Card payment sucharges banned in Australia from 2026

[NoName]

Incorrect, there are plenty of businesses that don't provide alternative payment methods to avoid surcharges. I wish that were true, but it's not.
More prone to medium to smaller businesses.
Soak Bathhouse in Syd, Bris, GC and Mel is just one off the top of my mind, but there are a lot..

They impose a surcharge and don’t allow you to pay cash? You should report them if that’s the case. In any event, your point still related to the current surcharge regime and not with the proposed situation we are likely to find ourselves in.

 

[simmomelb]

They impose a surcharge and don’t allow you to pay cash? You should report them if that’s the case. In any event, your point still related to the current surcharge regime and not with the proposed situation we are likely to find ourselves in.

Correct, plenty of businesses don't allow you to pay cash or bank transfer to avoid the current card charges. I've reported plenty of businesses for this, the ACCC does nothing about it, I guess they have bigger issues to deal with.
Yes, I see your point with the proposed changes also, come July 1st, 2026.

 

[burmans]

And therein lies the biggest problem, existing rules aren’t enforced now. We wouldn’t have such a problem if they were!

 

[N0mad]

I also use the HSBC debit card for all in-person payments $99.99 and under. HSBC is almost certainly losing money on every transaction, there is no way they are getting 2% in merchant fees on a debit card. I expect they hope to make it back by from customers taking out other products.

this is incorrect, HSBC earn a margin on the cash balance in the account. Although not disclosed for HSBC if you use CBAs net interest margin of 1.9% they are most certainly making money.

Generally 50-90% lower than what is offered in Australia: Card payment sucharges banned in Australia from 2026

Here's my prediction:
1. Reforms will be implemented.
2. Surcharges will be eliminated.
3. Credit card reward schemes will be reduced to UK levels.
4. Prices will remain unchanged as retailers absorb reduced fees into their profit margins.

100%, particularly 4.

 

[JohnPhelan]

In a situation where surcharges are outlawed merchants will have the choice to either absorb the cost of accepting card payments or incorporate them in advertised price. The latter is what will happen.

Which is the way it used to be, and should be.

 

[dajop]

100%, particularly 4.

For some of the industries where surcharging is most prevalent it probably will be difficult to tell whether they’ve absorbed the surcharge or not - due to dynamic pricing anyway. For the most significant of these - hotels and car hire - perhaps we could assume their pricing models are already optimised to supply and demand so won’t be adding in the extra 1.5% (or whatever the percentage is). across the board.

 

[Ansett Nostalgic]

The RBA's meddling in the card payment market has only made things worse for consumers and cardholders. They should be told to eff off and let the free market prevail.

 

[kpc]

Thinking about this more....referral bonuses eg cash / points will be reduced significantly for new credit card applicatios, and if there are much reduced SUBs, there will be less new credit card applications....blogs incl AFf, PHs, IFF etc which rely on credit card referrals are going to take a big hit...

 

[Zero]

this is incorrect, HSBC earn a margin on the cash balance in the account. Although not disclosed for HSBC if you use CBAs net interest margin of 1.9% they are most certainly making money.

A debit card transaction occurs at a single point in time, while NMI is an annualised figure, so comparing the percentages is meaningless.

 

[N0mad]

A debit card transaction occurs at a single point in time, while NMI is an annualised figure, so comparing the percentages is meaningless.

yes it's an annualised figure, but HSBC offers this with the expectation that customers will leave a balance in the account and they can earn from this balance. i doubt many clients transfer funds just prior to tapping, most will leave a reasonable balance to ensure it fulfils there needs.

my main point though was that they are earning income from other sources not just the fees when the card is tapped, if they weren't able to at least meet the cost of the feature why would the offer it ongoing?

 

[Zero]

yes it's an annualised figure, but HSBC offers this with the expectation that customers will leave a balance in the account and they can earn from this balance. i doubt many clients transfer funds just prior to tapping, most will leave a reasonable balance to ensure it fulfils there needs.

my main point though was that they are earning income from other sources not just the fees when the card is tapped, if they weren't able to at least meet the cost of the feature why would the offer it ongoing?

All I said was that they are probably directly losing money on every transaction.

Obviously they hope to make money back from customers taking out other products with them, so the cashback functions as a marketing expense, and customers holding money in the transaction account contributes somewhat too.

Though no other bank has anything similar (except NAB which charges $10 per month to get a max of $10 cashback, so they never directly lose money).

 

[LondonAussie]

Cashback debit cards are fairly common in the UK, but the really big thing here is bank switching offers. Banks will pay a sign up bonus equivalent to $300-$400 if you switch your account to them using a service that closes your old account and redirects your old account number and any direct debits and regular payments to your new bank.

For credit cards the thing that's taken over from reward cards in the UK is the 0% on purchases for 12-24 months, so you can park your income in an ISA account (tax-free savings/investment account) for 1-2 years before having to pay off your purchases, which works out better than a 1-2% cashback if you can be disciplined enough to do this.

 

[burmans]

The RBA's meddling in the card payment market has only made things worse for consumers and cardholders. They should be told to eff off and let the free market prevail.

According to Canstar’s survey 75% of people want surcharges removed vs 15% against so I think just possibly you’re on the losing side of this argument. AFF membership is not really a reflection of the general public, and I think the groundswell of opinion is definitely with removing surcharges, not least because surcharges really don’t reflect the actual cost of transactions. Most card payments infrastructure is long paid off and the market hasn’t reduced surcharges, if anything they have increased the last few years.

Maybe if the market wasn’t quite so greedy!

 

[Ansett Nostalgic]

According to Canstar’s survey 75% of people want surcharges removed vs 15% against so I think just possibly you’re on the losing side of this argument. AFF membership is not really a reflection of the general public, and I think the groundswell of opinion is definitely with removing surcharges, not least because surcharges really don’t reflect the actual cost of transactions. Most card payments infrastructure is long paid off and the market hasn’t reduced surcharges, if anything they have increased the last few years.

Maybe if the market wasn’t quite so greedy!

The fees also sustain insurance and chargeback protection for cardholders.

But the fact that a vague and superficial proposition might poll highly in opinion polling doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. Especially since people who 'oppose' surcharges assume that prices will fall when they are 'removed', when we know from international experience that this will not be the case.

It's a bit like how 2/3rds of the population at one stage supported the 'Voice', then once they were educated about the specific details people changed their minds and 2/3rds voted to oppose it.

 

[Saab34]

Who remembers the days of credit card fees ‘per passenger per sector’. They got away with that scam for a number of years. Jetstar and Tiger became notorious for that behaviour and the fees got up to like $10.

And when they took it away they said they needed to raise fares which proved it was nothing but a rort. Should have been fined.

 

[dairyfloss]

According to Canstar’s survey 75% of people want surcharges removed vs 15% against so I think just possibly you’re on the losing side of this argument. AFF membership is not really a reflection of the general public, and I think the groundswell of opinion is definitely with removing surcharges, not least because surcharges really don’t reflect the actual cost of transactions. Most card payments infrastructure is long paid off and the market hasn’t reduced surcharges, if anything they have increased the last few years.

Maybe if the market wasn’t quite so greedy!

I’ll bet that those same 75% of people believe that by removing surcharges that the overall price of things will be reduced…