Response to Discussion Paper by EFTPOS Industry Working Group
Australian Institute of Petroleum
12 September 2002
Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
Contents
1. Executive Summary...... 3 2. Introduction ...... 6 2.1 Background...... 6 2.2 Objectives ...... 6 3. The Oil Industry’s Role in EFTPOS ...... 7 3.1 Card Processing Infrastructure and Costs...... 9 4. The Australian EFTPOS System ...... 11 4.1 Costs...... 15 4.2 Efficiency...... 18 5. Process & Timeframes ...... 20 6. Scope of Review ...... 21 6.1 EFTPOS and Scheme Debit Cards ...... 21 6.2 Other Card Reviews in Australia ...... 22 7. Overseas Schemes ...... 23 7.1 Canada ...... 23 7.2 United Kingdom...... 24 7.3 South Africa ...... 26 7.4 Germany ...... 28 7.5 New Zealand...... 29 7.6 USA ...... 30 7.7 Lessons From Overseas ...... 31 8. Interchange ...... 33 8.1 Impact of Changes to Interchange ...... 37 8.2 Response to Working Group’s Options ...... 37 8.2.1 Perceived Problems with EFTPOS Interchange Arrangements..... 38 8.2.2 Option 1 – Bilateral Interchange Arrangements...... 39 8.2.3 Option 2 – Multilateral Interchange Fees...... 40 8.2.4 Option 3 – No Interchange Fees ...... 41 8.2.5 Multilateral Pricing Methodologies...... 41 9. Access...... 43 10. Recommendations ...... 45 11. Appendix 1 Letter re Timeframes and Process...... 46
This document has been prepared with the assistance of TransAction Resources Pty Ltd
12 September 2002 2 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
1. Executive Summary
The oil industry has been an integral part of EFTPOS since its inception and has been crucial to its on-going success. The oil companies have made a considerable investment in EFTPOS infrastructure; they are major stakeholders in the EFTPOS system and must be part of any decision making process on its future. At the service stations of the four major oil companies involved in this submission, almost 300 million total card transactions worth some $11 billion dollars were made in 2001. 16% of all EFTPOS transactions in Australia were conducted at these service stations.
The Review Process
It is essential that any review of EFTPOS must be balanced, transparent and objective. The AIP does not believe these criteria are currently being met. The current structure allows an unrepresentative sub-group to control this review and make the final recommendations to the Reserve Bank. The Working Group should be reconstituted to be fully representative of the major stakeholders, including the oil companies.
The EFTPOS Industry Working Group must outline a timetable for reform and a process for industry consultation.
The scope of the review should be expanded to cover all debit cards. There is a trend emerging around the world where scheme based debit cards are replacing proprietary debit card systems, invariably with higher costs and usually with an ad valorem interchange fee. It is possible that the local EFTPOS cards could be switched to “scheme” cards in the future, thereby rendering impotent any outcomes of this review if it is restricted to only the local EFTPOS system.
The Australian EFTPOS System
The current system is world class with all transactions being PIN authorised and with on-line checking of the account balance. Mr Manuel Rio, an international expert on payment systems, has said: “It [the Australian EFTPOS system] is considered to be the best in the world in terms of quality, convenience, safety, technological advancements, overall cost, reliability, processing speeds and increased efficiency.”
The RBA/ACCC study has shown that debit cards are the lowest cost card payment instruments in Australia. This is supported by data from the Australian Retailers Association which shows debit cards are the lowest cost method of payment at retail outlets and are cheaper than credit and charge cards, cheques and cash.
The current interchange arrangements have been central to the success of Australia’s EFTPOS system. They have provided incentive for acquirers and merchants to invest in infrastructure. This has allowed Australia to have the highest penetration of points of access to banking services and highest penetration of EFTPOS machines of the 12 major countries studied by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). In fact, the countries with the highest penetration of EFTPOS terminals (Australia) and highest EFTPOS usage per head of population (New Zealand) both have negative interchange - this is not a coincidence.
12 September 2002 3 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
The BIS, which is comprised of the major central banks around the world, including the RBA, defines interchange as a “transaction fee set by the network organisation and paid by the card issuing institution to the acquiring institution for the cost of deploying and maintaining ATMs and EFTPOS terminals.” In other words, the international banking body responsible for payments and settlements supports negative interchange for EFTPOS.
There are a number of examples around the world where issuers make payments to acquirers in recognition of the investment made in providing the acquiring infrastructure. It should also be noted that when debit cards are used at an ATM, interchange fees flow from the issuer to the acquirer, not just in Australia but all around the world. There seems to be no logical reason why the flow should differ when the same card is used for EFTPOS transactions. This view on the direction of interchange fees for both EFTPOS and ATMs is supported by the Bank for International Settlements.
The current arrangements allow merchants to receive income from acquirers in exchange for investment in payments system infrastructure the banks would otherwise have to provide themselves.
The current interchange ensures “sustainability” of EFTPOS services over the long term and provides a justification for acquirers and merchants to continue to invest in new technology needed to maintain and upgrade the network. This is one of the key objectives of the EFTPOS Industry Working Group. Should the current interchange arrangements change, it puts future major investment by the oil companies and other major retailers at risk.
The primary objectives of the banks when they initiated EFTPOS in Australia was to move customers from transacting at branches to using lower cost electronic transactions. This “branch replacement strategy” has been highly successful and has allowed banks to make substantial savings through large scale branch closures, reduction in over-the-counter transactions and reduction in paper processing and cheques. Any analysis of EFTPOS costs must take account of these savings that have accrued to the banks.
An important element of the current bilateral interchange fee arrangement is that it allows for fees to be set as the result of normal competitive processes. The current interchange flow also adheres to the commercially sensible “user pays” principle.
There is simply no evidence that there are any problems with the current EFTPOS interchange arrangements. In fact, to the contrary, there is much evidence that the system is a world leader and is the most efficient retail payment system in Australia. It would make no sense at all to make any significant changes and risk the benefits which are being shared by all Australians.
Avenues for Key Efficiency Gains
Access to the EFTPOS system is also an important issue. As with credit cards, it is important for the efficiency of the Australian payments system to allow open access and to encourage new entrants in both acquiring and issuing, subject to prudential requirements being satisfied. Such open access will increase competition and will drive costs down.
Similarly, the introduction of standard EFTPOS software and interfaces would help remove barriers to entry, as has happened in Canada.
12 September 2002 4 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
Key Recommendations
• extend the timeframe of the EFTPOS review to allow proper consideration of all issues and the impact of any changes
• reconstitute the Working Group to make it representative of all stakeholders
• expand the scope of the review to cover all debit cards, including international “scheme” debit cards, and broaden the focus beyond interchange
• ensure all parties, including members of the EFTPOS Industry Working Group, make submissions and that time is given for analysis and response to these submissions
• ensure the relativity to other reviews (credit, Visa debit, ATMs) is covered
• do not change the existing EFTPOS interchange arrangements as they have been instrumental in providing Australia with a world class system and delivering long term sustainability of the EFTPOS network.
12 September 2002 5 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
The Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP) is the key representative body of Australia's petroleum industry. The AIP's mission is to promote and assist in the development of a strong internationally competitive Australian petroleum products industry, operating efficiently, economically and safely, and in harmony with the environment and community standards.
The AIP’s members comprise companies engaged in the refining, marketing and/or distribution of petroleum products. This submission is made on behalf of the following member companies: BP Australia Pty Ltd Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd The Shell Company of Australia Limited
The current investigation into EFTPOS is of significant interest to the oil industry. The oil industry is a key stakeholder in the card payment system in Australia and this role is discussed in detail later in this document.
It is important to understand the relative roles of the oil companies and the service station operators. While each of the company’s operations will differ, in general terms the oil companies negotiate an acquiring agreement with a bank acquirer for EFTPOS (and for credit cards). However, in the majority of cases each site operator or franchisee is a separate merchant with their own merchant agreement. Settlement funds for card transactions are reimbursed directly to the site operators’ accounts and any merchant fees are charged directly to the site operators.
The oil company plays a role in negotiating terms and conditions and merchant service fees and providing a card processing network and infrastructure. The oil companies are responsible for the development of card payment terminals and for the testing, certification and maintenance of these systems.
The networks operated by these four companies have more than 6,000 service stations across all parts of Australia. It should be noted that this exceeds the total number of bank branches.
2.2 Objectives
The key objectives of this submission are: • to demonstrate the current EFTPOS system is working well and is world class • to respond to the issues outlined in the EFTPOS Industry Working Group’s paper • to demonstrate that the oil companies are major stakeholders in the EFTPOS system and must be part of any decision making process • to argue that any review of EFTPOS must be open and transparent • to make recommendations on the best way forward
12 September 2002 6 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
3. The Oil Industry’s Role in EFTPOS
The oil industry is a major player in the Australian card payments system. The major oil companies issue and acquire their own fuel cards, accept and process cards issued by banks, T&E companies and other third party issuers and have developed and implemented their own card payment infrastructure.
The oil industry has played a vital role in the development, acceptance and usage of EFTPOS in the Australian market. The first introduction of EFTPOS in Australia occurred in 1984 at an Ampol service station in Melbourne with the National Australia Bank (NAB). This was quickly followed by the acceptance of Westpac cards at selected BP service stations, Commonwealth Bank (CBA) cards at Mobil outlets, and other banks’ cards at Shell, Caltex, and Amoco service stations. At this early stage there was no interchange for debit and each card terminal could only process debit cards issued by the provider of that terminal, e.g. Westpac terminals at BP outlets could accept only Westpac cards, and so on.
It soon became clear, following pressure from the oil companies and other retailers, that EFTPOS would not gain widespread acceptance until all major cards could be processed through a single card terminal. The oil companies and retailers did not want to restrict usage of this new payment method to customers of any one bank; nor did they want four or more card terminals at the Point of Sale (POS). As a result, interchange was introduced for EFTPOS in 1985.
It should be noted that while EFTPOS interchange was achieved in 1985, just one year after being launched, full ATM interchange was not achieved until 1997 despite the fact that ATMs preceded EFTPOS. The earlier adoption of EFTPOS interchange was due purely to the impact of the oil companies and retailers and underlines their importance in the spread of EFTPOS and its contribution to a more efficient payments system. As the EFTPOS Industry Working Group itself states: “Usage of EFTPOS in Australia initially was moderate but was spurred by acceptance at petrol retailers.”1
Oil companies, along with supermarkets, were also instrumental in the widespread acceptance of cash out, thereby further moving customers from branch transactions to electronic banking. As the report on Australia by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) says, “Many EFTPOS points offer a cash-back facility to cardholders making purchases. Terminals operate whenever the merchant is open; for some merchants, such as petrol stations, this is 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”2
The oil companies have played a key role in taking banking systems to the customers, replacing the traditional model of making customers go to bank branches for their point of access. This argument applies equally to EFTPOS and ATM access. This move has made payment systems considerably more convenient for customers. Not only do they not have to carry as much cash, they can now pay by card and/or obtain cash at a far wider range of locations at times convenient to the customer. If wanting to withdraw cash at night, customers can now do so in the safety of a well lit retail outlet such as a petrol station or convenience store (using either cash out or an ATM) rather than on a street outside a bank branch.
1 “Discussion Paper: Options for EFTPOS Interchange Fee Reform”, EFTPOS Industry Working Group, July 2002, Page 2. 2 “Payment Systems In Australia”, prepared by The Reserve Bank of Australia & The Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, Bank for International Settlements, June 1999.
12 September 2002 7 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
This increase in alternative banking formats for customers, including the provision of EFTPOS services by oil companies, has enabled banks to reduce their branch network and has also reduced their operating costs significantly. This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.
In fact, the oil industry has been at the forefront of EFTPOS developments in Australia since its inception and has been responsible for a number of innovations. Some of these include: • the first EFTPOS transactions were at a service station, as discussed earlier. • the oil companies, along with Coles Myer, were the first non-financial institutions to install their own front end processors and switches. This is something a number of the EFTPOS issuers still have not done. • in-pump card readers were the first widespread deployment of unattended EFTPOS in Australia. The cost of the development and deployment of this technology was funded by the oil companies themselves. • the oil industry was among the first adopters of multiple acquirer technology
In addition, the fuel cards issued by these companies are also considered to be world leaders. These fuel card systems have a level of sophistication the banks have been unable to achieve with cards they issue themselves. The functionality provided by these cards includes on-line PIN based authorisation, on-line fraud prevention functionality (such as validation of odometer readings, limits and controls, velocity checking and exception reporting) and detailed data collection including customer specific data. Many of the limits and controls can be implemented at either a card or a customer level. The point is, the oil companies are sophisticated in card issuing, processing and acquiring and continue to make a significant contribution to the card payment system in Australia.
The importance of the oil industry’s role in card payments is demonstrated by the usage at service stations. In 2001, at the service stations of the four major oil companies:
• there were almost 300 million card transactions worth some $11 billion dollars
• this equates to card spend of $1.6 million per service station per annum of which $470,000 per station is on debit cards
• debit cards account for more than half of transactions on bank issued cards at service stations and more than one third of all card transactions (see graph below)
• there were more than 100 million EFTPOS transactions worth in excess of $3 billion at these stations.
• In 2001, 16% of all EFTPOS transactions in Australia were conducted at these service stations.
The Oil Industry is a key stakeholder in the Australian card payment system and in EFTPOS in particular.
The oil industry has made a considerable investment in developing, implementing and maintaining a secure on-line PIN based card processing system which continues to be crucial to the on-going success of EFTPOS.
12 September 2002 8 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
Other Third Party Cards T&E Cards 3% 5% Oil Company Credit Cards Cards 32% 24%
Debit Cards 36%
Chart 1 - Card Transactions at Australian Service Stations
3.1 Card Processing Infrastructure and Costs
The major oil companies in Australia have made a considerable investment in card processing infrastructure. This has included: card terminals secure PIN pads integrated point of sale systems at certain sites, in-pump card readers and/or driveway card acceptors at some sites placement of ATMs at selected convenience stores and service stations front-end processors / switches communications networks
In addition to investments in card processing hardware and software, the oil companies also incur major recurring costs in operating and maintaining card processing systems. These costs include: data communications retail support (help desk) equipment maintenance consumables
The four major oil companies have installed almost 11,000 card terminals at their sites - these are owned by and have been specifically developed for each oil company. These include indoor card terminals, in-pump card readers and kiosk paypoints, but exclude ATMs, of which there are also significant numbers. All four companies have at some stage installed and operated their own fault tolerant front end processor and switch.
12 September 2002 9 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
The capital and associated investment by the four companies in card processing infrastructure is well in excess of $100 million. In addition, there are significant annual costs covering maintenance, repairs, on-going development and day-to-day operating costs of more than $10 million per annum. These are real out-of-pocket costs, which need to be recovered, and on which a return needs to be made.
The major oil companies have independently negotiated arrangements with acquirers to allow them to access and use this infrastructure. In return the acquirer, who does not have to provide this infrastructure itself, pays the relevant oil company a “network access fee” for transactions conducted at sites equipped with the oil company’s system. The income the major oil companies receive as network access fees from the acquirer is in recognition of the considerable capital investment the oil companies have made in putting a card processing infrastructure in place and the substantial on-going maintenance costs associated with this equipment.
12 September 2002 10 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
4. The Australian EFTPOS System
EFTPOS has played a significant role in the development of Australian payment systems. As a 1998 report by the RBA says: “Growth in non-cash payments in recent years has been driven mainly by growth in EFTPOS transactions.”3
Reference has been made to the fact that the Australian EFTPOS interchange system is unique in that the interchange fee flows from the issuer to the acquirer (often called “negative interchange”). The inference has often been that this somehow means Australia has “got it wrong” compared to other countries. Such an inference is unsustainable and does not take account of the particular benefits offered by the Australian EFTPOS system.
Firstly, while negative interchange is indeed unusual for debit cards at the point of sale in other parts of the world, there are other instances of bank card interchange fees flowing from issuer to acquirer.
For example, in South Africa the banks have issued debit cards specifically for use in service stations. These private motorist debit cards, called Petro Card or Garage Card, operate on the basis of negative interchange. Credit and debit cards also involve a payment by the issuer to the acquirer, although the “normal” scheme positive interchange arrangements also apply. The banks also issue fleet cards for use by businesses at service stations and these also involve a negative interchange fee. The South African situation is described in more detail in the section on Overseas Schemes.
Another example is in the Philippines where the net payment of fees for credit cards flows from the issuer to the acquirer for transactions at “service merchants” (i.e. petrol stations, supermarkets, fast food restaurants, etc.). While the base interchange arrangements for credit cards are fairly standard, these “service” merchant categories have merchant service fees (MSFs) which are below the interchange rate. This has occurred because these industries refused to accept credit cards because of the high cost.
In order to cope with these low MSFs, Visa and MasterCard have introduced an “Issuer Allocation Cost” (IAC) for these merchants and left the interchange fee unchanged. The issuer pays the acquirer a fixed fee per transaction which is greater than the interchange fee. This is effectively negative or reverse interchange. For a typical petrol purchase, the issuer pays a net fee (i.e. after deducting interchange) equivalent to around 2% to the acquirer.
New Zealand also has a negative interchange fee for debit cards of 6 cents per transaction.
The most common instance of interchange fees flowing from the issuer to the acquirer is when debit cards are used at an ATM. Debit interchange arrangements in Australia follow the same principle as used for ATM interchange, not just in Australia but in virtually all countries. It should be remembered that an ATM card and a debit card are the same piece of plastic. When this piece of plastic is used at an ATM the issuer pays the acquirer an interchange fee which consists of a fixed fee per transaction. This is logical and sensible, as shown below.
3 “Some Features of the Australian Payments System”, Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin, December 1998
12 September 2002 11 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
The acquirer has made an investment in a processing infrastructure, including the ATM itself, in order to allow the issuer’s card to be used at that ATM. The alternative would be for the issuer to install its own ATM (and therefore pay no interchange), increasing its costs dramatically and ending in a far less efficient system overall. If the same piece of plastic is used at a card terminal at a merchant’s premises it is hard to see why the flow of interchange fees should be any different.
It could be interpreted that for ATMs, banks cannot gain fees from merchants, so the fees flow in the “proper” and logical direction, not only in Australia but around the world.
This view on the direction of interchange fees is supported by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is comprised of the major central banks around the world, including the RBA. The BIS defines interchange thus:
interchange fee transaction fee set by the network organisation and paid by the card issuing institution to the acquiring institution for the cost of deploying and maintaining ATMs and EFTPOS terminals.4
In other words, the international banking body responsible for payments and settlements itself supports the view that:
1. the issuer pays the acquirer,
2. the purpose of the interchange fee flowing in this direction is to cover the investment made in ATMs and EFTPOS terminals, and
3. that there is a logical link between ATM interchange and EFTPOS interchange and the fees should flow in the same direction.
It is understood that changes have been proposed for ATM interchange in Australia. Although no final decisions have been made, it is believed that the main change will be the introduction of a fee at the time of the cash withdrawal – referred to by the RBA as the “direct charging” model5.
For example, if a customer is using an ATM owned by a party other than his/her card issuer, to withdraw $100 in cash, the customer will be told that a fee of say $2 will apply. The customer will then be requested to confirm or cancel the transaction. When the customer receives his/her statement, $102 will have been deducted from the account. This in fact is only a minor variation to the current practice.
The table below demonstrates the steps under both the current situation and the proposed scenario (for cases where the card is used at an ATM not owned by the card issuer).
4 A Glossary of Terms Used in Payments and Settlement Systems, Bank For International Settlements – Committee on Payment & Settlement Systems, January 2001 (revised July 2001), P.21. 5 RBA Payment Systems Board Annual Report, 2001 – Section on Competition and Efficiency.
12 September 2002 12 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
Existing Scenario Proposed Scenario Customer enters $100 cash withdrawal Customer enters $100 cash withdrawal request at ATM request at ATM Customer is told a fee will apply and asked to confirm for transaction to proceed Request is authorised on-line and cash is Request is authorised on-line and cash is dispensed dispensed Customers account is debited for $100 + a Customers account is debited for $100 + a fee (foreign ATM fee) fee (direct charging fee) Issuer reimburses ATM owner for the Issuer reimburses ATM owner for the amount actually withdrawn + a fee amount actually withdrawn + a fee
Table 1 - Current & Proposed Fee Scenarios for ATMs
The effect of this is: In both cases the customer is charged a fee for use of the ATM In both cases a fee is reimbursed to the acquirer by the issuer In both cases the acquirer receives income to offset “the cost of deploying and maintaining ATMs”
The main reason given for this change to ATM interchange is to increase competitive forces. However, there is no evidence provided that fees will reduce as a result of this change. In fact, there is evidence overseas to suggest fees may well increase. For example, in the USA, where there is “direct charging”, these ATM fees are typically US$2.00 to US$2.50 (A$3.70 to A$4.60). Of course one of the benefits to the banks from this change is that the issuer no longer has to justify any charges to the cardholder’s account – the issuer can now blame the ATM owner for the fee.
It has been suggested that this direct charging model for ATMs does away with interchange. This not true. There is still a fee paid by the issuer to the acquirer - and surely a fee paid between an issuer and an acquirer is an interchange fee.
If this methodology was to be repeated for EFTPOS – i.e. the terminal owner asks the customer whether or not he/she wants to pay a fee – it would result in chaos at the point of sale. Transactions would take longer and queues would lengthen. Significant and costly software and procedural changes would also be required. Under such a scenario, it may also be that there would be reduced usage of EFTPOS as customers are asked to pay a fee every time they use their debit card (but not their credit card – providing the merchant does not surcharge).
The AIP urges that under no circumstances should the “direct charging” model be considered for EFTPOS.
It should also be noted that while the EFTPOS Industry Working Group is looking at schemes in other countries as a reference point, a number of experts consider the Australian system as the paragon. For example, Manuel Rio of France, a long standing expert in payment systems and consultant to the French Government in payment systems, has said6:
6 “Australia’s EFTPOS”, unpublished submission to the European Commission Enquiry into the Visa MIF, Manuel Rio, Paris, March 30 1999.
12 September 2002 13 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum
“The EFTPOS (electronic funds transfer at point of sale) system in Australia is a real time, on line, PIN based, debit card system. It is considered to be the best in the world in terms of quality, convenience, safety, technological advancements, overall cost, reliability, processing speeds and increased efficiency.y It has been a resounding success in Australia and it has been adopted by the Australian consumer and by merchants with enthusiasm.”
Mr Rio goes on to say: “The success of EFTPOS with bank customers and merchants alike, has been and continues to be a major factor in the modernization of the Australian payments systems, reducing cash and cheque usage. “The cost of the EFTPOS system to the economy is a fraction of the cost of the credit cards system.” and “Fee flow recognises the economic principle of user pays.” “On top of this, the negative interchange fees, and the reverse merchant fees, both bilaterally negotiated, adequately compensate, on a case by case basis, acquirers and merchants for their investments in infrastructure and the continuing modernization of the system.” “Market forces produce an efficient system.” “The system works well as there are incentives for the network providers to develop and enhance the system and the customer interface. These incentives are not present in the less efficient, less technically advanced and more expensive credit card system.”
The effectiveness and widespread acceptance of the current system is confirmed by the fact that 70% of adults in Australia use EFTPOS.7
Another important element of the Australian debit system is the low rate of fraud. The investment by the major merchants in PIN based on-line debit systems has allowed card fraud in Australia to be kept at very low levels with major cost savings for the banks. For example, fraud on debit cards in the UK, which is based on signature authorisation, is many orders of magnitude higher than in Australia.
In 1997 (the most recent figures available), some 16,500 debit card transactions in Australia were reported as unauthorised where the cardholder was liable8 in a year when 1.4 billion transactions (EFTPOS and ATM) were conducted. In the same year just over 5,000 transactions were conducted fraudulently where the issuer was liable. For debit cards, fraudulent transactions represent 0.0015% of total transactions. No estimate of the dollar amount that these transactions represent is available although these transactions are generally of higher value than average transaction values.
In the UK, card fraud (for all card types) is currently running at 0.18% of total card sales9. In fact, comparison with the UK demonstrates the advantages of Australia’s EFTPOS system and the benefits achieved by the investment in infrastructure made by the acquirers and merchants. This system has also benefited credit cards. In November 2001, the ANZ
7 “Australia – EFTPOS, ATMs”, Paul Budde Communication, 2002 8 Australian Payment Systems Council Annual Report, 1996/1997 9 Data from APACS web site.
12 September 2002 14 Response to EFTPOS Discussion Paper Australian Institute of Petroleum estimated credit card fraud was US$25 million in Australia. Credit card fraud in the UK in 2001 was US$400 million by comparison.
4.1 Costs
As discussed earlier, EFTPOS was introduced into Australia in 1984 by the four major banks. It was established as a means for customers to access their bank accounts without going into a branch.
While there were a number of considerations, the primary drive for the banks was branch re- engineering or “branch customer displacement”10. In other words, the introduction of EFTPOS, combined with an increased emphasis on ATM usage, was designed to move people out of branches and reduce the number of over-the-counter transactions. The aim was to encourage customers to rely on electronic banking and reduce the banks’ costs by utilising electronic delivery to replace branch transactions. To achieve this, the banks had to add value to debit cards beyond just ATM usage.
There were a number of other considerations which influenced the banks move into EFTPOS, although these were secondary. These other drives included: