Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Money

No more card surcharges: what the Reserve Bank’s proposed changes mean for your wallet

Published

on

No more card surcharges: what the Reserve Bank’s proposed changes mean for your wallet

Angel Zhong, RMIT University

That extra 10c on your morning coffee. That $2 surcharge on your taxi ride. The sneaky 1.5% fee when you pay by card at your local restaurant. These could all soon be history.

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 $1.2 billion annually.

But like all major financial reforms, the devil is in the detail.

The 20-year experiment is over

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 toward 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.

Who saves – and who pays?

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 like 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.

Could prices still rise?

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:

  1. most merchants already don’t surcharge, especially small businesses. Of them, 90% may have included card costs in their pricing
  2. competition keeps pricing in check. Retailers in competitive markets can’t raise prices without risking customers
  3. 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, like hospitality, transport, and tourism, will need to rethink their pricing strategies. Some may absorb costs; others may pass them on.

The winners

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 $185 million 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.

The losers

Banks that issue cards stand to lose about $900 million 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 $25 million in compliance costs to remove surcharges and provide clearer fee breakdowns. For some, this may involve significant system changes, though one-off in nature.

Will it work?

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 road ahead

The Reserve Bank is seeking feedback until August 26, 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.The Conversation

Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Money

ANZ job cuts spark banking clash

ANZ plans to cut 3,500 jobs, sparking debate on the future of Australia’s banking sector and employment dynamics.

Published

on

ANZ plans to cut 3,500 jobs, sparking debate on the future of Australia’s banking sector and employment dynamics.


ANZ has announced plans to cut 3,500 staff and 1,000 contractors over the next year, triggering a fierce debate between business leaders, unions, and government about the future of Australia’s banking sector.

The decision raises wider questions about the resilience of the business community and the role of politics, productivity, and technology in shaping employment.

#ANZ #Banking #Jobs #Unions #Australia #Economy #TickerNews


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Money

1 in 8 households don’t have the money to buy enough food

Published

on

Katherine Kent, University of Wollongong

Around one in eight (1.3 million) Australian households experienced food insecurity in 2023. This means they didn’t always have enough money to buy the amount or quality of food they needed for an active and healthy life.

The data, released on Friday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), show food insecurity is now a mainstream public health and equity challenge.

When funds are tight, food budgets suffer

The main driver of food insecurity in Australia is financial pressure.

Housing costs and energy bills expenses consume much of household income, leaving food as the most flexible part of the budget.

When money runs short, families cut back on groceries, buy cheaper but less nutritious food, skip meals, or rely on food charities.

These strategies come at the expense of nutrition, health and wellbeing.

Inflation has added further pressure. The cost of food has risen substantially over the past two years, with groceries for a family of four costing around $1,000 per fortnight.

Who is most affected?

Not all households are affected equally. Single parents face the highest rates of food insecurity, with one in three (34%) struggling to afford enough food.

Families with children are more vulnerable (16%) than those without (8%).

Group households, often made up of students or young workers, are also heavily affected at 28%.

Rates are even higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households, where 41% report food insecurity.

Income remains a defining factor. Nearly one in four (23.2% of) households in the lowest income bracket experience food insecurity, compared with just 3.6% in the highest.

These headline numbers are only part of the story. Past research shows higher risks of food insecurity for some other groups:

While the ABS survey can not provide local breakdowns, it will also be important to know which states and territories have higher rates of food insecurity, to better inform state-level responses.

What are the impacts?

Food insecurity is both a symptom and a cause of poor health.

It leads to poorer quality diets, as households cut back on fruit, vegetables and protein-rich foods that spoil quickly. Instead, they may rely on processed items that are cheaper, more filling and keep for longer.

The ongoing stress of worrying about not having enough food takes a toll on mental health and increases social isolation.

Together these pressures increase the risk of chronic diseases including diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.

For children, not having enough food affects concentration, learning and long-term development.

Breaking this cycle means recognising that improving health depends on improving food security. Left unaddressed, food insecurity deepens existing inequalities across generations.

What can we do about it?

We already know the solutions to food insecurity and they are evidence-based.

Strengthening income support by increasing the amount of JobSeeker and other government payments is crucial. This would ensure households have enough money to cover food alongside other essentials.

Investment in universal school meals, such as free lunch programs, can guarantee children at least one nutritious meal a day.

Policies that make healthy food more affordable and available in disadvantaged areas are also important, whether through subsidies, price regulation, or support for local retailers.

Community-based approaches, such as food co-operatives where members share bulk-buying power and social supermarkets that sell donated or surplus food at low cost can help people buy cheaper food. However, they cannot be a substitute for systemic reform.

Finally, ongoing monitoring of food insecurity must be embedded in national health and social policy frameworks so we can track progress over time. The last ABS data on food insecurity was collected ten years ago, and we cannot wait another decade to understand how Australians are faring.

The National Food Security Strategy is being developed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with guidance from a new National Food Council. It provides an opportunity to align these actions, set measurable targets and ensure food security is addressed at a national scale.

Food insecurity is widespread and shaped by disadvantage, with serious health consequences. The question is no longer whether food insecurity exists, but whether Australia will act on the solutions.The Conversation

Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Money

Inflation data impacts markets as stocks reach highs

Inflation data and tariff uncertainty loom as U.S. stocks near record highs ahead of potential Federal Reserve rate cuts

Published

on

Inflation data and tariff uncertainty loom as U.S. stocks near record highs ahead of potential Federal Reserve rate cuts

video
play-sharp-fill
In Short:
– U.S. stock investors face crucial inflation data amidst concerns over tariffs and bond yields.
– The Federal Reserve is expected to lower interest rates following weaker job growth and trade uncertainties.
U.S. stock investors are facing a week filled with critical inflation data.
Uncertainty over tariffs and government bond yields complicates the market landscape. Despite a record high for the S&P 500 index, the recent monthly employment report revealed weaker job growth in August, prompting concerns.Banner

Investor focus turns to the upcoming U.S. consumer price index data, with implications for potential interest rate cuts.

The Federal Reserve is widely expected to reduce rates at its upcoming meeting.

Market Risks

Concerns linger around tariffs, especially after a court ruling deemed many of President Trump’s tariffs illegal.

This has muddied the decision-making for corporations and investors. Higher long-dated U.S. government debt yields, which reached 5% for the first time in over a month, have also contributed to stock market challenges.

Despite a substantial 10% rise in the S&P 500 this year, traders remain cautious as economic releases could disrupt elevated stock valuations amidst ongoing trade uncertainties.


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now