Card payment sucharges banned in Australia from 2026

[transpactraveller]

Just adds to reason 1043213 why I hate living in Australia. We are counting down the days until we can live elsewhere

Good luck finding somewhere better. Let us know when you do, would love to know where this secret utopia is.

 

[Happy Dude]

swing over to the retirement thread @lovestotravel. Thoughts on extended OS living very welcome there.

 

[HMcM]

You were already paying that higher price, but they tricked you into thinking it cost less than what you actually paid. They told you it was $99 but charged $101 to your card. Now they'll tell you upfront it's $101, and that's what you'll pay.

Except before you had by law an alternative, now you don't. If it said $99 before and you handed over $99 in cash then that was all you paid. Now the sign says $101 and handing over $99 in cash doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Mr_Orange]

Once again, many folks seem to be missing the point. Businesses, when they write their business model, need to account for all of their costs and build those, along with profit, into their pricing. Unsurprisingly, there is a cost associated with accepting payment, whether that is cash, cheque (listed for completeness only and not current relevance) or card (debit/credit/EFTPOS). Not baking this into the business model is a failure to write a competent business model. There should never have been a need to surcharge.

The same thing applies to penalty rates, where they apply. I will not use businesses that have weekend or public holiday surcharges. They just aren't necessary. The number of weekends and public holidays are known in advance and therefore so are the additional staffing costs. Build them into the business model and keep prices consistent. If you can't compete, don't open on weekends or public holidays.

 

[HMcM]

Once again, many folks seem to be missing the point. Businesses, when they write their business model, need to account for all of their costs and build those, along with profit, into their pricing. Unsurprisingly, there is a cost associated with accepting payment, whether that is cash, cheque (listed for completeness only and not current relevance) or card (debit/credit/EFTPOS). Not baking this into the business model is a failure to write a competent business model. There should never have been a need to surcharge.

Personally I don't care whether or not surcharges exist in a market, I just prefer companies to be able to make the choice themselves as opposed to the government sticking its thumb on the scale. If a company wants to offer a more expensive payment method and make the user pay to use it while still offering the product for the advertised price for a payment method that is cheaper that's fine by me. The credit card company gets to choose its fees, the business gets to choose the surcharge (though I agree with rules not placing undue surcharge) and then customer gets to choose which payment method he wants to go with.

I think about it in the same way as online orders being delivered. Some places offer free delivery, AKA they price the cost of delivery in their business model. Some places offer free delivery for certain products or order amounts. Some places make you pay full delivery for any order you make. That's the company's decision to make and the customer's choice which business they frequent. What would stop someone using your logic and saying that no company online should charge for delivery and it should have to be priced into the purchase amount?

The same thing applies to penalty rates, where they apply. I will not use businesses that have weekend or public holiday surcharges. They just aren't necessary. The number of weekends and public holidays are known in advance and therefore so are the additional staffing costs. Build them into the business model and keep prices consistent. If you can't compete, don't open on weekends or public holidays.

So you want to make everybody pay more 99% of the time to subsidise people who go out on a public holiday? Once again, the only reason that these surcharges exist is the government putting their thumb on the scale. I never used to pay a Sunday or a weekend surcharge, but when employers got forced to pay massive markups for their staffing costs on a Sunday they very quickly became ubiquitous. We're gone of the days where most Aussies hold Sunday to be sacred, but we force companies to pay as if it is. Personally I'd prefer to work a Sunday and get a weekday off every week.

 

[transpactraveller]

Except before you had by law an alternative, now you don't. If it said $99 before and you handed over $99 in cash then that was all you paid. Now the sign says $101 and handing over $99 in cash doesn't cut it anymore.

This will still be possible, cash discounts aren't being outlawed. What is being banned is the 'drip pricing' and 'hidden fees' tactics of surcharging. They can charge you less than the sign, not more.

From October, the business can put up a sign saying $101 but still choose to accept $99 in cash. What they're being banned from doing is putting $99 on the sign then charging $101 if you pay by card.

 

[HMcM]

This will still be possible, cash discounts aren't being outlawed.

From October, the business can put up a sign saying $101 but still choose to accept $99 for it in cash.

What they can't do anymore is put up a sign for $99 and then charge you $101 if you pay by card.

If you think that the same number of businesses that currently have card surcharges are going to suddenly have cash / EFTPOS discounts then you're having a laugh.

This policy will make most people pay more.