RBA proposes ban on card surcharging
The Reserve Bank of Australia's review of merchant card payment costs recommends the fees be scrapped on EFTPOS, Mastercard and Visa card transactions as they don't help consumers make more efficient payment choices.
Lowering the cap on interchange fees paid by businesses - another recommendation of the paper - as well would save Australian $1.2 billion.
An interchange fee is paid by a business to a customer's card issuer when a transaction occurs.
The bank's proposals go further than what the federal government has previously suggested.
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.
Consumers are estimated to pay $1.2 billion in surcharges on payments each year, the equivalent of $60 per card-using adult.
Scrapping surcharges would also mean consumers don't need to switch between payment methods to try and avoid a fee, the report stated.
RBA Governor Michele Bullock said both consumers and businesses benefited from the proposal as fewer Australians make cash payments.
Customers would avoid paying surcharges, while businesses would no longer be forced to face high costs of accepting card payments.
'We think the time has come to address some of these high costs and inefficiencies in the system,' she said.
'The payments landscape is always evolving, and it's critically important that we keep pace to ensure it remains safe, competitive and efficient.'
The RBA proposed removing its own prohibition 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 federal government legislate to ban surcharge fees.
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, in a bid for better competition between the networks.
Ms Bullock predicted the proposals would spark much discussion particularly among businesses that do surcharge, prompting a six-week consultation period on their plan.
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
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
If the economics of broadening or lifting Australia's GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous
When Jim Chalmers declared we needed a national debate on reforming the economy to drive the next generation of prosperity, he scolded the media for its penchant for playing the rule-in-rule-out game. The irony is that from his high horse, the treasurer had almost certainly ruled out one major change: lifting or broadening the GST. If Chalmers is being disingenuous when he suggests nothing is off the table at next month's talkfest – and he absolutely is – then he should have ruled out changes to the consumption tax from the very start. Many economists argue that lifting or broadening the GST is an essential ingredient in any reform package that fundamentally improves the efficiency of the tax system. More GST revenue can pay for cuts to income and company tax rates, for example. This shift provides a structurally more stable tax revenue base, and sharpens incentives to work and invest. Labor as a party, however, is fundamentally opposed to changing the tax on consumption on the basis that it hurts poorer Australians. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the worry about fairness is real. New analysis by the ANU's Ben Phillips shows that the GST is 'highly regressive'. Phillips' modelling shows the bottom fifth of income earners pay 5.4% of their income on consumption taxes. That's more than twice as much as the top 20% of households, where GST accounts for 2.6% of disposable income. Broadening the GST to include the things currently excluded – such as fresh food and education – makes the tax even more regressive. Phillips finds consumption taxes as a share of household budgets climbs to 7.9% for the lowest incomes, and 3.5% for those at the top. 'I think equity concerns are spot on,' Phillips says. 'There would have to be a complicated new approach to compensation for lower and middle income workers to make it politically feasible. 'We would be relying on there being some substantial economic gains from increasing the GST, and they are probably relatively modest.' If the economics of broadening or lifting the GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous. The first hurdle is the most obvious: the states get the revenue, while the commonwealth cops the heat. Even if the Albanese government could agree with its state and territory counterparts to share the proceeds, there is also the issue that the GST distribution system has been fundamentally undermined by the obscenely generous deal with Western Australia, the country's richest state. As such, a bigger GST pile without getting rid of this distortion would simply exacerbate what Saul Eslake has called 'possibly the worst public policy decision of the 21st century'. Which begs the question: can we get meaningful tax reform without lifting the GST? Ken Henry, who authored a major tax paper in 2010 and is considered the country's high priest of reform, argues that 'tax reform cannot be done piecemeal; a big package will be required'. He recently told The Conversation's Michelle Grattan 'it would be better not to constrain the reform process by ruling out the GST'. 'Having said that, I do think it's possible to achieve major reform of the Australian taxation system without necessarily increasing the rate or extending the base of the GST.' Such reforms could be paid for via higher taxes on natural resources, and on wealth and savings – both on capital gains and income from that capital (think property investments and superannuation). Chalmers' narrative for the reform roundtable apparently leans into Henry's view around some kind of tax 'grand bargain'. But again, the treasurer's ambition is much more narrow. He has famously described his approach to reform as 'bite-sized chunks', and defended his policy initiatives since coming to power as 'modest but meaningful'. In fact, the most obvious next steps for Labor when it comes to tax is reforming the treatment of family trusts, and introducing a road user charge to replace dwindling fuel excise revenue. Whether we need another roundtable to get there is an open question. Viva Hammer, who played a key role in designing America's immense Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, had some advice for policymakers. Speaking at a tax roundtable organised by the independent MP Allegra Spender, Hammer said the ambition should be 'to think about doing something better, and not something perfect, because perfection is for the angels'. Breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, the independent economist Chris Richardson's advice is 'let's just stop doing dumb things'. Speaking at the same event in Parliament House on Friday, Richardson said his number one 'dumb thing' is how we tax gas through the petroleum rent resources tax (PRRT). Australia over recent years has become a gas superpower. And yet, incredibly, the tax take has not changed at all, Richardson says. Labor's tweaks to the PRRT have not changed this reality – as Richardson says, the forecasts for revenue from this tax are a 'big fat nothing' in future years. 'Some people say you can't change because there would be some 'sovereign risk',' he said, referring to the claims that altering these rules puts off foreign investors and can choke off funding for the industry. 'Sovereign risk is where one side gets next to nothing across a long period of time, and our own stupidity has got us there, and we should do better.' Richardson believes we are also not charging banks enough for the implicit 'too big to fail' insurance provided by taxpayers. The two suggestions, he said, could raise $5-6bn a year.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Australia's 'biggest brown-noser' politician named on protest sculpture - as Albanese government signs AUKUS deal with the UK
A provocative piece of street art has taken aim at federal Defence Minister Richard Marles, labelling him 'Australia's biggest brown–noser'. The crude installation, spotted outside his Geelong electorate office on Saturday, featured a large sculpted nose smeared with what appeared to be fake faeces. There was also a pile of 'faeces' resting on a sign which said: 'This memorial erected by The New Radicals in honour of Australia's biggest brown-noser Richard Marles.' It was chained to a nearby post in the city's CBD before disappearing by 5pm, and images of the artwork were shared on social media by the activist group. Australians praised the artwork as 'incredible', with one user on X quipping: 'The drips on the ground are what makes it.' The New Radicals have previously claimed responsibility for similar stunts in the same location, including a mock submarine called 'HMAS Richard'. The submarine are understood to have been a reference to those promised to Australia in the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the United States. Meanwhile, the latest piece of art coincided with Marles' formal signing of a historic bilateral security pact with the UK on Saturday. The deal, dubbed the 'Geelong Treaty', was signed in the city to represent a 50-year co-operation arrangement between the two allies under the AUKUS banner. Marles described the agreement as a transformational moment for the nation's defence and industry: 'In doing this, AUKUS will see 20,000 jobs in Australia.' 'It will see, in building submarines in this country, the biggest industrial endeavour in our nation's history, bigger even than the Snowy Hydro scheme. 'In military terms, what it will deliver is the biggest leap in Australia's military capability, really, since the formation of the navy back in 1913.' The announcement followed the annual AUKMIN talks in Sydney, with Marles and UK Defence Secretary John Healey celebrating the deal with a beer at a Geelong brewery. It came just days after the Albanese Government transferred a further $800million to the United States under the AUKUS program, despite the agreement being under a review ordered by US President Donald Trump. 'There is a schedule of payments to be made, we have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC's Afternoon Briefing on Wednesday. 'It is about increasing their industrial capacity, and as part of that, we have Australians on the ground, learning the skills so that when it comes to the SSN–AUKUS—the submarines being built here in Australia, we have those skills.' The AUKUS deal includes Australia acquiring eight nuclear–powered submarines expected to cost between $268billion and $368billion over the next three decades. Despite internal unrest, with several local Labor branches voting to oppose the deal over the previous months across the country, the government has remained firm in its support for AUKUS. The timing of the expected conclusion of the US review into AUKUS remains unclear. It is being led by Elbridge Colby, who has publicly expressed scepticism about the pact and warned it could leave American sailors exposed and under-resourced. Daily Mail Australia has contacted Marles' office for comment on the artwork.
Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Telegraph
The alternatives to Amex that offer better rewards
American Express (Amex) is synonymous with credit card spending but it's also known for its deals that offer generous cashback, points-based rewards and exclusive perks including priority access to gigs, film screenings and theatre shows. But while these rewards can be appealing, Amex isn't always the best option. While acceptance has improved over the last few years, Amex cards are still not accepted by all retailers. If your aim is to earn reward points or cashback, this will be hindered if some of your favourite places to spend don't accept your card. There can also be incredibly high repayment rates and fees – with the Amex Platinum card charging 691.7pc APR variable, along with £650 a year in annual fees. This means there are more eligibility criteria to fulfil than with other credit cards. For example, you'll usually need a good or excellent credit rating, and some cards will also have a minimum income requirement – in the case of Amex Platinum, you must earn at least £35,000 and have 'no history of bad debt'. With that in mind, Telegraph Money looks at some of the best alternatives to Amex, depending on what you value most from your card – whether it's cashback, rewards, low-cost borrowing or fee-free spending abroad. Best for rewards Some Amex credit cards enable you to earn Avios points that can be redeemed on British Airways flights and holidays. Others let you earn reward points to be spent at certain retailers such as Amazon and Boots, while several Amex cards give you access to pre-sale tickets and exclusive benefits for gigs and theatre visits. Here are some popular alternatives to these cards, depending on what's most useful to you: Virgin Atlantic Reward credit card: flight rewards The Virgin Atlantic Reward credit card gives you 0.75 Virgin Points for every £1 spent on everyday purchases and 1.5 Virgin Points for every £1 spent with Virgin Atlantic or Virgin Holidays. What's more, if you spend on your card within the first 90 days, you'll earn 3,000 bonus points. Points can be redeemed on Virgin Atlantic Flights, hotels and travel extras such as airport parking. The card has a representative APR of 26.9pc (variable). Alternatively, you can pay £160 a year to upgrade to the Reward+ version of the card and earn 18,000 bonus points when you make your first purchase in the first 90 days. You also earn 1.5 Virgin Points for every £1 spent on everyday purchases and three Points for every £1 spent with Virgin Atlantic or Virgin Holidays. Head for Points, a consumer website that pits the top credit cards against each other, notes this is 'exceptionally good'. According to the provider's website, Virgin Points 'never expire'. At the time of writing, you'd need to have earned 20,000 of them to buy a return economy flight from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport in off-peak September. Barclaycard Avios credit card: flight rewards and exclusive events You can collect 1 Avios for every £1 spent on eligible purchases with the Barclaycard Avios card, plus 5,000 bonus Avios if you spend £1,000 in the first three months. There's a representative APR of 29.9pc. Alternatively, upgrade to the Plus version of the card for £20 a month and earn 1.5 Avios for every £1 spent, plus 25,000 Avios if you spend £3,000 in the first three months. You also benefit from discounted airport lounge access. However, the representative APR jumps to 80.1pc APR for this option. According to Barclaycard, you can get a peak economy return flight from London to Milan for 19,500 Avios plus £1. In addition, becoming a Barclaycard customer gives you the opportunity to take advantage of entertainment perks, including exclusive tickets to live performances and events.
