Surcharge Ban May Shift Costs Rather Than Eliminate Them
The Government has announced that the Retail Payment System (Ban on Surcharges) Amendment Bill will be introduced by the end of 2025, with the ban expected to come into force by May 2026. It will apply to most in-store transactions using domestic Visa, Mastercard and EFTPOS.
Steve Armitage, Hospitality NZ's Chief Executive, says: 'We appreciate the intent behind this change. Simplifying the checkout experience for consumers is a positive step.'
'But at the same time, it's important to recognise that electronic payments come with real costs to businesses. If surcharges are removed, many operators will have to adjust their pricing to reflect that – particularly for small hospitality operators already under pressure.'
The Government estimates the move could save consumers up to $150 million a year, including $65 million in excessive surcharges. However, Hospitality NZ notes that these savings will depend on how businesses respond and whether cost recovery mechanisms remain viable.
Steve Armitage continues: 'Margins across the hospitality sector remain very tight. Some operators may be able to absorb the cost, but for many, particularly smaller businesses, that won't be realistic. These businesses may have no option but to reflect those costs in their pricing.'
Hospitality NZ welcomed the Commerce Commission's recent action to reduce interchange fees – a major component of payment processing costs – and supports further efforts to ensure banks and payment providers pass those savings on to merchants.
Steve Armitage says: 'The reduction in interchange fees is a helpful step, and we'd like to see more transparency in how those savings are shared.
'Our priority is to make sure that any changes introduced are sustainable for hospitality businesses and ultimately deliver a fair outcome for both consumers and operators.'
Hospitality NZ looks forward to engaging constructively with the Government as the Bill progresses and to ensuring practical support is available for hospitality businesses adapting to the new framework.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
14 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Government eyes more spending cuts as patience with economic strategy frays
Seymour said the Government was getting a few 'whispers' about the next Budget. 'Last year, we saved $115 million. [The] year before that, half a billion,' Seymour said, referring to the savings attributed to him personally. 'Let's see if we can't save more next year,' he said. Seymour said Budget 2026's savings exercise would not be 'radically different'. He said there was still wasteful spending to be found, noting the last Labour Government had inherited core public spending of about 28% of GDP and left behind a state spending about 33% of GDP a year. Even accounting for increases in superannuation spending and debt servicing for the pandemic, Seymour reckoned there was still a large portion of spending that could be trimmed. Seymour said Finance Minister Nicola Willis had put pressure on Treasury to 'upgrade the supply of information', allowing better quality budgeting. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said more savings could be found. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis said funding new spending initiatives by cutting spending the ministers deemed less essential was important, given the size of the Government's deficit, which Treasury forecasts to be $14.1b this year, or 3.1% of GDP. 'The Government's got a great track record of reprioritising funding so that we can put more investment into the things Kiwis care about: schools, hospitals, roads, police,' Willis said. Willis said the Government's first Budget found $23b in savings and the second found $21b. These figures are calculated over multiple years. 'What the number will be in our next Budget is yet to be worked out,' Willis said. When asked whether a similar dollar figure of savings could be found for the 2026 Budget, Willis said, 'we'll see'. Willis said she did not think all the low-hanging fruit had been found when it came to savings. 'There are always areas where we should be demanding better value for taxpayers' money and I always ask myself, 'can I really justify spending that money when a New Zealand household could probably do with it in their wallet?'' Willis said. Willis said each Budget approach was similar. She sat down with the Prime Minister and her associate Finance Ministers, Seymour, Chris Bishop, and Shane Jones. 'We sit down together. We identify key themes where we think that there is room to find value. We also identify programmes of work that we think ministers should undertake to find savings,' she said. Willis said it was 'far too soon' to describe the nature of the savings programme. It is not uncommon for a Government to cut spending it no longer thinks is valuable, to pay for something else. The last Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, also undertook reprioritisation exercises prior to his budgets although these were far smaller in quantum. In 2018, word of Labour's Budget 2019 reprioritisations exercise leaked to National, who accused Labour of covert spending cuts. Asked whether three successive savings programmes in a row risked prolonging negative economic sentiment, Willis accused people who made that argument of being 'fiscally and economically ignorant'. 'We have one of the largest deficits in the OECD, which is to say we are spending billions more than we are earning as a country. Compared to many countries around the world, we are in a more deficit position than they are. 'To say that when we are running a deficit ... is economically ignorant. I have heard that ignorance from our political opponents. They need to get a maths textbook,' Willis said. Labour leader Chris Hipkins compared Luxon and Willis to a washing machine. Photo / Mark Mitchell Earlier this year, the Herald spoke to the big three ratings agencies for their view on the public finances. New Zealand maintains a high credit rating. While the agencies said they were not alarmed with the fiscal situation at the moment, they wanted to see evidence of improvement. S&P's primary analyst for NZ, Martin Foo noted that NZ's general government balance, his company's preferred metric for whether the Government was in surplus or deficit, showed a deficit greater than 6% of GDP - putting NZ in the realm of France and the United States, countries known for running huge deficits. The Government's fiscal and economic strategy is partly to reduce the deficit to help put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates, stimulating confidence and economic recovery. Month after month of gloomy economic data, only partly offset by a recovery in the primary sector, has frayed voters' patience in that strategy, polling suggests. The most recent Ipsos Issues Monitor Poll found voters trust Labour more on the cost of living, the first time Labour has come ahead in that poll since before the last election. Voters still trust National more on the overall economy, according to that poll. In a speech ahead of his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday, Luxon said the Government needed to 'double down' on its economic strategy. 'The most important thing we can do to make you better off is to double down on our economic plan,' he said. 'Spending more, taxing more and borrowing more as Labour and other parties advocate for didn't work in the past and it won't work in the future,' Luxon said. Labour leader Chris Hipkins shot back, noting the length of Luxon's post-Cabinet speech, which he gave alongside Willis. 'I think we should start calling them Fisher and Paykel because they've got more spin than a front-load washing machine,' Hipkins said, referring to Luxon and Willis. Hipkins has come under pressure from the Government for Labour not releasing policy of its own. He defended this on Tuesday morning, saying 'we will be doing policy'. 'But some of those bigger issues around spending, borrowing, taxation, many of those will have to wait until closer to the election,' he said, noting National finalised its tax policy less than two months before the election date in 2023 - although it published a version of its tax policy about a year earlier.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Amended CMA Oil/Gas ‘Legislative Match' Bill To Pass Today; Leaves Taxpayers On Hook For Decommisioning Gas Wells
Climate campaigners say the government's Crown Minerals Amendment (CMA) bill is a 'golden parachute for polluters—and a lead weight for taxpayers'. The bill is expected to pass today, and clears the way for new fossil fuel exploration while gutting safeguards that ensure existing oil and gas companies pay for their clean-up. The government has jumped the third and final reading of the CMA bill from #21 on the order paper, to #1. This move by Shane Jones comes after climate activists began a dramatic shutdown of Stockton Mine on Monday morning, where Jones responded with a video ( 350 Aotearoa campaigner Adam Currie says, 'This bill is a legislative match tossed into a climate tinderbox. It doesn't just open New Zealand up to new climate-killing oil and gas drilling — it strips away financial safeguards, leaving taxpayers on the hook for future decommissioning costs. Without these financial securities and trailing liability, the government is at a higher risk of having to pay to decommission – or plug – a failed oil well. This is no hypothetical - the fossil fuel industry previously left the taxpayer with a $443 million bill to decommission the Tui oil field. The oil lobby is clearly writing the script— the Government is just reading their lines.' 'As floods and storms ravage across the world and climate scientists run out of adjectives to describe how urgent the situation is, Christopher Luxon's Government is forging ahead with reckless plans to search for new oil and gas, dig up more coal and shelve every initiative to reduce emissions that they can. It's another time New Zealanders can peek through the drawn curtains of this government - a government run by shady lobbyists writing policy and being appointed to key positions.' 'This bill does nothing for New Zealand's energy security. We know that new oil drilling would take over a decade to come online, and the International Energy Agency tells us that global demand for oil, gas, and coal is on track to peak well before then. It doesn't have to be this way. The people of Aotearoa have a historic opportunity to move away from fossil fuels to a clean energy future powered by wind and solar that would mean more affordable, cleaner and reliable energy for New Zealanders. Instead of fiscally irresponsible false solutions, the government should be focused on creating a long-term energy strategy that charts a parth away from this broken, fossil-fuelled system that is responsible for rising energy poverty and workers losing their jobs. Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific Interim Team Lead says, 'Instead of securing a safe future for all countries in the Pacific, the New Zealand government has decided to hammer nails into our coffins. Many will feel this bill is a betrayal to Pacific neighbours, but it is in fact a betrayal of their own future generations as well. We see the increased flooding in New Zealand, and we mirror that pain in our own storm surge and coastal inundation. How the Luxon government thinks that repealing the oil and gas ban is the right decision for any of our futures is absurd.' Adam Currie says: 'This bill repealing the oil and gas ban has forced NZ out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) - an alliance that we were part of creating. Aotearoa once claimed to be a climate leader—today, we are an international embarrassment. Aotearoa helped build the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Today, we've walked out on our own future—and become an international embarrassmen. If climate destruction were a crime, this Government would be caught red-handed.' 'The bill also comes less than 24 hours after climate activists began a dramatic climb of coal buckets, effectively preventing coal from leaving Bathurst Resources Stockton Mine, the biggest coal mine in New Zealand. The climbers are opposing this government's fossil-fuelled agenda, and focusing on Bathurst's Fast-Track application to open a 20 million tonne coal mine on the Denniston Plateau that would be the same size as Nelson city.' Notes: 1 Former Tui owner Tamarind Resources went into liquidation just a couple of years after acquiring the Tui oil field, forcing taxpayers to pay over $400 million to decommission the field. 2 The order paper for Parliament's last sitting day (21 July) showed the bill at #21 on the order paper. The provisional order paper for today (29 July) suddenly showed the bill as #1 on the order paper. The link to the full order paper is here: The previous order paper for the last day is here: 3 Bill author and Minister Shane Jones has today also released a last-ditch amendment to the bill, less than eight hours before the debate is due to occur. In a process oddity, the bill is expected to be recommitted to the committee stage for half an hour for the amendment to be made, before the bill is passed. The amendment's exploratory note reads: 'removes automatic liability for the cost of decommissioning from previous permit holders' and 'proposes to reverse the position of both the Bill as introduced and Amendment Paper No 214, so that only existing permit holders (and licence holders and persons with a participating interest in a permit or licence) are made absolutely liable in the Act for unmet decommissioning costs.' That's right - according to the government's own language, the amendment is a u-turn on the government's initial bill wording, reversing their position on that aspect of the Bill. Ending the oil and gas exploration ban was bad enough – but the changes make the bill far worse, dramatically reducing existing decommissioning requirements in a handout to the fossil fuel companies that are the devil in the government's ear. 4 The full exploratory note for the paper reads: The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (the Bill) as introduced (in September 2024) proposed to limit trailing liability for unmet decommissioning costs to the most recent permit holder or participant who transferred out. Amendment Paper No 214 (released in November 2024) proposed to extend trailing liability to a wider range of people, beyond existing and previous permit holders, by adding various persons having a controlling interest in a body corporate to the list of persons who are currently liable for meeting unmet decommissioning costs. This Amendment Paper proposes to reverse the position of both the Bill as introduced and Amendment Paper No 214, so that only existing permit holders (and licence holders and persons with a participating interest in a permit or licence) are made absolutely liable in the Act for unmet decommissioning costs. This Amendment Paper removes automatic liability for the cost of decommissioning from previous permit holders
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
Ban ignores the surcharging elephants in the online retail space
The Government's ban on credit card surcharges is being welcomed as removing misleading distinctions between the costs of doing business with cash, credit or Eftpos. Card users will no longer subsidise the high cost of cash transactions. Instead, Retail NZ and other analysts expect that bricks-and-mortar retailers will raise their underlying prices across the board to recover their card transaction costs, as they already do for the cost of cash.
