Contactless surcharges are a disability tax
The government made a move to ban contactless payment surcharges, but they’ve backed down. I explain what this means for disabled people and accessibility.
Pesky contactless tax
We’ve all been there — looking down at the payment terminal — that filthy, half-peeled-off sticker disclosing the surcharge staring back at you — about to rob you of 2 cents.
But for disabled people, this surcharge is even more impactful.
For people like me, with vision impairment, I have no choice.
I can’t see the payment terminal’s screen. Contactless payment is the only accessible method for me.
So I end up paying disabled tax that other people don’t have to pay.
I don’t think that’s right. Contactless payment is not optional for me — it’s needed for accessibility.
Accessibility issues in payments
Paying for things in-store can be difficult for many disabled people.
For example: if you’re blind and you’re asked to use a card payment terminal with a touch screen, it’s a huge struggle to input your PIN and select an account.
Now, the majority of payment terminals have touch screens. It sucks.
What makes it worse, is many stores have enabled this ridiculous feature where once you tap your contactless payment, it asks you a question on the screen on whether to accept a surcharge. If you’re blind, you can’t see the question. It defeats the entire purpose of contactless payment.
If you have a physical impairment that makes it difficult to press small buttons, card-and-PIN systems can be a significant barrier.
This is why contactless payment is so essential for disabled people. It provides the easiest, most accessible payment method imaginable.
Some disabled people have no option: they have to use contactless, and cop an additional 2% fee just for the privilege of being disabled. The people who can least afford it, are made to pay extra just to buy things.
This is why I think contactless surcharges are a disability rights issue. You can’t survive in the modern world without paying for stuff: so payment systems better be accessible for us.
But, the government was going to fix it, right?
Yes, Scott Simpson the Minister for Consumer Affairs introduced legislation last year to ban in-store card surcharges. The ban was expected to be in place by May 2026, and… now it’s May 2026, and the bill for the ban is languishing before Parliament, yet to see its second reading.
National’s plan to scrap the surcharges would have been a significant win for the disabled community. Probably one of the most impactful accessibility laws we’ve seen in decades — because it would’ve made a meaningful difference in everyone’s daily lives.
…then David Seymour entered the chat
Based on RNZ reporting, David Seymour has pulled the plug on the surcharge ban.
Which I find rather bizarre: accessibility as a political philosophy is all about protecting individual liberties, which is consistent with the libertarian principles of the ACT Party.
David Seymour claims that contactless surcharges are “bad economics”, asserting it simply shifts the cost on to small businesses who can’t afford it. That the cost gets pushed on to people who pay using EFTPOS or cash.
To give some political balance; astonishingly, the Green Party opposed the surcharge ban at the first reading of the bill. So, interestingly, both sides of the political spectrum are unsupportive of changes that will materially improve accessibility for disabled people. While our centrist parties, National and Labour both supported this change.
But is it bad economics?
I often see claims that EFTPOS and cash are free. But are they?
For a business to handle cash, it has a range of hidden costs:
- time spent handling cash
- time spent counting cash
- cash that goes missing
- depositing cash at banks
- ensuring change is available for transactions.
The same goes for EFTPOS, while it is generally fairly cheap, it’s also slower and less efficient — taking 10 to 30 seconds for many people to complete those transactions. This slowness stacks up for many businesses.
I’d argue, from a cost perspective, EFTPOS is more efficient than cash — so the same argument can be applied here: people who use EFTPOS are subsidising those who pay cash.
Retail NZ lobbied against the ban
Retail NZ is quoted in the above RNZ piece as being a strong opponent of the surcharge ban, claiming it’s unfair for businesses.
Retail NZ also lobbies for the reduction of card fees in general, which is a good thing.
But I’m unsure if Retail NZ considered, or even cares about disabled people in this situation. I think an important part of retail, is actually caring about the customers.
The Australians beat us to it 🦘
The Reserve Bank of Australia successfully implemented a payment surcharge ban, with it due to take effect in October 2026.
The Australians did something pretty smart here, they lowered the caps on card fees while also implementing the ban, with a focus on reducing fees paid by small businesses.
It might’ve been a smart approach to copy Australia’s lead, to remove scaremongering about small business impacts.
What’s the solution?
I think the government should:
- rework the strategy to implement an even lower cap on card fees, particularly for small businesses
- continue with the surcharge ban.
I personally think the banks, Visa and Mastercard are probably making far too much money, effectively operating in a duopoly on contactless payment. The government does have the power to limit the fees they can charge, and should use this as a way to remove any perceived negative impacts on small businesses of a surcharge ban.
We are starting to see some interesting technologies come through, like Online EFTPOS. Perhaps the government should fund an alternative contactless payment system that competes with Visa and Mastercard, that is fully government-subsidised.
— Callum