sure that it is covered in the back end.' However, he said the best solution would be tackling the problem from both ends - with no surcharge and also no merchant service fee for businesses. Cool Toys in Napier owner Glen Chan said he expected most retailers would have to build the extra cost into their pricing, after the surcharge ban. 'It tallies up. It really mounts up,' he said, of covering the merchant service fees. He said he offers contactless payments with a surcharge currently, and a problem with potentially removing PayWave as an option in future was that customers liked and were used to it. Adore Collection in Napier co-owner Sally Holyer said they did not charge a surcharge on contactless card payments. 'Yes it costs [us] but we find, especially when it is really busy in the summer in the cruise season, it speeds things up so much that is actually worth us doing.' Gary Hamilton-Irvine is a Hawke's Bay-based reporter who covers a range of news topics including business, councils, breaking news and cyclone recovery. He formerly worked at News Corp Australia.
