I don't know what the point of the change is.

Before this change we already had a law to say that any surcharge must not be greater than the associated costs (and so it was illegal to be dishonest about the surcharge); and we had a law to say that the surcharge must be clearly advertised in advance of the say (hence all the signs and stickers warning people about a surcharge when it exists).

So from my point of view, that was fair. The surcharge was clearly associated with the cost of using that form of payment. But now, under the new system, the cost of that form of payment still exists but is unavoidable for the customer. I guess there's marginally less thinking involved for people who never pay with cash, but aside from that I don't see a benefit.

The article mentions that the RBA said removing the surcharge would "support a more efficient and competitive payments system". But to me it seems to do the opposite. Suppose for example that a cheaper payment system arose. Previously businesses could have different surcharges for different payment systems, and customers could choose the cheapest. That is no longer the case. So then even if a more efficient and competitive system is created, it will be difficult for it to gain traction. Right?

Also, while this particular surcharge is being banned, others, such as weekend pricing, are not. So it's not like surcharges are gone completely. Only this type of surcharge is being removed.