What changes on 1 October 2026?
As checked on 30 July 2026, the RBA and ACCC reported that eftpos, Mastercard and Visa had each decided to introduce no-surcharge rules from 1 October 2026. Their rules, exceptions and provider implementation may change, so confirm the position that applies to the business rather than treating this dated status as a permanent contract term.
| Check | Before 1 October 2026 | From 1 October 2026 | What the business must verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| RBA framework | Current card-payment-surcharge laws continue to apply. | The RBA prohibition on designated networks imposing no-surcharge rules is removed. | The current RBA Standard and effective date. |
| Network and contract | Current surcharge settings and cost-of-acceptance controls apply. | Dated network decisions may be implemented through scheme rules and merchant arrangements. | Current network rule, exception, acquirer or PSP notice and merchant contract. |
| Business economics | The business may recover a permitted surcharge or absorb the acceptance cost. | Card-acceptance costs continue and may require a different commercial response. | Actual statement, complete fee boundary and card mix. |
| Display and checkout | Current ACCC total-price and surcharge-display guidance applies. | Check current ACCC and provider implementation; do not disguise a payment surcharge. | POS, ecommerce checkout, invoices, menus and staff process. |
Reproduce your actual card-acceptance cost first
Build the complete fee boundary from the business’s dated contract and a reconciled settlement. The Global marketplace and payment fee guide owns the full normalisation method.
Record these inputs before comparing responses
- Current payment plan or contract name and date. (not complete)
- Card-present, card-not-present and relevant card mix for the review period. (not complete)
- Percentage, fixed, recurring, foreign-card, refund, gateway and conditional cost components. (not complete)
- One actual settlement reconciled to the provider statement. (not complete)
- Current surcharge-recovery amount, if any. (not complete)
- One consistent currency and GST basis for every scenario. (not complete)
- Current provider notice and POS or checkout configuration for the transition. (not complete)
Compare the user-entered contracts
- Payment Processing Fee Comparison
Compare two payment fee structures at an expected transaction volume
Compare four responses on the same contribution boundary
expected card cost = scenario price × card-paid share × entered percentage cost + allocated fixed, recurring and conditional payment cost; contribution = scenario price − non-payment variable cost − expected card cost
- scenario price
- User-entered advertised price for the scenario (A$ per sale) — user scenario
- card-paid share
- Share of sales expected to use cards in the scenario (percentage of sales) — user scenario
- entered percentage cost
- Reconciled percentage card cost from the applicable statement or contract (percentage of card turnover) — user-entered contract
- allocated payment cost
- Fixed, recurring and conditional payment costs allocated consistently (A$ per sale) — user-entered contract
- non-payment variable cost
- Other user-entered variable cost on the same GST basis (A$ per sale) — user scenario
Use one declared GST basis throughout. This arithmetic neither determines GST treatment nor predicts a change in sales volume.
| Response | Advertised price | Payment mix | Entered payment cost | Non-payment variable cost | Expected payment cost per sale | Contribution boundary | Operational and current-rule check | Demand assumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absorb actual cost | Enter the current price. | Enter the current card share. | Enter the reconciled current cost. | Keep the same entered non-payment variable cost. | Calculate from the current price, mix and reconciled payment cost. | Calculate payment cost and contribution before fixed overhead. | No checkout recovery; verify the complete statement boundary. | Not modelled. |
| Change the advertised price uniformly | Enter the proposed customer-facing price. | Keep the same entered payment mix. | Enter the same reconciled cost unless the contract also changes. | Keep the same entered non-payment variable cost. | Recalculate from the proposed price while the mix and payment-cost boundary stay fixed. | Calculate on the same non-payment cost and GST basis. | Review displayed prices, channels, invoices and implementation. | Not modelled. |
| Negotiate or switch plan | Enter the selected scenario price. | Use the same transaction mix for a like-for-like contract comparison. | Enter every component of the proposed dated contract. | Keep the same entered non-payment variable cost. | Recalculate from the proposed payment contract while price, mix and non-payment cost stay fixed. | Calculate on the same cost and volume boundary. | Reconcile provider terms, exceptions, settlement and migration cost. | Not modelled. |
| Offer a payment-method discount | Enter the full primary displayed price and proposed discount. | Enter the qualifying-method share separately. | Enter card and alternative-method costs separately. | Keep the same entered non-payment variable cost. | Calculate only after the discount, qualifying-method share and alternative-method cost are entered. | Calculate only after every discount and alternative-cost input is present. | Confirm contract permission and current ACCC display treatment. | Not modelled. |
required scenario price = (target contribution + non-payment variable cost + other fixed per-sale payment cost) ÷ (1 − card share × entered percentage card-cost rate)
- target contribution
- User-entered contribution to preserve before fixed overhead (A$ per sale) — user scenario
- other fixed per-sale payment cost
- Allocated payment cost that does not change with price (A$ per sale) — user-entered contract
Use this simplified form only when no omitted fixed or conditional fee changes with price. It is scenario arithmetic, not a recommended price.
Worked example: a labelled Australian scenario
Fictional user-entered comparison
These inputs are not an Australian benchmark, provider rate or recommendation. All values use one internally consistent but unspecified GST basis; the example does not calculate GST or input tax credits.
| Input | Entered value | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Advertised price | A$50.00 per sale | Same declared GST basis |
| Non-payment variable cost | A$30.00 per sale | Same declared GST basis |
| Card-paid share | 80% | User-entered sales mix |
| Current average card cost | 1.50% of card turnover | Simplified percentage-only fixture |
| Negotiated comparison cost | 1.20% of card turnover | User-entered proposed contract |
Current expected card cost is A$50.00 × 80% × 1.50% = A$0.60 per sale. Current contribution is A$50.00 − A$30.00 − A$0.60 = A$19.40 per sale.
| Scenario | User-entered change | Expected payment cost | Contribution | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absorb | No price or provider change | A$0.60 per sale | A$19.40 per sale | Retained contribution if the entered cost and mix continue. |
| Uniform reprice | Solve for the former A$20.00 contribution | About A$0.61 per sale | About A$20.00 per sale | The simplified scenario price is about A$50.61; customer response is not modelled. |
| Negotiate or switch | Entered cost changes to 1.20% | A$0.48 per sale | A$19.52 per sale | Compare only after reconciling the complete proposed contract. |
| Payment-method discount | Discount and alternative-method cost not entered | Not calculated | Not calculated | Stop until the user enters every required input and completes the current-rule check. |
Update the checkout without inventing a new fee
Operational transition checklist
- Confirm the exact network, acquirer or PSP implementation and any applicable exception. (not complete)
- Identify invoices issued before but payable by card after the effective date. (not complete)
- Update POS and ecommerce surcharge settings. (not complete)
- Review displayed and advertised prices. (not complete)
- Review invoice, menu, booking and service-fee wording while keeping payment charges distinct. (not complete)
- Train staff and verify one test transaction per applicable channel. (not complete)
- Retain the old and new provider or price source record and effective date. (not complete)
- Reconcile the first full statement after the change. (not complete)
When to stop and get current advice
- Provider or network instructions conflict with this dated article.
- The business relies on an alleged exception or a regulated industry rule.
- Taxi, non-card, weekend, public-holiday, booking or mandatory fees are involved.
- B2B or government-card treatment is contract-sensitive.
- GST, input tax credit or accounting treatment changes the comparison basis.
- Fixed, refund, foreign-card, gateway or conditional costs cannot be reconciled.
- The proposed discount or price display may be misleading.
- Inability to meet obligations turns the issue into a cash-flow or solvency question.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
- Is every Australian card surcharge directly banned by law on 1 October 2026?
- No. The RBA removes its prohibition on designated networks imposing no-surcharge rules. The merchant-facing result depends on current network rules, exceptions, contracts, provider implementation and applicable law.
- Which card networks does the current RBA guidance identify?
- The retained sources identify the designated eftpos, Mastercard and Visa debit, prepaid and credit card scope. Their dated decisions and any exceptions must be rechecked with the applicable payment provider.
- What if an invoice is issued before 1 October but paid after it?
- Do not assume the invoice date settles the answer. Check the applicable network rule, provider implementation and merchant contract for the payment made after the transition.
- Can a business offer a discount for another payment method?
- Current RBA and ACCC material describes payment-method discounts as an option, but the business must confirm contract permission, the qualifying method and current display treatment. Margin101 does not prescribe a discount.
- Can a business rename a card surcharge as a service fee?
- A new label does not automatically change a payment-specific fee’s character. Check the current ACCC guidance and the exact facts rather than relying on the name.
- Does the Margin101 scenario tell me how much to raise prices?
- No. It compares user-entered arithmetic on one contribution basis. It does not recommend a price or predict volume, conversion or customer acceptance.
- Do RBA interchange changes guarantee my provider fee will fall?
- No. The example assumes no pass-through. Compare the business’s actual old and new statements or contracts and include every cost component.
- Does this article calculate GST on merchant fees?
- No. Choose one internally consistent GST basis for the comparison and obtain current accounting or tax advice if the correct treatment is uncertain.
Sources and next decisions
Sources checked
- Margin101: Australian card-surcharge transition source reference — Margin101: Verified dependency version 2026-07-30; runtime-only before reciprocal publication.
- RBA: Removal of Payment Surcharges FAQ — Reserve Bank of Australia: Framework, designated-network scope, dated network status and business-response boundaries.
- ACCC: Card surcharges for businesses — Australian Competition and Consumer Commission: Current pre-transition surcharge and contract boundaries.
- ACCC: Price displays — Australian Competition and Consumer Commission: Current total-price, surcharge and payment-method-discount display guidance.
- Federal Register of Legislation: F2026L00434 — Australian Government: Registered variation instrument supporting the framework commencement.
- Margin101: Compare Marketplace and Payment Fees — Margin101: Global owner for fee-stack construction and statement reconciliation.
- Margin101: Payment Processing Comparison methodology — Margin101: Product-owned user-entered fee comparison method.
- Margin101: Ecommerce Order Profitability methodology — Margin101: Product-owned full order-contribution boundary.
Continue with the selected scenario
- Payment Processing Fee Comparison
Compare two payment fee structures at an expected transaction volume
- Ecommerce Order Profitability Planner
Test order contribution after the full fee stack