Industry lobbies and key participants in the payment system have been arguing their corner in the latest round of submissions to the Reserve Bank of Australia regarding surcharging on credit card payments.The Australian Bankers Association and Abacus (which represents mutual credit unions and building societies) both called for a greater role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in policing excessive surcharging by merchants. In some cases, the extra fee bears little relation to the fee charged by the bank or to other costs of acceptance.The ABA suggested the RBA steer policy towards merchants advertising prices that include a component for the most commonly used payment method, though it's not clear how the Payments System Board might help here.Both the ABA and Abacus favour the PSB regulating a cap on card surcharges. The ABA leans towards supporting a cap that is policed by each card scheme, while Abacus would prefer this be outright.Woolworths, which "acquires" its own card payments and switches these to banks, opposed any move to ban surcharging. The retailer said the threat of surcharging was "one of Woolworths' single most effective pricing negotiation tools" with card schemes when it came to the interchange fee.It said that "in certain brands" - meaning American Express and Diners Club - it secured price cuts of merchant fees of 50 per cent.Woolworths backed an RBA-imposed cap on surcharging, if one is needed at all, rather than one supervised by American Express, Diners, MasterCard and Visa.In its submission, Visa asked for a return to the "no surcharging" rule thrown out by the RBA eight years ago. As an alternative, Visa said it favours caps managed by each scheme. It said that in its case it would seek to prevent surcharging on "card not present" transactions by merchants when there was no other genuine payment option on offer.