No more card surcharges: what the Reserve Bank's proposed changes mean for your wallet
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has proposed a sweeping reform: abolishing card payment surcharges. The central bank says it's in the public interest to scrap the system and estimates consumers could collectively save $1.2bn annually.
But like all major financial reforms, the devil is in the detail.
Surcharging was introduced more than two decades ago to expose the true cost of different payment methods. In the early 2000s, card fees were high, cash was king and surcharges helped nudge consumers towards lower-cost options.
But fast-forward to 2025, and the payments ecosystem has changed dramatically. Cash now accounts for just 13% of in-person transactions, and the shift to contactless payments, accelerated by the pandemic, has made cards the default for most Australians.
When there's no real alternative, a surcharge becomes less a useful price signal and more a penalty for convenience.
After an eight-month review, the bank's Payments System Board has concluded the surcharge model no longer works in a predominantly cashless economy. The proposal now on the table is to phase out surcharges and instead push for simplified, all-inclusive pricing.
At first glance, removing surcharges looks like a win for consumers. Every household could save about $60 per year, based on the RBA's estimates. But payment costs don't vanish – they shift.
This is where the Reserve Bank's proposal is more sophisticated than it may appear. Alongside banning surcharges, it plans to lower interchange fees (the fees merchants pay to card networks such as Visa and Mastercard) and introduce caps on international card transactions.
These changes aim to reduce the burden on merchants, which in turn limits the pressure to raise prices.
Some worry that without surcharges, businesses will simply embed the costs into product prices. That's possible. However, the bank estimates this would result in only a 0.1 percentage point increase in consumer prices overall.
There are three reasons for that:
Most merchants already don't surcharge, especially small businesses. Of them, 90% may have included card costs in their pricing.
Competition keeps pricing in check. Retailers in competitive markets can't raise prices without risking customers.
Transparency is coming. The reforms will require payment providers to disclose fees more clearly, allowing merchants to compare and switch – fostering more competition and lower costs.
That said, the effects won't be felt evenly. Merchants in sectors that do currently surcharge, including hospitality, transport and tourism, will need to rethink their pricing strategies. Some may absorb costs; others may pass them on.
Consumers stand to benefit most. They'll avoid surprise fees at checkout, won't need to switch payment methods to dodge surcharges and won't have to report excessive fees to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. Combined with lower interchange fees, this means consumers should face less friction and more predictable pricing.
About 90% of small businesses don't currently surcharge and would gain around $185m in net benefits. These businesses often pay higher interchange fees, so the reform will reduce their costs. New transparency requirements will also make it easier to find better deals from payment service providers (PSPs).
Large businesses already receive lower domestic interchange rates, but they'll benefit from new caps on foreign-issued card transactions, which is a win for those in e-commerce and tourism.
Banks that issue cards stand to lose about $900m in interchange revenue under the preferred reform package. Some may respond by raising cardholder fees or cutting rewards, especially on premium credit cards. But they may also gain from increased credit card use as surcharges disappear.
The 10% of small and 12% of large merchants who currently surcharge will have to adjust. They may face retraining costs and need to revise their pricing strategies. Most will be able to adapt, but the transition won't be cost-free.
Payment service providers will face about $25m in compliance costs to remove surcharges and provide clearer fee breakdowns. For some, this may involve significant system changes, though one-off in nature.
The Reserve Bank's proposal tackles real problems: an outdated surcharge model, opaque pricing by payment service providers, and bundling of unrelated services into payment fees. Its success depends on how well these reforms are implemented and whether they deliver real price transparency and lower costs.
Removing visible price signals may create cross-subsidisation, where users of low-cost debit cards subsidise those who use high-cost rewards credit cards. Some economists argue this could reduce overall efficiency in the system.
International experience offers mixed lessons. While the European Union and United Kingdom banned most surcharges years ago, outcomes have varied depending on market conditions. Efficiency gains haven't always followed, and small business concerns persist.
The Reserve Bank is seeking feedback until 26 August, with a final decision due by year-end. If adopted, the reform will be phased in, allowing time for businesses to adapt.
For consumers, this may mark the end of hidden payment fees. But for the broader system, success will depend on more than just eliminating surcharges. It will require meaningful competition, transparency and vigilance during the transition.
While not a major omission, mobile wallets (such as Apple Pay) and Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services represent a missing component in the broader payments ecosystem that the current reforms do not yet address.
These platforms operate outside the traditional regulatory framework, often imposing higher merchant fees and lacking the transparency applied to card networks.
Their growing popularity, especially among younger consumers, means they increasingly shape payment behaviour and merchant cost structures. To build a truly future-ready and equitable payments system, these emerging models may need to be brought into the regulatory fold.
Angel Zhong is a professor of finance at RMIT University
This article was originally published in the Conversation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Shoddy work and rogue tradies: the home repair practices targeting vulnerable Australians
When Jane was quoted about $20,000 to get the power put back on at her mother's property, she balked. 'He said the whole house needs to be rewired,' Jane said. 'He had the iPad out and said 'I'll need you to sign here'. I know my mum doesn't have that kind of money. I asked why it would cost so much. 'They said something like 'this quote will expire, you need to sign now or we can't get started and you won't have electricity'.' Jane – who didn't want her real name used – didn't cave to the urgency. Instead, she got someone else to do the job for about $3,500. But Jane is furious that had she not been there, her 78-year-old mother would have faced the pressure. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Consumer groups and state government authorities around the country have warned of a variety of concerning practices and tactics by tradespeople, including: Targeting vulnerable, often older people, or those affected by natural disasters. Fearmongering by pretending a problem is urgent and potentially disastrous. Using threatening behaviour to coerce people. Overcharging and upselling unnecessary work. Operating under dozens, even hundreds of names to influence internet search results, hiding from bad reviews and providing multiple quotes that appear to be from different companies. The company Jane asked to quote trades under almost 200 names across all states and territories and offers a range of services including hot water repair and electrical work. The Council on the Ageing Australia says it has had 'troubling reports' about tradies targeting older people. 'Unfortunately, older people are targeted as they're more likely to be home during the day, and these scammers are quick to take advantage of this,' the council's acting chief executive, Corey Irlam, said. 'If someone shows up unannounced, uses high-pressure tactics, or demands upfront payment for a job, that's a red flag.' The New South Wales government has warned about 'unlicensed trades and scams' after floods. Building Commission NSW has received 157 reports of unlicensed or unregistered trade work since the beginning of 2025. This month, Consumer Protection Western Australia said 'dodgy door knockers' were targeting homes to carry out 'shoddy roof repairs'. 'These con men move from town to town using high-pressure tactics to push overpriced roof restoration jobs – often delivering little to no actual work,' the agency said. One elderly couple was approached by two men who said their roof needed repairs. The men began the job without a formal quote and the couple were told to deposit an $18,645 cheque. Another couple was 'coerced' into paying $2,145 'while the man stood over them during the bank transfer', the agency said. The agency also warned about 'rogue elements' in plumbing and electrical trades who 'exaggerate necessity for extra work and costs'. The South Australian consumer and business affairs minister, Andrea Michaels, said the department had fielded numerous complaints where 'customers feel they have been quoted excessive amounts, feel they have been told they need work done that they do not, or feel they have been pressured into agreeing to high-priced work'. Examples provided included $1,000 to fix a leaking tap; $1,000 for a valve that another plumber said should have cost $90; an elderly customer charged $2,500 for an air conditioning part worth less than $100; and more than $2,000 to replace a shower head. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion In another case, according to Michaels, a customer was charged $10,000 to unblock a drain and install replacement concrete, but was then advised by another plumber that the concrete work was not needed and the drain could be unblocked for a few hundred dollars. Earlier this month Queensland's Office of Fair Trading warned some tradies with a 'blatant disregard for the law' were taking large sums of money without providing the promised goods and services. Consumer Affairs Victoria said 'fake tradies' or 'travelling con men' might offer to do work then 'disappear with your money, leaving unfinished or substandard work, if they start work at all'. The Master Plumbers Association (SA) chief executive officer, Andrew Clarke, said people looking for a tradie should ask family or friends for recommendations. Searching on an industry association website instead of trusting search engines was also a good idea, he said. 'If you're using a member of an association, you then have the right to complain to the association,' he said. Experts say people should seek multiple quotes – ensuring they're from genuinely different companies – check licensing and accreditation of tradies and resist pressure to sign contracts even in emergency situations. Jane said she had dealt with hundreds of maintenance people in her life, but the experience with her mother's house was different. 'They were basically in my face trying to get me to sign,' she said. 'What if my mum, not understanding, signed on the iPad? She would have been up for a massive bill. 'They're taking advantage of vulnerable people.' Do you know more? Contact
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Victorian regulator weighs unprecedented intervention in AFL's fight with bookmakers over gambling revenue
The Victorian gambling regulator is considering whether to make an unprecedented intervention in a dispute between the AFL and bookmakers, which could set a limit on the league's revenue from wagering. Earlier this year, the AFL proposed a significant increase to the amount of money it receives from each bet placed on its game. The league also proposed a minimum $20,000 annual fee for all bookmakers, including small operators who focus on racing. Leaked documents seen by Guardian Australia revealed the cash grab was justified as a way to address what AFL executives termed an 'unprecedented' increase in 'integrity risks' posed by the wagering industry, which has exploded in popularity in recent years. The documents outlined concerns the AFL's integrity system was seriously deficient and struggled to identify whether players, coaches and staff were using inside information to manipulate betting markets, in breach of their contracts. Bookmakers opposed to the increase were told they needed accept it before the season began, or be banned from taking bets on the sport. By law, all bookmakers must have an agreement with a sport's governing body. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email When the increase was first proposed, several gambling companies described it as 'unsustainable' and said it could cripple smaller operators willing to pay their 'fair share' to support integrity measures. Some bookmakers have told Guardian Australia they increased financial inducements – such as bonus bets or bet-matching – to encourage people to spend more money, despite knowing this could increase harm. In June 2023, a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling called for financial inducementsto be banned. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) has confirmed it is assessing an application to intervene in the dispute and make a determination about the AFL's conduct and the reasonableness of its fees. The application was made by an unnamed bookmaker. Before making a decision to intervene, the regulator must assess whether both parties have engaged in genuine negotiations. It must also assess whether a resolution is possible without the regulator's involvement. It has been assessing the application for more than two months. The regulator has the power to ask for information from the AFL, recover costs for any investigation, and make compulsory determinations to settle the dispute. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'Previous applications received by the VGCCC did not meet the criteria for a determination as outlined in legislation,' a spokesperson for the regulator said. Two sources at established bookmakers who were not authorised to comment publicly said a determination could set a limit on how much money the AFL could make from gambling. They said a determination could also impact future negotiations. Lachlan Gepp, an expert gambling and sports rights lawyer at Addisons, which has represented bookmakers, said product fees had become 'uncommercial and unreasonable' in recent years. The fees were introduced in the early 2000s. 'It should be remembered that the laws requiring betting integrity agreements were introduced in Victorian and New South Wales betting legislation to coincide with the blow-up of corporate online bookmaking and to provide funds to the AFL to administer an integrity concern that otherwise did not exist,' Gepp said. 'Make no mistake: in 2025, product fees have been morphed into a tax strategy designed to play catchup to the NRL and positioned by AFL spin doctors to solve an invisible growth in betting integrity issues.' The AFL has argued the integrity challenges are real and serious. Its correspondence outlining the increase to bookmakers did not mention commercial objectives. 'If the VGCCC determines that the product fee rate sought by the AFL is unreasonable or an overreach in terms of what the law is designed to do, then that outcome has been a long time coming for the online wagering industry,' Gepp said. The AFL declined to comment. One relatively small bookmaker, who declined to be named because of the commercial sensitivity of the issue, and so that they could speak freely, said they had increased inducements in response to the AFL's proposal. 'We will need to introduce additional incentives, not because we want to, but because the market demands it. Without them, we may not be able to keep the business running,' the bookmaker said. In Australia, Gambling Help Online is available on 1800 858 858. The National Debt Helpline is at 1800 007 007
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Qantas blunder ruins couple's overseas holiday - weeks after the airline was rocked by a massive cyber attack affecting six million customers
An Australian businessman and his wife suffered a nightmare end to their US holiday courtesy of a bizarre and infuriating Qantas blunder. Craig Badings and his wife Margo had booked a long-haul flight leaving Los Angeles on Tuesday and were due to arrive back in Sydney on Thursday. They never made the flight because Qantas told them it had been it had been cancelled. The only problem was, according to Mr Badings, it hadn't been at all. Mr Badings said the flight took off when it was supposed to, just as they were making their way back from the airport after turning around due to the cancellation message. The principal at public relations firm SenateSHJ said he and his wife were instead stranded in LA. 'The best Qantas can offer us is a flight on Friday via Dallas to Sydney arriving Sunday morning - three days later than scheduled,' Mr Badings said. The initial test and email the couple got from Qantas told them that their flight - QF12 - had been 'delayed' and would be instead be leaving on Thursday. They were later told Qantas had failed to book them seats on the Thursday flight, resulting in the offer of leaving on Friday. After much back-and-forth with the airline the couple were eventually booked on a replacement flight a little earlier on Thursday morning. 'It's all been a bit of a debacle,' Mr Badings told Daily Mail Australia. 'Even a few hours before the flight, when our travel agent was dealing with Qantas, they didn't alert him that the flight was still going ahead as scheduled. 'I'm not sure whether this was related to the (recent) cyber incident, poor planning on Qantas' part, or just poor communications and a genuine mix up.' Mr Badings said the booking for their rescheduled flight on the 17th had disappeared from his Qantas app, meaning at one stage they weren't on any flights at all. 'Ten hours of calls to Qantas US (no help at all), the 24-7 Qantas number and we were finally booked via Dallas to Sydney on the 19th, arriving on Sunday the 20th. They said we couldn't get on the flight on the 17th,' he said. 'Then, when Australia woke up, we called our agent again and a few hours later we were informed we are indeed on the 10am flight (on the 17th).' With 30 years' experience advising major corporations and senior executives about communication and brand reputation, Mr Badings had some advice for the embattled national carrier. 'The message to Qantas would simply be over-communication in these situations,' he said. 'Not knowing and being able to get hold of someone when you are thousands of kilometres from home isn't great. And then keep us informed along the way.' Mr Badings urged fellow Qantas passengers to learn from his lesson and double check that cancellation texts and emails are valid. 'The message to others would be to call Qantas immediately and if in any doubt, go to the airport and speak to them in person,' he said. 'If we had done that, we would have been on the flight.' A Qantas spokesperson confirmed the mix-up was the result of an 'administrative error'. 'We sincerely apologise to Mr and Mrs Badings and understand how frustrating this experience would have been,' they said. 'The SMS sent to Mr Badings was a result of an administrative error and we are investigating how this occurred to ensure it doesn't happen again. 'The error is not related to the recent cyber incident. 'We have contacted Mr and Mrs Badings and rebooked them on the first available direct flight from Los Angeles to Sydney.' The couple will be compensated for any additional travel costs. The blunder comes after the airline fell victim to a cyber attack on June 30. Qantas was granted an interim injunction in the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday to stop the compromised data of customers being accessed or released following the hack. The records of 5.7million Qantas customers were impacted when a third-party system used by an offshore call centre was hacked. The names, email addresses and frequent flyer details of four million customers were exposed. The remaining 1.7 million customers had more data taken, including their dates of birth, phone numbers, personal or business addresses, gender and meal preferences, prompting an apology from Qantas boss Vanessa Hudson. The airline has confirmed there was no evidence of any personal data being released, and no credit card or passport details or personal financial information had been accessed. 'In an effort to further protect affected customers, the airline has today obtained an interim injunction in the NSW Supreme Court to prevent the stolen data from being accessed, viewed, released, used, transmitted or published by anyone, including by any third parties,' a Qantas statement said on Thursday. 'We want to do all we can to protect our customers' personal information and believe this was an important next course of action.'
