logo
Huge problem with major payment change coming to Australia exposed - and why it's bad news for those who pay cash

Huge problem with major payment change coming to Australia exposed - and why it's bad news for those who pay cash

Daily Mail​16-07-2025
A cash expert has exposed a major problem with the Reserve Bank's proposed ban on surcharge fees on debit and credit card transactions.
The Reserve Bank of Australia's review of merchant card payment costs recommends the fees be scrapped on EFTPOS, Mastercard and Visa card transactions because they don't help consumers.
It said lowering the cap on fees paid by businesses would save Australians $1.2billion or $60 for every card-using adult.
But cash campaigner Jason Bryce, 58, has called the plan a 'disaster,' claiming it paves the way for hidden costs to be quietly baked into product prices.
'They're going to hide that cost and everybody's going to pay and it doesn't matter whether you bring a card, a phone or cash to the shop.'
Mr Bryce, who started a campaign during the Covid pandemic to give a voice to Australians who rely on cash, said the RBA proposal is 'un-Australian'.
He said the current system was fairer because it clearly separated card fees from the cost of goods.
Under that system, Australians who paid with cash or bank transfer avoided the extra surcharge, while only those who chose to pay with a debit or credit card were charged the additional fee.
'These card surcharges are uniquely Australian. The Reserve Bank has caved in to Visa and Mastercard.'
He explained that if card fees are banned, the cost won't disappear - it will just be included in the overall price of goods.
That means all Australians who pay cash will be footing the bill for the perks enjoyed by credit card users, like reward points, free gifts, and luxury travel deals.
'Ordinary people are going to be paying for the rich's benefits, the holidays, the concierge service, the free gifts,' he told Daily Mail Australia.
'The card schemes have got everything they've ever wanted.
'They're going to hide that cost and everybody's going to pay and it doesn't matter whether you bring a card, a phone or cash to the shop.'
The Australian Restaurant and Cafe Association slapped down the proposal, and suggested the 'tone deaf' policy would simply drive up menu prices.
'Who the hell does the RBA think will bear the cost of this ridiculous decision?' chief executive Wes Lambert said.
'A blanket ban on surcharging will undermine small businesses, reduce price transparency and mandate price hikes across every menu in Australia.'
Consumers are estimated to pay $1.2billion in surcharges on payments each year, the equivalent of $60 per card-using adult.
The fee is paid by a business to a customer's card issuer when a transaction occurs, with some passing that fee onto the customer.
Some Aussies argue the current system is more transparent, as card fees are visible and sometimes avoidable by paying cash
The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia said businesses would just raise their prices and the changes would hide, rather than remove, surcharges.
The Independents Payment Forum - a body that represents small businesses including retailers, cafes, service stations and convenience stores - said other merchant fees would still eat into profit margins.
'The proposed regulatory options fail small businesses and the local communities they serve,' co-founder Bradford Kelly said.
'They benefit big business, big banks and big offshore companies.'
The RBA's proposals go further than previous federal government suggestions and are likely to be pushed through by the central bank, pending the outcome of a short feedback window.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers had said the government was prepared to ban fees on debit card transactions from the start of 2026.
But the RBA has included credit cards.
The government will consider the recommendation, but Dr Chalmers on Tuesday noted the RBA expected to be able to make the changes under its existing powers.
The central bank proposed removing prohibitions on 'no surcharge' rules to achieve scrapping the fees.
It expected the card networks would then follow by implementing 'no surcharge' rules based on historical experience and arrangements in other jurisdictions.
If that did not occur, the RBA would recommend the government legislate to ban surcharge fees.
Canstar data insights director Sally Tindall said consumers were fed up with being slugged with extra fees at the checkout.
'Our research shows the vast majority of Australians want this annoying bugbear off their backs for good,' she said.
Banks and other payment systems backed the changes because they kept pace with the reality of the modern-day transaction.
'It makes sense that consumers know the final price before they get to the checkout,' an Australian Banking Association spokesperson said.
'Banks will work with the government to provide Australians with more certainty and transparency on the costs of digital payments.'
RBA governor Michele Bullock said consumers and businesses would benefit as fewer and fewer Australians made cash payments.
'The time has come to address some of these high costs and inefficiencies in the system,' she said.
Lowering the cap on interchange fees by businesses is predicted to benefit small businesses the most, because they often pay higher fees.
The central bank found small businesses would be $185 million better off under the changes, with 90 per cent of them benefiting.
Better transparency achieved by forcing card networks and large acquirers to publish what fees they are charging has also been recommended to foster competition between networks.
Any changes won't kick in until July 2026.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive: Mexico's antitrust watchdog accuses banks of joint price fixing
Exclusive: Mexico's antitrust watchdog accuses banks of joint price fixing

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Exclusive: Mexico's antitrust watchdog accuses banks of joint price fixing

MEXICO CITY, July 25 (Reuters) - Mexico's antitrust watchdog COFECE has found that 21 banks and financial institutions operating in the country are likely responsible for fixing fees related to deferred credit card payments, according to a document produced by the government agency that was seen by Reuters. The 649-page document outlining the findings and listing the institutions and individuals allegedly involved includes the Mexican subsidiaries of HSBC (HSBA.L), opens new tab, Santander ( opens new tab and Scotiabank ( opens new tab. The document indicates that, based on preliminary findings, there is sufficient evidence to presume the parties may have engaged in anti-competitive conduct. COFECE began the investigation in 2022, saying at the time it was looking into suspected monopolistic practices, including price-fixing and manipulation in the market for deferred credit card payments, by which the cost of a purchase can be spread over several months. The antitrust authority alleges the institutions met regularly to set surcharges for merchants, which were then formalized in regulations and collectively enforced, while also excluding some merchants from the market. The banks listed in the document are being notified of the findings, the document says, marking the start of a trial-like phase in which the parties can present evidence and arguments in their defense before the watchdog's plenary issues a final resolution. It is unclear what the penalty would be if the allegations are upheld. By law, it can impose fines as high as 10% of a company's annual Mexican earnings. COFECE's remit is limited to issuing fines. It does not have the power to prosecute, but can file class-action lawsuits and submit reports to prosecutors who can initiate legal proceedings. Some of the other institutions cited are: Red Amigo DAL; Banco Mercantil del Norte; Banco Nacional del Ejercito, Fuerza Aerea y Armada; Servicios Financieros Soriana; Banco Regional; Banco INVEX, and Banco Azteca. Others include Banca Afirme; Banca Mifel; Tarjetas del Futuro; Liverpool PC; Banco del Bajio ( opens new tab; Banco Inbursa ( opens new tab; Klar Technologies; Crediclub; Oplay Digital Services; Caja Morelia Valladolid and Banco Ahorro Famsa. COFECE and the banks did not immediately respond to requests for comment. COFECE has previously targeted other major industries in high-profile actions. In August 2021, the agency fined five pharmaceutical distributors and 21 individuals roughly 903 million pesos ($48.65 million) for a decade of fixing prices and restricting the supply of essential medicines between 2006 and 2016. In October 2022, it imposed over 2.4 billion pesos in fines on more than 50 liquefied petroleum gas distributors across several states, finding evidence of coordinated price manipulation and market division. ($1 = 18.5605 Mexican pesos)

Economists doubt Trump outlook that US will sell 'so much' beef to Australia
Economists doubt Trump outlook that US will sell 'so much' beef to Australia

Reuters

time2 hours ago

  • Reuters

Economists doubt Trump outlook that US will sell 'so much' beef to Australia

WASHINGTON/CANBERRA/CHICAGO, July 24 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States would sell "so much" beef to Australia after Canberra relaxed import restrictions on Thursday, but economists and traders said that high prices and tight supplies make major American exports unlikely. Australia said it would loosen biosecurity rules for U.S. beef. The move will not significantly increase U.S. shipments, though, because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower, analysts said. U.S. companies export small quantities of beef to Australian buyers. They import much more in the form of lean beef used to make hamburgers, particularly as U.S. production has declined due to tight cattle supplies. U.S. beef prices set records this year and the number of beef cattle fell to the lowest level since 1961 after ranchers slashed their herds due to drought that burned up pasturelands used for grazing. A ban on cattle imports from Mexico because of New World screwworm, a devastating livestock pest, and steep tariffs on Brazilian beef that are set to take effect on Aug. 1 could further tighten supplies, and require additional imports of Australian beef. "We can't get enough beef in the U.S. right now, so we're bringing it in from Australia and Brazil," said Dan Norcini, an independent U.S. livestock trader. "We're not going to be selling anything significant to anyone." Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $2.9 billion to the United States, with just 269 tons of U.S. product moving the other way. "They have more cattle than people," said David Anderson, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University. "That's why they export so much." U.S. and Australian beef also taste different. Many Australians like the grass-fed beef raised there, not marbled beef from U.S.-raised cattle that are generally fed with grain, said Jerry Klassen, chief analyst for Resilient Capital in Winnipeg. He predicted the United States will not export substantial amounts of beef to Australia in the next five years. "We just aren't in a position to export much beef to anyone, and the reality is Australia doesn't really have much need for U.S. beef," said Karl Setzer, partner at Consus Ag. The barriers that remain to exporting significant volumes of U.S. beef to Australia appeared to be lost on Trump this week. "We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that U.S. Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE." Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterisation many economists dispute. "For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on U.S. beef," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for U.S. farmers and ranchers." Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of U.S. biosecurity practices. Canberra has restricted U.S. beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico. The U.S. sources some of its feeder cattle from the two neighboring countries. On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said U.S. cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States. The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector. "We need to know if (the government) is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement. Australia faces a 10% across-the-board U.S. tariff, as well 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure." "We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway."

NSW real estate agents threaten renters with fees if they are not home for tradespeople – but legally they don't have to be
NSW real estate agents threaten renters with fees if they are not home for tradespeople – but legally they don't have to be

The Guardian

time3 hours ago

  • The Guardian

NSW real estate agents threaten renters with fees if they are not home for tradespeople – but legally they don't have to be

New South Wales real estate agents are threatening renters with fees as high as $330 if they are not at home to let maintenance workers in, despite there being no legal requirement for renters to personally allow entry. On 8 July, Lauren Gillin's agency told her she needed to be home during a two-and-a-half-hour window seven days from that date to allow access for a smoke alarm inspector or pay a $90 fee. 'Please make yourself available, this inspection is compulsory, and access must be provided,' Gillin's property manager at Rich & Oliva said in a letter seen by Guardian Australia. 'Should access not be made available, a fee of $90 will be incurred for re-inspection.' In a statement, a NSW Fair Trading spokesperson said real estate agents must provide two days' notice for 'non-urgent repairs or inspection of a smoke alarm'. However, 'there is no requirement for the tenant to be in the property for the inspection,' the spokesperson confirmed. Further, 'the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) limits fees and charges a landlord or agent can ask a tenant to pay, with only certain payments such as rent, rental bond and other prescribed fees allowed to be charged'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Gillin, a media manager at a community legal centre who lives in Haberfield in Sydney's inner west, said she was disappointed by the letter. 'It's an unreasonable request to be home for 2.5 hours on a weekday.' Tenants of an apartment block in the city's eastern suburbs received a similar notice from a different real estate agency, which Guardian Australia has chosen not to identify because renters said they were worried about the potential consequences. That agency wrote to the tenants in June, in an email seen by Guardian Australia, telling them they needed to be home on a day late that month between 9.30am and 10.30am for a mandatory fire safety inspection. The email warned that any failure to give access to the home would result in a re-inspection fee of $330 and advised the tenants to organise someone on their behalf to allow access if they could not do so. The Tenants' Union of NSW chief executive officer, Leo Patterson Ross, said the $90 charge Gillin faced did not 'strictly have any basis' because the agent or landlord could still give access to the smoke alarm inspector by organising entry. 'As long as the tenant hasn't actively prevented them from entering the property, then there's no basis for that charge,' he said. Patterson Ross said the $330 fee faced by residents of the eastern suburbs apartment block was 'pretty much the exact same situation' – there was no legal basis for the charge. 'The agent, probably, in a building like that where there's a lot of people, they don't want to spend their whole day walking around all the apartments,' he said. 'But there's nothing stopping them from doing that.' Patterson Ross said more than 2,100 people contacted the tenants' union in 2024 for advice about access issues. He said he regularly spoke to renters who had been threatened with fees for supposedly not allowing access to their homes, who assumed the charges were legitimate. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'No one's told the agent they can't do it and it becomes normal and then they train other people and it becomes process without anyone really checking whether it's compliant with the law,' Patterson Ross said. 'Generally, a lot of the pressure of enforcing the legislation is falling on the tenant at the moment.' Gillin said she tried to raise her concerns with one of the Rich & Olivia staff members, but did not feel the issue was resolved. The company did not respond to Guardian Australia's request for comment. On 8 July, Gillin lodged a complaint with the agency. In the email, seen by Guardian Australia, Gillin said her experience with the agency had otherwise 'been really positive' which made the letter she got from them 'all the more surprising'. She followed up on 9 July, citing legal advice she had received from the tenants' union and the NSW rental commissioner, Trina Jones, that she did not need to be at home during a smoke alarm inspection. Jones told Guardian Australia that a fee for not being present during a smoke alarm inspection could not legally be passed on to tenants. She said the state's rental taskforce – which was created earlier this year – contacted Gillin's agent to advise them of their responsibilities under the law and make clear the charge was not permitted. 'Illegal fees and charges remain an issue in the sector,' Jones said. 'Since January, the Rental Taskforce has overseen refunds of $165,303 to renters who were charged unlawful fees.' On Wednesday, Gillin said the smoke alarm technician let her know they had got a key from the agency to let themselves into the property. But she said the agency still had not responded to her complaint.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store