The First Merchant Fee Tables Are Out: What the RBA's Published Data Actually Shows

The first merchant fee tables required under the Reserve Bank of Australia’s new transparency rules are now available. They offer something merchants have lacked: a public view of the average fees charged by some of Australia’s largest payment providers.

We previewed what to expect when the deadline loomed in our guide to the RBA’s first transparency release. Now the data is out, this piece covers what the published figures actually show, what they cannot tell you, and how to put them to work.

But the figures are easy to misread. They are not individual price offers, and they do not represent every provider or every Australian business. Most importantly, this first reporting period ended on 30 September, before the RBA’s interchange changes and the removal of card surcharges took effect on 1 October.

The useful question is not simply, “Who is cheapest?” It is what these early benchmarks can tell merchants about their own payment costs, and what they cannot tell them yet.

First, a clarification about who published the tables

The RBA set the rules, but the merchant fee tables are published by the qualifying acquirers themselves. They also provide the data to the RBA. So these are RBA mandated disclosures, not a single RBA produced league table.

The first reporting period covered 1 July to 30 September 2026. The publication deadline was 30 October. The RBA’s transparency requirements apply to large acquirers processing more than $10 billion in eftpos, Mastercard and Visa transactions in Australia each year through direct merchant relationships.

That threshold matters. The disclosures are not a complete survey of every payment service provider. The rules also exclude some transactions processed indirectly through payment facilitators, unless the facilitator is related to the acquirer, and self acquired transactions.

What the first averages show

The initial tables provide a useful reference point. For example, ANZ Worldline reported an average merchant service fee of 0.55 per cent across all direct merchants. Its reported averages were 0.97 per cent for small merchants and 0.82 per cent for medium sized merchants. Westpac also reported 0.55 per cent for all direct merchants. Square reported 1.34 per cent overall, with 1.47 per cent for small merchants and 1.17 per cent for medium sized merchants.

Provider	All direct merchants	Small merchants	Medium sized merchants
ANZ Worldline	0.55%	0.97%	0.82%
Westpac	0.55%	0.79%	0.65%
Square	1.34%	1.47%	1.17%

Sources: ANZ Worldline’s fee disclosure, Westpac’s Q3 report and Square’s Q3 figures.

The broad pattern is that the small merchant average is higher than the medium sized average in all three examples. That is a prompt for merchants to review their own costs, not proof that every smaller business is overpaying. Each provider’s average reflects its own customer base, transaction mix and pricing arrangements.

The size bands are based on card transaction value processed with that provider: small merchants process $1 million or less annually, while medium sized merchants process more than $1 million and up to $10 million. The “all direct merchants” average also includes larger merchants, but the first tables do not provide a separate large merchant average.

Square’s table offers another useful detail: within its reported figures, card not present averages are higher than card present averages. Its small merchant averages were 1.86 per cent for domestic debit and prepaid card not present payments and 1.89 per cent for domestic credit card not present payments. The equivalent small merchant card present averages were both 1.42 per cent. That makes online payments a category worth checking separately in a merchant’s own statement and provider quote.

Why a direct provider comparison can mislead

An average is not a quote. It is also not necessarily a typical merchant’s rate.

Square explains that its average is calculated by dividing fees charged by the value of payments processed in each category. A transaction with a higher value therefore carries more weight in the result. The figure combines merchants with different volumes, card mixes and commercial agreements. Square also says its figures include sellers on standard and custom pricing and exclude GST.

Providers serve different merchant populations and offer different pricing structures. Their headline averages can vary because their customers take different proportions of debit, credit, domestic, international, in person and online payments. A provider average does not reveal what a particular business would be offered for the same transaction profile.

Nor is the merchant service fee the same thing as interchange. The merchant service fee is the overall fee the provider charges for accepting card payments. Interchange is one wholesale component, alongside scheme fees and the acquirer’s margin. The new tables make provider averages visible, but they do not, by themselves, break down every merchant’s total cost into those components.

Treat Q3 as a baseline, not a current price check

The timing is central to interpreting the first release. These averages reflect transactions processed before the domestic interchange changes and the removal of surcharging for eftpos, Mastercard and Visa took effect on 1 October 2026.

That makes the tables a baseline against which future disclosures can be assessed. It does not establish that providers have passed on interchange savings, nor that an individual merchant’s price changed on 1 October. The RBA’s implementation schedule sets out a separate requirement for large acquirers to publish an interchange pass through measure. The first is due by 30 January 2027, covering the quarter from 1 October to 31 December 2026.

That next release should be more informative about the reforms’ early effects. Merchants will be able to compare the pre change baseline with a post change period, while also reviewing how much of the interchange reduction providers report passing through. Even then, the figure should be read alongside each business’s own costs and transaction mix.

For the wider context on how the fee changes and the end of surcharging landed together, see our piece on network choice coming for credit cards.

How merchants can put the tables to work

Use the published averages as a starting point for a structured review, rather than as a stand alone reason to switch providers.

For businesses with several sales channels, keeping payment costs in context means seeing online and in person activity together, then reconciling provider statements against actual transaction data. Quantum Payments’ features describe a platform approach to payments, reporting and business operations.

Questions merchants are asking about the first fee tables

Are these tables the RBA telling us what providers charge? No. The RBA set the rules, but each qualifying acquirer publishes its own averages on its website and supplies the same data to the RBA. There is no single RBA league table at this stage.

Why do small merchants show higher averages than medium sized merchants? The averages reflect each provider’s own customer base, card mix and pricing plans, and smaller businesses often sit on different pricing structures with more of their volume on credit and online transactions, which cost more to process. Treat it as a prompt to check your own effective rate, not proof of overcharging.

Do these figures show the effect of the October fee changes? Not yet. This first reporting period ended 30 September 2026, before the new interchange caps and the end of surcharging took effect on 1 October. The next figures, due by 30 January 2027, will be the first to cover the post change period and will include the interchange pass through disclosures.

Can I use these numbers to demand a lower rate from my provider? You can use them as a benchmark. Compare your own effective rate with the average for your business size band at your own provider, split by in store and online transactions, and use your actual transaction profile when asking for a like for like quote.

The bigger signal: transparency creates a new discipline

The first tables are valuable because they make comparison possible, not because they settle it. Their clearest signal is that merchant size, channel and card mix matter, while the headline average can conceal substantial differences between businesses.

For merchants, the opportunity is to establish a reliable baseline now, obtain quotes using their own transaction data and test future disclosures against actual fee changes. For the payments industry, the test is whether increased visibility translates into meaningful competition and clearer pricing.

That is what the next reporting rounds will begin to show.