Most of the submissions to a government review of card surcharging agree on one key point: the Reserve Bank's new merchant surcharging standard will not work unless a statutory body is given the job of monitoring merchant practices and enforcing the rules.The Reserve Bank's new standard, introduced in March, was designed to stop excessive surcharging on card transactions. Under the rules, merchants have a right to recover their card acceptance costs through a surcharge. The "reasonable cost of acceptance" includes the merchant service fee, which is charged by the merchant's acquiring bank, and some additional costs. Card scheme operators will have the right to change their scheme rules to limit surcharging to "reasonable cost".This structure gives the card schemes the job of enforcing the rules - a job they don't want and which other industry participants think they could not do properly anyway.Submissions to a review by the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council have called for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and even the Reserve Bank to be given enforcement powers.Choice's submission summed up the view of most, saying: "Choice has consistently expressed concern that no government agency or regulator is responsible for enforcing or monitoring the new RBA surcharging rules. Further action is needed to enforce the new surcharging framework."Choice's prime candidate is ASIC, which already has responsibility for a wide range of consumer protection law.Commonwealth Bank agrees. Its submission said: "The best candidate for monitoring merchant compliance with surcharging rules is ASIC, given its role in ensuring that financial markets are fair and transparent and supported by informed investors and consumers."The CBA submission argues that acquiring banks should not perform this role because they have an interest in maintaining their business relationship with merchant customers. Card schemes should also be excluded from this role because they have a vested interest in discouraging merchant surcharging. The Consumer Action Law Centre said there had been a lack of response from the card schemes since the new regime started, and this raised the question of whether there was an economic or other incentive for card schemes to enforce the Reserve Bank rules.Its submission said: "CCAAC should consider the extent to which the ACCC and ASIC have responsibility for responding to surcharging practices under other consumer protection provisions, namely those regarding single price law, unfair contract terms and misleading or deceptive conduct."The Australian Hotels Association questioned whether the card schemes would act equitably. Its submission said: "The AHA is concerned about a potential lack of fairness and equality that could arise from allowing the card schemes to be solely responsible for enforcement of the standard. Large companies with significant volumes of card transactions could be allowed to continue with non-compliant surcharging practices, while smaller businesses could be singled out by the powerful card schemes and forced to justify their cost recovery."Visa pointed out the difficulty of fulfilling the role the RBA has given it. Its submission said:  "Card schemes have to limit the activities of