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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How just 15 undersea cables could leave Australia digitally stranded if war breaks out
Australia's former Deputy Secretary of Defence Mike Pezzullo has warned that the risk of war between China and Taiwan is growing rapidly - and if it breaks out, Australia will be forced to join in. 'We don't really have a choice,' he says. 'Our military, ports, bases, intelligence systems - they're all deeply tied to Americas,' he told 7News. Pezzullo also warned that Australia's internet could be crippled if conflict breaks out. He revealed the country is dangerously exposed, with 99 per cent of internet traffic funnelled through just 15 undersea cables. If they were destroyed by enemy submarines or unmanned vessels, the nation would be digitally isolated, opening the way for targeted strikes on military infrastructure. 'You'd want to ensure those are protected,' Mr Pezzullo said. 'But we have no missile defence systems. We're completely bereft in that area.' He also warned Australia's fuel security is dangerously fragile, with 90 per cent of oil and petrol coming through the South China Sea and only 60 days of reserves in storage. Australia's big-ticket defence projects, including AUKUS nuclear submarines and new frigates, are progressing, but Mr Pezzullo says they remain years away from completion. 'That technology is improving almost monthly, but we're playing catch-up.' Opponents of a harder stance on China point to the economic risks, but Mr Pezzullo claims that's a moot point: 'In a world war, every economy would suffer together.' He warned that defence funding must increase to three or even three-and-a-half per cent of GDP if Australia is serious about deterring adversaries. 'Plan A is always peace through diplomacy. But if you want peace, prepare for war.' He said Taiwan's defence spending, a little above two per cent of GDP, is nowhere near adequate for the threats it faces. His comments come as more than 30,000 personnel from 19 countries hone their skills in the biennial military exercise Talisman Sabre, including live-fire drills and air combat operations. The exercises are being held against the backdrop of the US pressing allies such as Australia to make clear what role they would play in a real conflict, like a potential war between America and China over Taiwan. The US is also carrying out a review of the AUKUS security pact. Defence analysts say it's unlikely the review would result in the $368 billion submarine program being scrapped altogether, it may mean more demands of Australia to contribute to America's industrial base. The military drills off the coast are also expected to be monitored by China, as it has for the past four Talisman Sabre exercises.


Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
UN urges Australia to step up climate action
SYDNEY, July 28 (Reuters) - The United Nations climate chief has called on Australia to set an ambitious 2035 emissions target and accelerate its clean energy transition, warning a failure to act risks eroding living standards and regional stability. Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said Australia should "go for what's smart by going big". "Don't settle for what's easy. Bog standard is beneath you," he said at a Smart Energy Council event in Sydney. Australia faces scrutiny for backing new fossil fuel projects while seeking to co-host the UN COP31 climate summit with the Pacific next year. The centre-left Labor government, which took power in 2022 with a mandate to reduce carbon emissions, cleared the country's largest gas plant to run until 2070 in May – a decision that critics said called into question Australia's commitment to tackling climate change. Australia is also among the highest polluting countries per capita due to its coal power generation. Consultancy Wood Mackenzie has projected Australia is set to fall far short of its target of 82% renewable generation by 2030 due to state-level rollbacks, grid connection delays and inadequate investment. Stiell said the country's 2035 emissions reduction target, due in September, would be a 'defining moment' that could send a message that 'this country is open for clean investment, trade, and long-term partnerships'. Australia also had the opportunity to become a global leader in renewables and that 'doubling down on clean energy is an economic no-brainer', he said. He warned that a lack of action would erode living standards and destabilise Australia's neighbours in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, which were more susceptible to rising sea levels and extreme weather. 'This is the moment: to get behind a climate plan that doesn't just write that vision into policy – but delivers in spades for your people,' Stiell said.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I ordered an everyday item of clothing from overseas when it was seized at the Australian border... then came the $2,500 bill to get it back
An Australian business owner has lashed out after his clothing shipment was seized at the border and he was forced to pay more than $2,500 before he could get it back. Andy Lowry, who runs clothing store Pamboes, had ordered a shipment of 'blanket hoodies' from China before they were withheld by the Australian Border Force. Authorities had searched the clothing for illegal materials, however they found nothing suspicious inside of them. Mr Lowry was slugged with a $2,524 bill for airport storage fees and informed he would not be able to collect the items until he settled it. 'Apparently because I'm the importer on record, I had to pay that $2,524 bill and they pretty much told me to get stuffed,' he said. 'This is like the cost of doing business essentially.' Mr Lowry claimed the seizure put him behind schedule for marketing the new clothes. 'I can confirm that [Master Air Waybill number] is subject to border processing and we're unable to provide a timeframe as to when it may be available,' an official advised in an email. 'At this point I'm getting stressed cause they like can't give me a timeframe. I'm like how long are they going to keep it for?' Mr Lowry said. In correspondence from the ABF, Mr Lowry was told he could not collect his items until he paid to lift the storage fees. He believed it would cost a few hundred dollars. 'After I wait a week and a half, I get my storage charges and it's storage for $2,524. For what? A hoodie?' Mr Lowry said. 'Then I sort of had this huge back and forth on why I'm having to pay for this, and lo and behold, it is legal. 'The Australian Border Force can do that to any person who is importing.' Mr Lowry said to chase a reimbursement he was deferred to the Department of Home Affairs. He was told he would have to lodge an investigation and complain. Mr Lowry told Daily Mail Australia any fee 'coming out of nowhere' makes it 'tough' to do business. He said the 'seasonal' business relies on customers purchasing his products at the beginning of winter, and estimates the border mishap in June cost him dearly. Mr Lowry began selling the loungewear during the Covid pandemic before realising there was a market for 'blanket'-style clothes. 'This delay cost us two weeks in June, which would be above a six-figure loss in lost sales,' he said. 'Understandably customers do their winter shopping at the beginning of winter so they can get full use out of whatever they have bought.' When he tried to chase an investigation, Mr Lowry found there was no way around paying the fees, as the importer on record is liable for the costs. 'In the time Australian Border Force is checking your goods, your shipping company is forced to hold the goods at their warehouses until Australian Border Force is finished and storage charges are imposed,' he said. 'Some companies may be kind enough to waive these charges, but understandably they are a business too.' Mr Lowry said the costs around occupying commercial real estate are expensive as port space is in high demand. In general, importing can be 'quite difficult' he said. He added Pamboes has thankfully had few issues but acknowledged he had heard 'horror stories'. 'Border holds cost companies millions each year and it's not something you can really prepare for, it's almost a random check,' he said. 'We understand they have to keep our borders safe, but we pay taxes at the border. You would think part of those taxes we pay would cover ABF's work.' He said it hasn't put him off doing business as Pamboes moves into more fashionable blanket-wear and tries to sell off remaining stock in a winter sale.