Maybe it's not the government sellouts at work here anymore than the banks themselves who don't want the government to have a snout in what they consider to be their own private trough?

Well, if as it is reported, and most people prefer not to use cash, they deserve everything they get. Government has them by the short and curlies once again. There are words to describe people who think it's OK to pay more for digital payments than for cash payments. 'Stupid' is the mildest word that comes to mind. They are certainly more stupid than people in the UK, US and Europe where surcharges are outlawed.

Too stupid to know that there are 4 million disabled people in Australia, plus 4 million elderly people who have difficulties with technology. But, of course, the stupid ones don't care about that: they just jerk-off over smaller trendy minorities that are just as dangerous to democracy and freedom as the removal of cash will be.

The current per capita recession might affect the ‘inability’ of traders to absorb the cost of electronic payments. Retail growth is the lowest for three decades, at 1.3%.

Retailers might have to adapt. But they are more likely to be as stupid as some OLO posters, and go broke.

Whatever they do, they will deserve what they get.

ttbn: Your complaint about cashless payments costing society more (in monetary terms) are rubbish. The reason why people use cashless payments is because it costs them *less*.
For example, in the case of businesses:
1) they don't have to physically handle the large sums of money which reduces expenses and risks concerning security and physical banking,
2) cashless transactions reduce bookkeeping costs since everything is electronically tabulated and also
3) it increases customer throughput at the till since a simple tap-and-go payment is way faster than manually handling cash.
In the case of the customer it is:
1) faster at the till,
2) they no longer have to waste time at the ATM or bank, and
3) it can assist with budgeting since we now have personal apps which help tack exactly where/how/when they are spending their money.

The big problem that I have with cashless payments is the privacy issue. Your bank (and any 3rd party that your banking contract allows) knows exactly when and where you shop. And additionally, since the banks know then the government may potentially also know your spending habits. And this is the reason why I mainly use cash- even though it is an inconvenience to me.

I suppose there is no point in expecting any common-sense about anything when a nutcase politician - Premier Jacinta Allan - appoints a Junior Minister for Changing Men's Behaviour.

A bloke called Tim Richardson has the job of straightening out Victorian men.

Once again, dopey Victorian voters are getting what they deserve.

Meet the Victorian MP tasked with changing men's behaviour
http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/melbourne-mornings/meet-the-victorian-mp-tasked-with-changing-men-s-behaviour/103906188

I've just listened to half of an 11 minute podcast.
Initially the concept offended me (and it still kind of does)
Even though it sounded a little woke I was encouraged by something he said as I've been thinking the same thing.
Here's what I've been thinking, and it sounded slightly similar to something Richardson said in the podcast.

Men can't allow women to dictate this path forward.
Men need to find ourselves the role model of 'the perfect man'
- Otherwise that idea will be dictated by women.

There also needs to be an equal 'Changing womens behaviour' program.
Having it one sided implies only one side is causing the problems, and while one side may be more violent, that side sometimes gets there because the other side is more manipulative.
Women still fight, they just do it in a different way.

Thingss are becoming so complicated that both sides almost need their own handbooks of how to act.