Retail Payment System Bill

Well, let’s start at the beginning, Madam Chair, clause 29. So this deals with merchant surcharging standards, and the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee made a change. I just want to understand what this means and the Minister’s perspective on it, because what subclause (1) states is “The purpose of this subpart is to ensure that [the] payment surcharges for payment services”—and this is what was removed—“are not excessive and reflect”—and instead inserted—“are no more than the cost to the merchant of the payment services used for accepting retail payments.” So can I ask, is it the Minister’s understanding that this new definition, which removes or changes from “not excessive and reflect the cost” to “are no more than the cost”—does that mean that the service can not include any profit element at all? It is a straight cost aspect, cost transfer, and there cannot be the possibility of any profit being included in the surcharge?

The way I read this change is a clarification from the select committee, and I thank them for it.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Just to give the Minister a bit of time, because I know he’s got his advisers there—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Would you like to seek the call or—

💬 Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly.

May I seek a call, Madam Chair? Fantastic. Well, just to give the Minister a little bit of time, because I know he’s got some advisers sitting beside him, perhaps he could just lean over and ask the officials, if he doesn’t know the answer himself, whether, in fact, this revision of clause 29(1) actually enables the possibility of any profit element or whether it has to be strictly on a cost basis. And what does that mean?

We’ll try again. I see this as a clarification of the wording that was put forward originally, and it says “no more than the cost to the merchant of the payment services used for accepting retail payments.” I think it’s pretty clear.