New Zealand First's Cash Transactions Protection Bill - What It Is And What It Could Do
But a new members' bill put forward by New Zealand First would protect cash as a key option in transactions, requiring stores to take it for purchases up to $500.
If drawn from the ballot and passed, NZ First leader Winston Peters said it would "provide for the enduring use of cash as a private, accessible, and reliable method of payment".
The party cited rural communities, the elderly and low-income earners as being disproportionately affected by businesses that don't accept cash.
As a members' bill, lodged 14 July in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle, it's still a long while from possibly becoming law, but it does propose sweeping changes in how businesses treat cash and looks at who gets left out in a digital economy. Here's what you need to know.
What does the bill propose?
The Cash Transactions Protection Bill would mandate businesses in trade accept cash payment for goods valued up to $500.
"The bill ensures that New Zealanders maintain freedom of choice in how they pay, preserving cash as what it should be: an enduring private and reliable option", Peters said in introducing it.
"By protecting the sanctity of cash transactions, the bill upholds personal privacy, maintains sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary system, and lessens the risks posed by digital-only payment systems."
There are some exceptions given to the bill's requirements, including online retailers and land purchases.
The bill also would propose that "payment in cash must be accepted for essential goods or services" - which it defines as food, water, fuel, health care and household utilities.
Another part of the bill would require businesses to keep cash on hand for emergencies:
"A vendor must ensure they have sufficient access to cash to allow them to continue to trade in the event of a digital or electrical outage that lasts longer than 24 hours."
In the introduction, the bill says it "preserves cash as an explicit privacy-preserving payment method, ensuring both freedom of choice and freedom from unwarranted surveillance in financial transactions".
"It puts New Zealanders' interests above global trends toward digital currencies, maintaining sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary policy and mitigating the risks associated with digital-only financial systems, like restricted access to funds."
The bill also calls for fees or fines from $1000 to a maximum of $5000 for infringements.
Will it become law?
It's quite a long way from that, actually.
As a members' bill, it's not yet guaranteed it will ever go to the House for a vote.
The bill first will have to be randomly drawn from the ballot to be considered at all in the House, and then undergo the same process of debate and referral to select committees as any other bill.
While it's on the members ballot, MPs are allowed only one bill in the lottery at any given time. NZ First has swapped out its bills on several occasions this term, so there's also no guarantees over how long this legislation will remain in the ballot.
Speaking to Checkpoint recently, Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young said she wondered if the bill was "kind of a sledgehammer for a small problem".
Marisa Bidois, chief executive of the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, said the bill ignored realities many businesses deal with.
"We understand the intent behind the proposed bill - no one wants to see people excluded from accessing essential goods and services. However, requiring all businesses to accept cash for transactions under $500 doesn't reflect the operational realities many businesses face.
"We believe businesses should be trusted to make the right decisions for how they operate and serve their customers."
Members' bills are often used to float an idea or gauge public reaction to it, Parliament's website notes.
Can a business really refuse to take cash?
Yes, as long as they "clearly inform customers in advance that they don't accept cash before you start shopping or receive services from them", the Reserve Bank of New Zealand said.
They can do that with a sign on the premises or telling you in person before you pay.
"Most hospitality businesses still accept cash, but a small and growing number are moving away from it, particularly in busy urban areas," Bidois said.
"Some customers do push back when cash isn't accepted, especially if they haven't been informed ahead of time. That's why we encourage clear communication."
You're also only allowed to pay so much of a bill in coins, by the way, in case you're thinking of clearing out that piggy bank - you're allowed up to $5 of 10 or 20 cent coins, $10 of 50 cent coins or $100 worth of $1 and $2 coins.
Who uses cash now, anyway?
According to the Reserve Bank's latest data released in June, 45.8 percent of the population are still using cash sometimes in "paying for everyday things" - although 79.1 percent are using debit cards/EFTPOS also.
Only 3.6 percent of people say they "never use cash," while 33.2 percent said they hadn't used cash at all in the past seven days.
Cash isn't quite the king it once was.
"We know that less than 10 percent of transactions that happen across New Zealand throughout the year now happen in cash," Retail NZ's Young said.
"In the cities a lot less cash is used and in rural areas and areas of deprivation there is a higher percentage of cash that is used."
Bidois said in the Restaurant Association's latest survey, 40 percent of respondents said cash made up just 5 to 10 percent of their transactions.
Still, when it comes to essentials, "there's no supermarket that doesn't take cash," Young said.
On Peters' Facebook page, the post announcing the bill has gathered nearly 3000 comments and 15,000 likes, with many expressing support for the idea.
"Thank you! I use cash as a way to keep within my budget, as my mother did," one wrote, while another said it was "an essential bill - especially for many of our elderly population".
What are the benefits and downsides of electronic payments?
On the other hand, Young said that electronic transactions are often easier for businesses to deal with.
"Electronic transactions are much safer for a wide number of reasons," she said, including less chance of being targeted by thieves or counterfeit money, and less time for staff dealing with transactions.
"For many retailers and for hospitalities, cafes and things, cash is not always their favoured method of payment because of those challenges."
However, frequently complained-about surcharges such as those for PayWave are "not ideal", she said.
Many also have concerns about the privacy and security issues around digital payments and the records they leave behind.
Are some people being left out with a shift away from cash?
Cash also comes back to the table during disasters, such as Cyclone Gabrielle, which saw infrastructure knocked out widely.
"We do know that when the cyclones happened in Auckland and Gisborne and Hawke's Bay 18 months ago that the supermarkets were really critical for being able to, especially in those provincial areas … they really provided the cash that people needed to be able to pay for goods and services," Young said.
Bidois said that while there was a clear shift toward digital payments, it was all about striking the right balance for businesses.
"Many businesses are finding that tap-and-go is what most customers expect, and it makes day-to-day operations simpler.
"That said, our members care about customer experience, and most continue to accept cash to accommodate older New Zealanders, tourists, or regulars who prefer it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
37 minutes ago
- Newsroom
Planned terrorism law overhaul ‘slippery slope to authoritarianism'
New Zealanders who publicly express support for terrorist groups could be charged with a criminal offence, as part of secretive proposals being considered by the Government. While officials say the changes are a necessary update, one civil liberties group has expressed concerns the law may be misused to suppress free speech on politically contentious issues. The Terrorism Suppression Act, enacted in 2002 following the September 11 terror attacks, allows governments to formally designate people or groups as terrorist entities, freezing their assets and making it illegal to financially support, recruit for, or participate in a designated terrorist entity. The coalition Government is eyeing reforms to the law, with limited consultation currently taking place behind closed doors with a handpicked selection of groups and experts. In a copy of the consultation document seen by Newsroom, the Ministry of Justice said the Government had agreed to progress 'targeted amendments' to the law, which had not been substantively reviewed since its enactment. The document said existing offences in the law 'don't capture the full range of behaviours or activities of concern that are part of the contemporary threat from terrorism', and needed to be updated. Among the changes being considered were making membership of a terrorist entity a criminal offence, creating new offences to capture public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities (such as showing insignia or distributing propaganda), and modernising definitions for terms like 'material support' to capture new online forms of support. The consultation document also raised the possibility of a streamlined designation process, saying the current decision-making system was lengthy and the designation period was short. Officials asked those being consulted whether the current requirement to have the Prime Minister review decisions twice 'balances robustness of decision and the speed of decision-making appropriately', as well as whether it was still appropriate for the Attorney-General to be consulted on designation-related decisions. The document also proposed extending the renewal period for terrorist designations to five years, from three at present. In addition, officials outlined a 'disconnect' between the designation framework and the regulation of harmful online content, with designated terrorist entities still able to influence and exploit New Zealanders via online platforms. To address those concerns, content disseminated by a designated entity could be defined as terrorist content, with a mechanism developed to identify and sanction terrorist-operated websites. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties, which was not selected for the targeted consultation process but had been leaked a copy of the document, is concerned with both the secretive nature of the discussions and the changes being proposed. The council's chairperson Thomas Beagle said the Terrorism Suppression Act already gave governments strong powers to outlaw organisations. Misuse of the definition of 'terrorism' in other countries had led to the outlawing of groups that did not engage in violence, with the aim of suppressing free speech on an issue. 'Laws that enable governments to outlaw organisations and any show of support for them are amongst the most dangerous tools the public in any democracy can give to ministers.' Thomas Beagle, NZ Council for Civil Liberties As an example, Beagle cited the British government's decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist group, after the group's members broke into a Royal Air Force base and sprayed red paint on refuelling planes to protest the United Kingdom's support of Israel over the war in Gaza. UK home secretary Yvette Cooper argued the move was necessary and followed 'a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions', but United Nations experts, Amnesty International and others have accused the Government of legal overreach and criminalising legitimate activities by innocent members of the group. With expressions of support for Palestine Action now a criminal offence in the UK, more than 100 people were arrested at demonstrations over the weekend, many for displaying placards in support of the group. In a separate incident, a protester holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide' was accused of breaching the country's terrorism laws, despite explicitly saying they did not support any designated terror groups. Beagle said the changes being proposed by the Government could easily be misused in similar ways to shut down organisations it did not like politically. 'People will be criminalised not just for being members of an organisation but for expressing support for the issue it was focused on. These are highly dangerous attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of association.' It was 'a disgrace' that the Government's policy work and consultation was taking place behind closed doors, he said, given the expectations of open government 'Laws that enable governments to outlaw organisations and any show of support for them are amongst the most dangerous tools the public in any democracy can give to ministers. 'There is a very strong public interest in consultation on this law reform project being as open as possible. Without it, the government will foment public distrust in its intentions, and in the processes of policy making.' The Government needed to open public consultation to all New Zealanders at an early stage, rather than when a bill was introduced to Parliament, given the proposals could take the country 'further down the slippery slope of authoritarianism'. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says some parts of the Terrorism Suppression Act are no longer fir for purpose. Photo: Lynn Grieveson Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Newsroom the changes followed the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack, which called for a review of all counter-terrorism legislation to ensure it was current and allowed agencies to operate effectively. 'Aspects of the Terrorism Suppression Act are no longer fit for purpose and need to be modernised and future-proofed,' Goldsmith said. The Ministry of Justice's criminal justice general manager Alida Mercuri told Newsroom the proposals were not targeted at any particular group, but were about improving the effectiveness of the designation system. The Terrorism Suppression Act already contained protections against misuse to suppress free speech and non-violent protest, which would not be removed or reduced. Mercuri said a range of agencies, experts, academics and stakeholders 'with relevant experience', including public sector agencies, had been chosen for the targeted consultation process.
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Windbag: The government's misleading case for rates caps
Blaming colourful toilets for council rates rises is like saying millennials can't afford a house because of avocado toast. In Men At Arms by Terry Pratchett, the 15th book in the Discworld series, Captain Samuel Vines waxed lyrical about the cost of boots: 'A man who could afford 50 dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in 10 years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent 100 dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.' That quote became the inspiration for the boots theory, an economic theory that explains why it's so expensive to be poor. Buying lower-quality products that wear out sooner is an obvious example, but the cost of poverty hits in many more ways. If you can't afford to go to the dentist, the doctor or the mechanic, that short-term saving comes back to bite you with a big, scary bill later on. The cost of poverty traps people in its downward spiral. Sanctimonious rich people love to lecture the poor about how they simply need to stick to a budget. But it's not the wealthy person's superior budgeting skills that keeps them out of the death spiral – it's the ability to go over the budget when needed. If an unexpected bill arises, they have the flexibility to pay it, even if it means dipping into their savings. To the poor person, their budget isn't merely a target; it's a hard cap, with devastating consequences if they breach it. In the ongoing war between councils and the Beehive, government ministers are the wealthy elite telling poor councils they just need to budget better. Central government has way more money and flexibility than local government. Rates account for only 7% of the total tax take in New Zealand, and yet, with that small slice, councils are expected to build and maintain some of the most essential aspects of our lives: roads, pipes, public transport and community facilities. Local government minister Simon Watts says he is considering a law change to cap how much councils can increase rates by each year. (Act and NZ First have raised doubts about the plan, so it's unclear how far it will go.) The political appeal of this idea is obvious. There is a lot of anger nationwide about rates increases. At a time when the household cost of living is high, it can feel unfair for local councils to continue jacking rates up. The government knows this, which is why it has been so happy to abandon its talk of localism and instead use councils as its punching bag. But Watts is making the critical error of mistaking good politics for good policy. Council budgets need some flexibility for unforeseen circumstances, like when a major pipe collapses, or a library turns out to be a deathtrap, or you face a period of expected cost increases. Putting a hard cap on rates will inevitably mean that important maintenance is deferred, delayed or ignored. According to the boots theory, maintenance will end up costing more in the future. We are already seeing the consequences of this in the water network, where councils of the 80s, 90s and 2000s cheaped out on pipe renewals to keep rates artificially low. The bill has come due for the ratepayers of today. Economist Craig Renney of the NZCTU has written a good analysis of how rate-capping policies have affected councils in the UK and Australia. In the UK, 12 local councils have declared bankruptcy since 2018, including Birmingham City Council, Europe's largest local authority. In New South Wales, researchers found rates capping policies led to 'worse revenue effort equity, greater debt per capita, lower levels of infrastructure renewal and exhibited much less operational efficiency'. 'Fundamentally, local government doesn't have the financial tools it needs to do the job that it has been given. Capping rates doesn't help that – it makes it worse. The UK and Australia both show the negative consequences of that policy,' Renney writes. Proponents of rates caps argue that councils are essentially irresponsible teenagers who will keep blowing money on stupid shit unless big daddy Watts limits their pocket money. This is the narrative being pushed by the Taxpayers' Union, which is running a public campaign for the policy. The Taxpayers' Union's team of researchers are excellent at digging up and highlighting examples of outrage-generating spending. The government obviously pays close attention, because you'll often hear senior ministers repeating the same talking points to the media. Some of this work is incredibly valuable. Local government should be held to account for how it spends ratepayers' money. The problem is that the Taxpayers' Union has been so successful that it has distorted people's views of what councils actually do – voters think rates rises are primarily because of rainbow crossings and karakia rather than pipes and potholes. This misconception seems to have gone all the way to the top of the Beehive. Prime minister Chris Luxon has repeatedly taken aim at Wellington City Council for spending that isn't focused on the 'basics'. Last week, he highlighted the new $2.3m Inglewood Place public toilets, the $2.3m Molesworth St cycleway (only 10% of which was paid for by the council), and Tākina convention centre, which fell $1.2m short of targeted revenue last year. For a prime minister who sees himself as a big-picture thinker, it's kind of embarrassing that Luxon gets distracted by, as he would put it, the ' small rocks '. Wellington City Council has planned a budget of $4.9 billion in capital spending and $11.6 billion in operating spending for the next decade. Every little bit counts, but a marginally cheaper public toilet isn't going to move the needle. Pretending colourful toilets are the problem with council finances is like telling millennials they could afford a house if they gave up avocado toast. If Wellington City Council were uniquely bad at wasting money, it would have uniquely bad rates increases. But it doesn't. Wellington doesn't even make the top 10 for councils with the highest rates increases this year (though it is seventh over the last three years cumulatively). The Taxpayers' Union's Sam Warren, writing in The Post, said wasteful spending caused rates to rise higher than inflation: 'Between 2022 and 2025, average council rates have surged by more than 34%, compared to inflation at 13.7% over the same period.' That analysis misses an important point. The usual inflation measure comes from the CPI basket of goods, a list of 598 consumer products: spinach, pillows, hair products, streaming TV services and so on. But councils don't spend money on the same things households do. The vast majority of any council's capital spending is on construction to build and maintain infrastructure. And construction is really expensive. According to BNZ chief economist Mike Jones, 'Construction cost inflation soared 35-40% from 2020 to 2023. It's since flattened off, but the overall level of costs is still elevated.' To its credit, the government has taken several steps to address this: reforms in the construction sector, new financial arrangements for water entities, and a proposal to give councils a share of GST on new residential builds. It would just be nice if ministers were more honest about the problems at hand. Councils are trying to make up for decades of underspending on core infrastructure at the same time that construction costs are at their most expensive. That's the real reason rates are so high.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘Otago is being overlooked'
A new medical school will be established at the University of Waikato. File photo The government's backing of a third medical school at Waikato is yet more evidence it cares little about Dunedin, opponents say. Health Minister Simeon Brown said yesterday Cabinet had approved $82.85 million in government funding towards the project, with the university chipping in more than $150m. The numbers differ from National's policy heading into the 2023 election. Then, it pledged $280m for a third medical school at Waikato University, with the university to raise a further $100m. The school would also open in 2028, a year later than National had promised, but still with an initial roll of 120 students. The University of Otago and University of Auckland — which run the country's two existing medical schools — had submitted to the government they could train more medical students for significantly less than the cost of establishing a new medical school. Megan Pōtiki. PHOTO: ODT FILES Otago Polytechnic executive director Dr Megan Potiki said she was surprised by the decision, "which even Treasury had described as unaffordable". "Otago Polytechnic has concerns about the potential impact on clinical placements for our nursing ākonga [students], and on the long-term security of our industry-leading nursing programme." Dr Potiki's comments come after the government's decision to place Otago Polytechnic in a federation model rather than being fully stand-alone. "It appears Otago is being overlooked by this government with their recent decisions, and Otago's proud tertiary track record is being undermined." Otago University, which had been strongly opposed to the idea, yesterday had a mixed response. . Megan Gibbons. PHOTO: SUPPLIED Pro-vice-chancellor for health sciences Prof Megan Gibbons said the university was disappointed the government did not follow the alternative and more cost-effective option of further increasing the intakes into the country's existing medical schools. "However, any investment that supports growing and sustaining the health workforce is a step towards strengthening care for our communities — particularly in rural and under-served regions." Otago was committed to working alongside others in the sector to ensure the best outcomes for the health of all New Zealanders, she said. Auckland University dean of medical health services Prof Warwick Bagg would not comment on that university's previous opposition to the plans. Instead, Prof Bagg looked towards the positive. "Today is a historic day for medical education in New Zealand. The government has made its decision, and the good news is the extra 120 students." Others were not so sanguine. Bryce Edwards. PHOTO: ODT FILES Director of The Integrity Institute Dr Bryce Edwards issued a scathing assessment of the decision that said it had been political rather than one made in the best interests of the health system or the education system. "It's a stark contrast to have the new Dunedin hospital really restrained in its build and essentially funds cut back, producing a less than optimal new hospital at the same time that $83m is going to be spent elsewhere in the health system that, frankly, very few experts believe is a good spend of money. "The people of Dunedin and Otago should feel aggrieved." Taieri MP Ingrid Leary, of Labour, said nothing about the decision had been transparent. "There's nothing rational about it either. "Given the cuts to the new Dunedin hospital, the vindictive and appallingly communicated decision last week by Penny Simmonds regarding Otago Polytechnic, and now this decision that effectively kneecaps our medical school, it is clear that Christopher Luxon and his three-headed government don't care one iota about the deep South." In August last year, Treasury shared the concerns of the existing medical schools saying the plan was unaffordable and that there were other ways to achieve the government's goal of increasing the number of rural GPs. Green MP Francisco Hernandez said the government had committed to yet another irresponsible, white elephant project. "The quarter of a billion dollars on just capital costs for a third medical school would have been more responsibly spent on boosting the number of doctors that Aotearoa needs from tried-and-true training facilities at Otago and Auckland." University of Waikato vice-chancellor Prof Neil Quigley said it was "a landmark moment for New Zealand". "We will be offering a programme that selects and trains doctors in a fundamentally different way and will complement New Zealand's two existing medical schools."
