Credit Card Surcharge: Another Labor Tax on Consumers?

jam-donuts on 20/08/2026 - 13:10
Last edited 20/08/2026 - 14:38

Labor + RBA banned card surcharges under the guise of saving consumers $$$ hidden fees. Sounds great but 90% of the time the merchant was absorbing the fees anyways. Fast forward and this is now funded 100% out of consumers pockets with banks increasing the fees and making their services shi*ier + marchants to take it as an excuse to increase sticker prices further. Thank you for another hidden tax courtesy Albo and Chalmers (your forever pocket partners):

Email from St.George
New rules are being introduced by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) which will change the way credit cards work for businesses and customers.
• When you pay for something using your credit card, retailers will no longer be able to add a card payment surcharge.
• We're making some updates to the fees and benefits on your card due to the RBA's changes.

Item Standard (current) New (from 30 Sept 2026)
Variable purchase rate 20.99% p.a. 23.99% p.a.
Variable cash advance rate 21.99% p.a. 23.99% p.a.
Amplify Qantas Rewards Fee (p.a.) $75 $125
Minimum payment due 2% of closing balance or $10, whichever is greater 2.5% of closing balance or $25, whichever is greater
Interest-free period Up to 55 days Up to 45 days

Do you support the credit card surcharge change ?

Poll Options

  • 511
    Yes
  • 136
    No
Financial Credit Card

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • ThithLord on 20/08/2026 - 13:12

    Sounds great but 90% of the time the merchant was absorbing the fees anyways.

    Fast forward and this is now funded 100% out of consumers pockets with banks increasing the fees and making their services shi*ier

    [citation sorely needed]

    • 132
    • RedHab on 21/08/2026 - 13:53

      As much as we love to hate the banks or the politicians a big problem is that there is a fee duopoly worldwide: Visa and Mastercard.

      The US DOJ was suing them both for their fees under anti-trust legislation. That case seems to have gone quiet since the US elected a more "business friendly" president in 2024.

      The ACCC has won a similar case locally against Mastercard. The EU is also trying to get out of the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.

      • 12
      • Daabido on 22/08/2026 - 09:33

        Bring back Bankcard;
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankcard

        • 4
      • tunzafun001 on 21/08/2026 - 23:22

        Plenty of alternative options out there… We / the banks / governments don't want them..

        • 0
        • biggweilo on 22/08/2026 - 13:40

          Correction - Australia does not want them. Most other countries are creating and promoting alternative payment systems.

          • 5
    • Lastchancetosee on 21/08/2026 - 12:09

      Futile Fighting Surcharges

      • 1
    • serpserpserp on 24/08/2026 - 18:36

      Credit card surcharges were introduced following a decision by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in 2002 under the Howard Coalition government to allow businesses to pass on payment processing costs to consumers.

      • 1
      • ThithLord on 21/08/2026 - 11:11

        My comment has three words, none of which state that retailers will drop their prices.

        Try again, m8y

        • 36
          • Munki on 21/08/2026 - 12:49

            @Binchicken22: What do you mean you people?

            • 21
            • vetopower on 21/08/2026 - 12:52

              @Munki: lol

              • 4
              • InfiniteWee on 21/08/2026 - 14:57

                @Binchicken22: posts about surcharge changes labelling it a "Labor Tax" with an obvious political slant
                whinges about "team politics"

                some of the absolute donuts that post here I swear

                • 32
          • ThithLord on 21/08/2026 - 12:09

            @Binchicken22: No

            • 10
            • serpserpserp on 24/08/2026 - 18:36

              @ThithLord: Credit card surcharges were introduced following a decision by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in 2002 under the Howard Coalition government to allow businesses to pass on payment processing costs to consumers.

              • 1
  • kanmen on 20/08/2026 - 13:34

    If 90% of merchants were absorbing the fee then why would it have an impact on anyone else but the 10% that already passed the fee onto customers? Sounds like it's a problem with the banks if they're the ones increasing the prices.

    Does the government get the additional fee? Is that why you're calling it a tax?

    • 49
    • jv on 20/08/2026 - 13:41

      If 90% of merchants were absorbing the fee

      Nope, they are increasing the cost of their products/services, because they can…

      • -5
      • EBC on 21/08/2026 - 08:05

        I like to call those days "Tuesday"

        • 11
      • biggweilo on 22/08/2026 - 13:47

        The RBA will also trim the interchange fee cap on consumer credit cards from 0.8 per cent to 0.3 per cent

        The government is decreasing the cost of their products/services, because they can…

        if your coffee shop is raising prices by 7.5%, its because of inflation or they want to be more profitable.

        • 2
        • tenpercent on 22/08/2026 - 14:09

          The government or the RBA?
          Is the RBA independent or not?

          • 0
          • jv on 22/08/2026 - 18:49

            @tenpercent:

            Is the RBA independent or not?

            They can't be…

            The governor of the RBA was appointed by the Labor Government…

            • -4
            • Satchimo on 23/08/2026 - 11:27

              @jv:

              They can't be…

              The governor of the RBA was appointed by the Labor Government…

              That's a terrible thing to say.

              For starters, her job is not reliant on government pressure. She has a seven year term unless she does something illegal. She has openly criticised the government spending too much money a few times and has disagreed with their policies and direction.

              But the real issue for me is, you are implying that she didn't "earn" that job and are devaluing her 38 years of experience with the RBA that she brings to the table.

              Over her 38 years, she had worked in every single department from currency to financial systems, it would be foolish not to utilise that experience when she had knowledge of the old RBA culture combined with a deep enough understanding of it to successfully dismantle it implement the new system as required by the 2022/2023 RBA review "An RBA fit for the future" which resulted in 51 specific recommendations to modernise the bank, resulting in several structural changes and The RBA has been given its biggest overhaul in a generation. What does this actually mean?.

              • 6
        • jv on 22/08/2026 - 18:46

          The government is decreasing the cost of their products/services, because they can…

          yet the cost to the consumer is increasing and the perks from the credit cards are disappearing…

          That's what the government changes do… Gives everyone an opportunity to raise costs and blame it on the change…

          • -2
          • Cognitive Consonance on 23/08/2026 - 13:49

            @jv: The RBA always blames Consumers for inflation, and raises interest rates, which apparently doesn't cause more inflation, loss of purchasing power and jobs.
            And small businesses destroyed.
            But just coincidentally, government debt is devalued.
            They all know how the wheel turns, while we remain loyal to a bunchof political hacks who take advice from the RBA.

            • 1
            • jv on 24/08/2026 - 09:25

              @Cognitive Consonance:

              The RBA always blames Consumers for inflation

              Except that a large part of inflation now is due directly to government spending…

              • -2
              • JIMB0 on 02/10/2026 - 08:19

                @jv: They really should cut down spending on welfare. Goodbye pensions, family payments and the dole. That'll fix it.

                • 0
                • jv on 02/10/2026 - 08:59

                  @JIMB0: It would make a significant difference if they just put a stop to the rorts, but Albo would never do that, since it's where the majority of their votes comes from.

                  • 0
    • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2026 - 20:03

      90% of merchants were absorbing the fee

      where do those merchants get their money from…the money ALWAYS comes from consumers - you honestly cant be that thick to think they are just going to not pass on the cost in someway or form over time

      its the same with government spending it always comes from taxpayers, the rest of it is 'all spin' you cannot magically make more money and if you do print more you rise inflation which once again makes things more expensive and thus cost taxpayers MORE MONEY

      • -7
  • Onemoredeal on 20/08/2026 - 14:49

    The banks marketing spin doctors are using the removal of credit card surcharges at point of sale to justify what they are doing. In reality, the fee they charge a small business to use their products isn’t being removed, so nothing changes there for the banks it’s just their excuse. They are losing up to 0.5% of every transaction in the background via interchange fees dropping from 0.8% to 0.3%, this has nothing to do with the fees they charge the coffee shop to use their terminals . That is why they are doing what they are doing .

    • 40
      • Onemoredeal on 20/08/2026 - 15:22

        Credit card surcharges had to go because companies like square came in and started offering end to end small business solutions for a flat rate of 1.6% which could be recouped at point of sale, and so small business were like, hell yeah, I can get customers to pay for all my stocktaking and stock management software as well as the cost of the transaction via this model and I can blame the evil banks and that I’m just passing on their cost . If they choose to put up their prices so be it , we will all choose if we keep going back

        • 9
        • Ade99 on 21/08/2026 - 07:55

          I noticed Square operated shops had hefty premium charges which drove customer traffic……to other suppliers

          • 2
        • jv on 20/08/2026 - 15:52

          we will all choose if we keep going back

          They are all putting their prices up. We lose…

          • -2
  • mskeggs on 20/08/2026 - 15:34

    Some extreme projection here.
    Cutting the costs of doing business is now a "tax"?
    If you shop at places raising their prices when their costs are reduced, vote with your feet.

    Frankly incredible to see people defending banking charges as being in consumers best interests.

    • 39
    • Mad Max on 20/08/2026 - 15:54

      Banking charges levied as card fees are avoidable by paying cash or offsetable if you get points worth more than the card fee. You can assess and manage to achieve the best outcome for you.
      An increased price raise across the board by merchants seeking to cover the still charged card payments costs becomes unavoidable.
      However I hope more will introduce a cash discount.

      • 0
      • Jolakot on 20/08/2026 - 16:22

        Why would you get a discount for paying cash?

        If anything it's the other way around for most businesses, people paying with card are subsidising the people paying cash.

        Between theft, counterfeits, paying armed security guards to move the cash off-site, staff time spent counting drawers and dealing with change etc, would have to cost a substantial amount to accept cash

        • 9
        • Eeples on 20/08/2026 - 21:11

          Yer. But some businesses might be avoiding GST if you pay cash.

          • 3
        • Mad Max on 20/08/2026 - 16:24

          Yet many small businesses are already giving cash discounts. Go figure!

          • 0
          • Jolakot on 20/08/2026 - 16:36

            @Mad Max: Key word here being small businesses, who are charged extortionate fees on card payments.

            My local cafe lost 40 cents per coffee if the customer paid by card because of the fixed base surcharge, making it uneconomical for them to accept card payments on small purchases, but not really having a choice as customers would walk away if they were cash only.

            I'm talking big businesses like 7/11 that don't blink an eye at you buying a banana for 80 cents on a credit card

            • 0
            • Mad Max on 20/08/2026 - 16:46

              @Jolakot: I guess big businesses like Coles, Woolworths, 7/11 and many more that currently don't charge a card fee have already built that cost in their prices. You pay for it regardless of paying by card or not. So nothing should change for them. They will still charge the same.
              Small businesses that now are able to pass on those extortionate fee in the form of a credit card surcharge to those that are using the service, will not be able to do so any more. However they will still incur a cost for accepting credit card payments so they will pass it on as an increased price on their products to everyone. So you will not be able to avoid it any more.

              • -1
        • tenpercent on 20/08/2026 - 16:41

          Now subtract the cost of lost sales during mastercard/visa outages. And subtract the cost of maintaining card payment infrastructure and having access to those networks. Etc.

          • -1
      • mskeggs on 20/08/2026 - 16:30

        The impact for business is lower costs, not something that raises prices.

        • 1
        • Mad Max on 20/08/2026 - 16:34

          Business is still paying a fee to accept card payments. Except that now they won't be able to pass that cost to those using that service and paying by card. So they will just add that cost to the price of their products for everyone. So it will be unavoidable.

          • 1
      • gromit on 21/08/2026 - 15:21

        If anything the price should generally be higher for cash, cash processing costs more than the average electronic fees in most cases.

        • 1
    • tenpercent on 20/08/2026 - 16:14

      How is it cutting the costs of doing business?

      • -3
      • mskeggs on 20/08/2026 - 16:34

        "The merchant’s payments provider passes on the cost of the interchange fee to the merchant. So, the higher the interchange fee, the more the merchant will have to pay to accept a card payment."

        Source:
        https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of…

        My assumption is posters here still believe in the invisible hand of the market. If market based competition does not occur that is a different issue.

        • 5
        • trongy on 21/08/2026 - 17:36

          It's worth remembering that the RBA originally allowed the surcharges in the first place because the invisible hand was not working. Small businesses were being gouged and passing on the costs to consumers. At the time, the RBA reasoned that making the charges transparent would lead to lower costs.

          The invisible hand metaphor can be useful, but even its inventor knew there were limitations.

          Civilization 4 players should remember this quote:

          People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

          • 0
  • Guybrush57 on 20/08/2026 - 15:07

    Do I like buying a $100 item and getting charged $100 instead of $101.60 or some other random amount? Hmm… let met think about it 🤔

    I suppose you want shelf prices to be exclusive of GST too?

    • 27
    • Binchicken22 on 21/08/2026 - 10:37

      If that is the exact fee charged to the retailer (which the laws were already in place for and I supported those), then yes absolutely, it made sense and was all out in the open.

      Now the fees are still there, just hidden away in the cost of every item, no matter how you pay.

      • -4
      • Guybrush57 on 21/08/2026 - 10:52

        Exact fee out in the open? Businesses weren't passing on the exact fee but an inflated flat fee structured around the most expensive payment type no matter which payment method the consumer used. Fees weren't transparent and were often a surprise to the consumer because the fees were hidden away from the consumer and businesses were scamming left, right, and centre.

        Now the business scams have been stopped and consumers protected, businesses will go back to negotiating with their payment gateway providers for better rates. You know? The cost of doing business.

        • 11
        • Binchicken22 on 21/08/2026 - 13:41

          What you are saying was already illegal.

          The law was in place that you could legal only pass on the charge you were being charged by the processing company. Were their businesses doing dodgies? Yeah of course there were still random Vietnamese bakeries and such still running a flat 50c fee etc, but it was getting lesser and lesser as more people were educated.

          Hell, those dodgy places will probably still run dodgy charges under these new laws, it's not like breaking the law was stopping them previously.

          • -1
          • Guybrush57 on 21/08/2026 - 14:05

            @Binchicken22: If you don't want customers being illegally slugged with exploitative fees then you'll be happy to know now they won't and if the total cost doesn't match the advertised price then the customer will know immediately.

            • 2
          • emjk on 24/08/2026 - 11:48

            @Binchicken22: Laws don't mean anything if they're not enforced. How am I as a consumer supposed to know what the exact fee is that a business is paying? A lot of places were also just applying a flat 2% to ALL card payments, despite the fact that debit is cheaper than credit, and EFTPOS is almost free.

            • 0
  • Mechz on 20/08/2026 - 14:34

    Removal of the surcharge has nothing to do with the enshitification of CC products of late. It's just the economy catching up with the banks offerings.

    • 25
    • Nebargains on 21/08/2026 - 09:38

      So all the banks just jumped on the opportunity to make their products worse at the exact same time with the same reason which is also backed up by just using your brain? Also I think the bigger problem is lowering the cap on the interchange fee or whatever.

      • 0
      • pn09 on 21/08/2026 - 15:36

        There's been talk of lowering QFF and other loyalty scheme benefits for ages and they regularly do this every now and again anyway as it saves them money.

        So it was a good opportunity to combine those changes with the change they were being made to do.

        Like burying some bad news on a day when there is a much bigger story and assuming that your bad news will get less focus as a result. And in this case they can just land the blame for the worse benefits on the government also and hope that people believe them. what have they got to lose

        • 0
      • Tleyx on 22/08/2026 - 12:33

        How is lowering the cap on interchange a problem. All merchants will save money on this, good for business

        • 0
    • jv on 20/08/2026 - 14:37

      Removal of the surcharge has nothing to do with the enshitification of CC products of late.

      Yet that is the reason given in the emails they sent out…

      Both AMEX and CBA have said that is why they are doing it.

      • -6
      • Ponsonby on 20/08/2026 - 17:01

        "yet that is the reason given in the (banks) emails"
        Well if the banks say it, It must be correct. Remember Brumby's statement about the carbon tax causing price rises?

        "https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-accepts-undertaking-from-brumbys-for-carbon-price-comment"

        • 4
        • jv on 20/08/2026 - 17:02

          Well if the banks say it, It must be correct.

          The banks have explained why they are making the changes.

          • -2
      • pn09 on 21/08/2026 - 09:33

        Wow - who would have thought that a bank wouldn't take the opportunity to blame someone else for them putting up prices!

        So now suddenly people believe what the banks say when it aligns with blaming someone who they want to blame.

        • 3
        • jv on 21/08/2026 - 09:50

          for them putting up prices!

          My price didn't change.

          So now suddenly people believe what the banks say

          Do you believe whatever the government says?

          • -1
          • pn09 on 21/08/2026 - 15:32

            @jv: I don't blanket believe or disbelieve anyone, or blanket blame someone for everything that causes a negative outcome for me or others…

            … so to answer your question, no I don't believe everything the Government says, but I also do not disbelieve everything they say.

            • 0
            • jv on 21/08/2026 - 15:37

              @pn09:

              I also do not disbelieve everything

              double negative…

              • -1
              • pn09 on 22/08/2026 - 12:01

                @jv: So what? In informal usage double negatives are fine - this isn't a dissertation - it's a post online.

                Besides whenever someone needs to resort to a grammar critique it shows the strength in their arguments.

                • 1
                • Cognitive Consonance on 23/08/2026 - 14:22

                  @pn09: Does that include the people here who can't differentiate between a typo and a spelling error?

                  • 0
                  • pn09 on 24/08/2026 - 09:31

                    @Cognitive Consonance: I've never really understood the online grammar critique - as it's pretty much impossible to do without coming across as if you're trying to have a go at someone.

                    Some grammar does drive me nuts but live and let live …

                    You're absolutely right on typos vs not knowing the correct usage

                    I know plenty of times I've put in typos myself - if it's a post that I can still edit I tend to correct it, but it's annoying on emails.

                    • 0
      • Mechz on 20/08/2026 - 14:45

        Yeah and you're a sucker for believing them. Any excuse so they don't look like the bad guys.

        • 25
        • dufflover on 21/08/2026 - 13:41

          haha yep, just like those emails where stores that reduce warranty and conditions is "to provide greater clarity to customers" LOL

          • 3
        • jam-donuts on 20/08/2026 - 15:05

          sure, anything but the obvious right ? must be a multi level conspiracy.

          • -7
      • smartazz104 on 23/08/2026 - 11:52

        You believe a bunch of bankers.

        • 1
        • VFM on 23/08/2026 - 21:16

          The collective noun is "wunch".
          A wunch of bankers.

          • 1
  • DingoBilly on 20/08/2026 - 16:30

    Much prefer.

    Dumb take trying to make this political.

    • 25
  • Kongzi on 20/08/2026 - 20:45

    Some countries advertise their prices without adding GST and other surcharges. When paying at the counter I always get a surprise and just doesn't seem transparent.

    I would rather have the actual final price displayed than having to use mental arithmetic to calculate the actual cost.

    • 13
    • EBC on 21/08/2026 - 08:27

      I grew up in Canada where going to a restaurant between taxes, tips, and surcharges, it's always a mystery what the bill will say. When I moved here it was one of the nicest everyday differences not needing to guess what I'll be charged. I've been super annoyed as more and more surcharges keep getting added at more different venues over the last decade+. So very happy the RBA put an end to it.

      • 3
      • tenpercent on 23/08/2026 - 10:41

        I've been super annoyed as more and more surcharges keep getting added at more different venues over the last decade+. So very happy the RBA put an end to it.

        These changes don't impact the "it's dark out surcharge" or "it's the weekend surcharge" or "it's a public holiday surcharge" or "booking fees", "handling fees", "miscellaneous charges", or even "the manager's special surcharge".

        • 0
        • EBC on 23/08/2026 - 11:23

          I would say in terms of volume of surcharges I get charged, card surcharges probably account for around 95%. So not a panacea but I solid start.

          • 0
    • Ade99 on 21/08/2026 - 07:58

      That is the American way…probably driven by the fact there is 50 States with different tax rates

      • 0
      • Tleyx on 22/08/2026 - 12:36

        A store that doesn't move would have the same tax each day.

        It's because it's not illegal like it is here

        • 0
  • Yousharn on 23/08/2026 - 16:57

    Stop blaming the government for capitalist greed. Blame the banks for charging more and not improving the service.

    Your anger is misdirected, the government didn’t force the banks to increase their rates, the banks chose to do this of their own accord under the guise of “the government made me do it, sorry”.

    • 12
  • c64 on 20/08/2026 - 13:13

    I do all my transactions with bikies

    • 11
    • jv on 20/08/2026 - 13:42

      with bikies

      🍪

      • 15
      • eccaz on 20/08/2026 - 14:38

        Never thought you’d be into biccies jv

        • 0
        • jv on 20/08/2026 - 14:39

          I bake all weekend…

          • 1
  • greater mimic on 22/08/2026 - 01:24

    "Fast forward and this is now funded 100% out of consumers pockets"

    Yeah that's how shops work. You pay for things

    • 11
    • Agret on 31/08/2026 - 22:01

      RBA said this change is to reduce confusion amongst consumers, how do I avoid paying the card surcharge now if I pay cash at a business?

      • 0
      • greater mimic on 01/09/2026 - 00:31

        What, you don't think there's a cost involved with cash? Staff need time to manage cash, count/reconcile it, store it, deposit it… All of that is an expense to the business. I'm also guessing the cost of security and insurance is higher when keeping cash on premises.

        Plus there's the less tangible impact on efficiency through the time spent managing cash payments, leading to fewer orders and reduced revenue for the business.

        I guess the comparable cost are public holiday surcharges which are charged because they're identifiably high. But I'm also of the opinion that businesses should just eat the cost during the year and not surcharge on public holidays, the same way you don't pay a surcharge on weekends because staff are paid more vs weekdays. But that's a different conversation.

        • 1
      • klaw81 on 01/09/2026 - 08:19

        You seem to be confused, just as the RBA feared consumers were.

        There will be no card surcharge to avoid. The sticker price is what you will pay regardless of the payment method.

        • 1
  • Pacify on 23/08/2026 - 00:11

    You know why banks are doing all these changes?

    Because they were making an absolute killing off the surcharge.

    Imagine blaming Labor for getting rid of a disgusting way banks were fleecing billions every single year

    • 11
  • meumax on 21/08/2026 - 09:02

    Enshitification of CCs began with the 2017 RC. This just caps off the official end of the era.

    All those tasty reward programs, no annual fees, and bonus points were possible because banks could rip off unsophisticated CC users for heaps of profit.

    But with all the regulations now, they can't.

    Having said that, society is fairer now. What would you prefer? A world where dumb people fund your perks, or a world where the dumbest people are protected from themselves but no perks for the savvy?

    • 10
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join