Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Act 2024

The Act’s main concepts are defined in s 4 and then used to set the boundaries of the authorising power in s 5 and the governance framework in s 7. These concepts determine when an entity may impose a surcharge, what counts as a surcharge, who decides surcharging policy, and how non‑compliance is handled.

• “Payment surcharge” (s 4): Two alternative descriptions are given. First, a surcharge may be “an amount charged, in addition to the amount of the payment, for processing the payment” (s 4, payment surcharge (a)). Second, it may be “an amount (however described) charged for one payment method rather than another being used to make the payment” (s 4, payment surcharge (b)). Both limbs are deliberate: the first targets processing costs; the second captures differential charges between payment methods (for example card versus BPAY), regardless of label.
• “Surchargeable payment” (s 4): A payment is surchargeable if “a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory gives a Commonwealth entity the power, function or duty of charging or collecting a payment surcharge in relation to the payment.” This is a definitional trapdoor: if some other law already authorises a surcharge for that base payment, the base payment qualifies as surchargeable and s 5 will not be the source of authority for an additional surcharge on that payment (see s 5(1)(b)). The Act therefore acts as a residual or gap‑filler authorisation.
• “Commonwealth entity” and “accountable authority” (s 4): These terms point to the institutional actors who may act under the Act. The meanings are taken from the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, with a specific exception for the High Court’s accountable authority (the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar). The Act therefore operates through the PGPA institutional framework, including the concept of an accountable authority that has duties under s 7(4).
• Ministerial policy by legislative instrument (s 7(3)): The Act centralises policy direction with the Minister, who may determine “Commonwealth payment surcharging policies” by legislative instrument. The instrument mechanism is the vehicle for specifying how entities should charge, collect, and refund surcharges. The Act requires entities to “take all reasonable steps” to comply with those policies (s 7(1)), but separately states that failure to comply does not vitiate the validity of charging or refunding decisions (s 7(2)).
• Non‑compliance and directions (s 7(4)-(7)): An accountable authority must notify the Minister when it becomes aware of non‑compliance with the reasonable‑steps obligation (s 7(4)). The Minister may then make a direction by legislative instrument that the entity do or refrain from a specified act (s 7(5)), and the entity “must comply” with that direction (s 7(6)), subject to any other Commonwealth law (s 7(7)).

Two further textual limits are notable. First, s 5(2) bars surcharges that “amount to taxation” , the Act does not define “taxation”. Second, s 7(2) preserves validity of charging and refund decisions even where an entity did not take all reasonable steps to comply with the ministerial policies. Both are textual constraints that affect risk allocation between payers, entities and the Minister.

The Act creates financial and administrative effects that touch multiple parties inside government and every external payer who makes payments to Commonwealth entities where a surcharge is charged.

• Commonwealth entities: The primary addressees are entities defined by the PGPA Act, which the Act adopts for “Commonwealth entity” and “accountable authority” (s 4). These entities are authorised to lev y and collect surcharges under s 5, must take reasonable steps to comply with Ministerial surcharging policies (s 7(1)), can refund surcharges under s 6, and must follow directions made under s 7(5) if notified of non‑compliance (s 7(4)-(6)).
• Accountable authorities: The Act creates a specific reporting duty for an entity’s accountable authority. If the accountable authority becomes aware of non‑compliance with the reasonable‑steps obligation, it must notify the Minister in writing “as soon as practicable” (s 7(4)). That duty places an internal governance obligation on the officials who serve as accountable authorities under the PGPA architecture.
• The Minister: The Minister obtains delegated policy‑making power to set “Commonwealth payment surcharging policies” by legislative instrument (s 7(3)). The Minister also acquires a remedial power to direct entities to do or refrain from specified acts in relation to non‑compliance (s 7(5)). The Minister therefore decides the content of policies and may issue binding directions, subject to other Commonwealth law (s 7(7)).
• Payers (individuals, businesses, third parties): Anyone who makes payments to a Commonwealth entity that are subject to a surcharge will face the direct financial effect of paying the surcharge. The Act defines “payment surcharge” broadly (s 4), so surcharges may be added either as a processing fee or as a method‑based premium. The Act’s authorising mechanism in s 5 makes the surcharge applicable only where the entity has statutory power to collect the underlying base payment, and only where that base payment is not already a surchargeable payment under another law (s 5(1)(a)-(b)).
• High Court: The Act clarifies that for the High Court the accountable authority is the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar (s 4). That ensures the High Court participates in the same surcharging regime where applicable.
• Other jurisdictions: The definition of a “surchargeable payment” includes payments where a State or Territory law gives a Commonwealth entity power to charge a surcharge (s 4). This means intergovernmental or cross‑jurisdictional laws that already authorise surcharging will exclude those base payments from being authorised under this Act.

Financially, the burden is directly on payers of the affected base payments. Administratively, the duty is on Commonwealth entities and their accountable authorities to implement and monitor surcharging practices, to take reasonable steps to comply with Ministerial policies, and to notify the Minister of non‑compliance. The Minister controls the policy instrument and remedial directions.

The Act sets out a calibrated set of rights for entities to charge and collect surcharges, discretionary refund rights, policy compliance duties, and reporting and compliance duties for accountable authorities. Key provisions are s 5, s 6 and s 7, supported by the definitions in s 4.

Rights and authorities

• Right to charge and collect a payment surcharge (s 5(1)): A Commonwealth entity may impose a surcharge on a payment where the entity has statutory power, function or duty to collect the base payment under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law, and provided the base payment is not already a “surchargeable payment” (s 5(1)(a)-(b)). This creates an affirmative statutory authority to surcharge in those circumstances.
• Right to refund (s 6): Entities may refund whole or part of a surcharge “if the Commonwealth entity believes that the refund would be appropriate.” The trigger is the entity’s belief, which is a discretionary standard rather than a mandatory entitlement for payers.

Duties and governance obligations

• Take all reasonable steps to comply with ministerial policies (s 7(1)): Entities must take “all reasonable steps” to comply with Commonwealth payment surcharging policies determined by the Minister (s 7(3)). The Act sets a reasonableness standard rather than absolute compliance in the first instance.
• Notification duty for accountable authority (s 7(4)): If the accountable authority becomes aware that the entity has failed to comply with the reasonable‑steps duty, that authority must notify the Minister in writing “as soon as practicable.” This imposes an internal reporting obligation tied to governance responsibilities.
• Compliance with Ministerial directions (s 7(5)-(6)): Following notification, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, direct the entity to do or refrain from a specified act in relation to the non‑compliance. The entity “must comply” with that direction (s 7(6)), but the duty to comply is “subject to any other law of the Commonwealth” (s 7(7)). This creates a pathway from policy to binding administrative direction, tempered by existing law.

Constraints and protective rules

• Non‑taxation constraint (s 5(2)): Surcharges must not “amount to taxation.” The Act does not define “taxation,” so entities must consider this constraint when setting surcharges. The text places a categorical constraint on the nature of the surcharge.
• Preservation of validity despite non‑compliance (s 7(2)): The Act expressly provides that failure to take all reasonable steps to comply with the ministerial policies “does not affect the validity of a decision to charge, collect or refund a payment surcharge under section 5 or 6.” That clause limits the immediate legal remedy available to payers seeking to invalidate a charge on the basis of policy non‑compliance.

Procedural features and discretion

• Ministerial policies as legislative instruments (s 7(3)): Policies are to be determined by legislative instrument; the Act ties entities’ duties to such instruments. The Act does not itself prescribe the content of those policies.
• Discretion in refunds (s 6): The refund power is discretionary, based on the entity’s belief that a refund is appropriate; there is no statutory entitlement for a payer to a refund under the Act.

These combined rights and duties create a framework where entities are empowered to surcharge under defined conditions, must self‑govern under ministerial policy and internal reporting rules, and are subject to ministerial directions following notified non‑compliance, while payers face a limited private law avenue to challenge surcharges based on the Act’s preservation of validity in s 7(2).

The Act establishes a compliance and remedial architecture that relies on policy instruments, reporting obligations and ministerial directions. It contains no express criminal offences, monetary penalties, or judicial enforcement clauses within the text provided. Enforcement and corrective measures are administrative and internal‑governmental in character.

Key enforcement mechanisms

• Ministerial policies and directions (s 7(3), s 7(5)-(6)): The Minister may set surcharging policies by legislative instrument and may direct entities by legislative instrument to do or refrain from specified acts in relation to non‑compliance. The text requires the Commonwealth entity to comply with such directions (s 7(6)). These directions are the primary express enforcement mechanism in the Act.
• Reporting duty as compliance lever (s 7(4)): The accountable authority must notify the Minister “as soon as practicable” if it becomes aware of non‑compliance with the reasonable‑steps obligation. That reporting duty channels internal accountability through the Minister and enables the use of the direction power under s 7(5). It also imposes a governance obligation that can be supervised under the PGPA framework, though the Act does not itself create a separate sanction for failing to notify.
• Subject to other law (s 7(7)): The duty to comply with ministerial directions is subject to “any other law of the Commonwealth.” This clause limits the reach of directions where they would conflict with other statutory limits or obligations; it may therefore affect enforceability of particular directions in practice.

Absence of judicial or statutory penalty provisions

• No specified civil penalties, fines or offences: The Act does not articulate criminal offences, civil pecuniary penalties, administrative sanctions or other statutory consequences tied directly to contravention of the surcharging rules. The text confines remedy and enforcement to ministerial policy instruments, reporting, and directions.
• Validity preserved despite policy non‑compliance (s 7(2)): The Act expressly provides that a failure to comply with the duty to take all reasonable steps “does not affect the validity of a decision to charge, collect or refund a payment surcharge.” That clause reduces the utility of an immediate legal challenge framed on policy non‑compliance; it places the primary enforcement emphasis on administrative rectification rather than on invalidation of transactions.

Practical enforcement implications

• Administrative rather than penal enforcement: Given the absence of fines or offences, enforcement occurs through administrative tools: ministerial policy setting, reporting, and directions. This centralises remedial power in the Minister and in accountable authorities’ reporting obligations.
• Potential reliance on other laws for enforcement: Because s 7(7) limits directions where other Commonwealth law applies, enforcement may rely on other legislative frameworks (for example, the PGPA Act governance regime), but the Act itself does not specify those cross‑references or enforcement pathways.
• No express private right of action or statutory restitution remedy in the Act text: The Act does not create a statutory cause of action for payers seeking recovery of surcharges or damages, nor does it provide for automatic refunds where policy obligations were not met. The discretionary refund power in s 6 is a one‑sided statutory allowance to entities.

In short, enforcement under the Act is administrative, residing with the Minister and the accountable authorities, and the State has not created within this instrument express criminal or civil penalties for non‑compliance.

The Act is expressly designed to operate within an existing statutory and governance environment. Several cross‑references and textual clauses govern interaction with other laws and with institutional regimes.

Primary cross‑references

• Dependence on the PGPA Act for definitions (s 4): The Act adopts the meanings for “Commonwealth entity” and “accountable authority” from the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, with the specific caveat that the meaning of “Commonwealth entity” is adopted “disregarding subsection 10(2) of that Act” (s 4). The effect is that the Act plugs into the PGPA legal architecture for institutional identification and governance responsibilities. Users must therefore read this Act alongside the PGPA Act to identify which bodies are captured and who the accountable authority is for each entity.
• “Surchargeable payment” references other laws (s 4): A payment will be a surchargeable payment if “a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory gives a Commonwealth entity the power, function or duty of charging or collecting a payment surcharge in relation to the payment.” That cross‑reference means that whether a base payment is eligible to be surcharged under this Act depends on provisions in other Commonwealth, State or Territory statutes. The Act therefore functions as a residual authorisation only when some other law has not already authorised a surcharge.
• Directions subject to other Commonwealth law (s 7(7)): The entity’s duty to comply with a Minister’s direction under s 7(6) is “subject to any other law of the Commonwealth.” This clause recognises potential statutory limits on the Minister’s power to direct or on an entity’s capacity to take particular actions, and requires reconciling directions with existing statutory obligations.

Limits and interpretive interactions

• Non‑taxation constraint and other fiscal laws (s 5(2)): The Act prohibits surcharges that “amount to taxation” but does not define that term. Interaction with other taxation and fiscal statutes and constitutional or administrative principles will influence how the prohibition is applied, but the Act itself leaves the interpretive work to other legal contexts and bodies.
• Validity protection and administrative law: Section 7(2) narrows the remedial route available to a person seeking to challenge a surcharge on the basis of policy non‑compliance; it displaces a possible argument that breach of ministerial policy would void the charge. The Act does not expressly state how this interacts with common law judicial review or other statutory review regimes; however, the preservation of validity is a clear textual direction affecting remedies that interact with other legal processes.
• Interaction with State and Territory law: Because the definition of surchargeable payment may be triggered by a State or Territory law, the application of the Act to particular payments may depend on intergovernmental instruments, cross‑vesting or other arrangements. The Act contemplates such cross‑jurisdictional interactions but does not itself reconcile conflicts between State laws authorising surcharging and Commonwealth administrative decisions.
• Legislative instruments: The Act contemplates two categories of legislative instruments,policy instruments under s 7(3) and directions under s 7(5). The Act does not specify the legal form or parliamentary oversight of these instruments beyond labelling them as legislative instruments. Interaction with the Legislation Act 2003 or other statutory frameworks that apply to legislative instruments will therefore be relevant to procedural questions about those instruments, but the Act itself does not elaborate those processes.

Operational implications

• Entities must read this Act alongside the PGPA Act to determine institutional responsibilities and accountability duties (s 4).
• Whether the Act authorises a surcharge in a particular case depends on other statutes that define the entity’s power to collect the base payment, and on whether those statutes already authorise surcharging (s 5(1)(a)-(b), s 4 definition of surchargeable payment).
• Compliance with ministerial policies and directions must also be reconciled with any other Commonwealth law that applies to the entity (s 7(7)), which may include constraints in other sectoral statutes or statutory duties.

The Act is not standalone; its functioning requires reading it in the statutory ecosystem that includes the PGPA Act and any sectoral statutes that govern the imposition of the underlying base payment.

The Act as presented is an original enactment with immediate commencement provisions and contains no subsequent amendment items within the text provided. The formal commencement provision and the explanatory note in the schedule are the only elements of legislative timing and history recorded in the text.

• Commencement (s 2): The Act’s table in s 2 indicates “The whole of this Act” commenced “The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent,” recorded as 3 December 2024 in the commencement table. Section 2(2) clarifies that any information in column 3 of the table is not part of the Act and may be edited in published versions without altering the statute.
• Original enactment: The Act text contains no schedule of amendments or consequential amendments to other Acts. It is presented as a short, discrete instrument authorising surcharging and establishing a ministerial policy framework.
• Ministerial second reading speech references: The Act notes that the Minister’s second reading speech was made in the House of Representatives on 25 November 2024 and in the Senate on 27 November 2024. The speech text itself is not reproduced in the Act, and any claims in the speech should be treated as ministerial explanation rather than statutory language.
• No recorded amendments in the statute book text: The text does not provide any amending history, transitional arrangements beyond commencement, sunset clauses, repeal provisions, or specific savings provisions. It is therefore a clean insertion into the statute book that relies on general transitional rules and existing legal frameworks for later changes.
• Future amendment mechanism not specified: The Act does not provide a framework for its own amendment, nor does it prescribe periodic review or reporting obligations that might lead to an amendment program. Any amendment would proceed under the usual legislative processes.

For practitioners, the current amendment history to note is that the Act is newly enacted, commenced on the date specified in s 2, and contains no express subsequent amendments or transitional provisions in the text provided. Any future amendment or consequential changes to related statutory regimes would need to be tracked through the Commonwealth’s legislative amendment processes and associated explanatory materials.

The Act text contains no reported litigation, cases, or judicial interpretation. The only procedural legislative record present in the text is the note that the Minister’s second reading speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on 25 November 2024 and in the Senate on 27 November 2024. Absent litigation, there is no judicial construction of the Act’s key terms in the source material.

Implications of no litigation history in the Act

• Lack of precedent or authoritative interpretation: Because there is no case law in the Act, practitioners must interpret the Act’s terms (for example, “amount to taxation,” “all reasonable steps,” or the scope of the ministerial legislative instruments) using standard statutory interpretation principles and by reference to related statutes, rather than relying on settled judicial constructions of these specific provisions.
• Policy instruments and directions untested: The Act contemplates ministerial policies and directions by legislative instrument (s 7(3) and s 7(5)). Until such instruments are made and potentially challenged in court, there will be no litigation clarifying the substantive content or procedural validity of those instruments under this Act.
• Remedies and validity preserved: Section 7(2) states that failure to comply with the reasonable‑steps obligation does not affect the validity of charging, collecting or refunding a payment surcharge. The interplay of that clause with judicial review, statutory restitution remedies or equitable relief has not been litigated in the text. Practitioners will need to consider how general administrative law remedies interact with s 7(2) in the absence of direct judicial answers.
• Potential for future litigation on definitional boundaries: The Act leaves open several definitional questions that litigation may later address, including what counts as “amount[ing] to taxation” (s 5(2)), the scope of “surchargeable payment” (s 4), and how “all reasonable steps” (s 7(1)) is applied in practice. Until litigated, these will be areas of interpretive uncertainty.

Until actual judicial decisions are taken under the Act, guidance must be drawn from the Act’s text and its interaction with other statutes, and practitioners should treat the Act’s provisions as untested statutory law.

The Act is short but contains several provisions that can produce unexpected practical and legal consequences. Below are discrete risks and interpretive friction points that arise directly from the statutory text.

1. Residual authorisation only, not universal power (s 5(1)(b); s 4 definition of surchargeable payment)

• The Act does not create a blanket power to surcharge every payment. It authorises surcharging only where the entity already has the statutory power, function or duty to collect the base payment under some law (s 5(1)(a)). Further, it excludes base payments that are already “surchargeable payments” under other laws (s 5(1)(b), s 4). Practically, before imposing any surcharge an entity must confirm both that it has statutory authority to collect the underlying base payment and that no other law already authorises surcharging that payment.

2. “Amount to taxation” constraint is undefined (s 5(2))

• The Act forbids surcharges that “amount to taxation,” but the Act does not define “taxation.” Entities deciding surcharge levels must proceed without statutory guidance within this Act, potentially exposing decisions to challenge if a court later interprets the phrase strictly.

3. Policy non‑compliance does not void charges (s 7(2))

• Section 7(2) provides that failing to comply with the duty to take “all reasonable steps” to adhere to ministerial policies does not affect the validity of a decision to charge, collect or refund a surcharge. This reduces the immediate legal leverage of payers seeking to invalidate a surcharge because of policy non‑compliance; remedies are likely to be administrative rather than automatic statutory invalidation.

4. Ministerial policy by legislative instrument; direction also by legislative instrument (s 7(3), s 7(5))

• Both the policy and any remedial direction are to be made by legislative instrument, which introduces procedural questions about how those instruments will be drafted, published, and subject to parliamentary oversight. The Act does not specify the procedural controls or consultation obligations for those instruments.

5. Reporting duty creates internal governance obligation (s 7(4))

• The accountable authority’s duty to notify the Minister “as soon as practicable” when aware of non‑compliance imposes a timing and reporting standard. This creates an internal compliance and information‑flow burden that must be managed in entity governance processes.

6. Refund power is discretionary and subjective (s 6)

• The power to refund is conditioned on the entity believing a refund “would be appropriate.” There is no statutory entitlement for payers to a refund and no statutory criteria for what makes a refund “appropriate.” Entities’ internal refund policies will therefore be important to avoid inconsistent or arbitrary treatment.

7. Directions subject to other law (s 7(7))

• The duty to comply with Ministerial directions is constrained by “any other law of the Commonwealth.” That means entities must check for conflicts with other statutes or obligations before implementing directions, potentially complicating compliance for entities operating under sectoral legislation.

8. Interaction with State and Territory laws (s 4)

• Because a “surchargeable payment” can be defined by a State or Territory law that gives a Commonwealth entity a surcharge power, the Act’s coverage depends on intergovernmental statutory arrangements. This can create complexity where State law has authorised surcharging or where the status of the base payment depends on local legislative definitions.

9. No express penalties but directions are mandatory (s 7(6))

• There are no specified monetary or criminal penalties in the Act. However, the Act requires entities to comply with ministerial directions made under the Act, creating a mandatory administrative obligation without an explicit sanctioning regime in the text.

10. High Court special naming of accountable authority (s 4)

• For the High Court, the accountable authority is the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar. Practitioners dealing with Court payments will need to map internal responsibilities accordingly.

Each “gotcha” follows directly from the Act’s wording. Entities and payers should map statutory duties against these friction points and build procedures to manage uncertainty on taxation status, refund criteria, and inter‑statute conflicts.

Complying with the Act requires both legal checks and operational steps. The compliance focus should be on statutory authority for base payments, alignment with ministerial policies and internal governance processes, documentation of charging decisions, and readiness to report non‑compliance and implement directions. The following steps align directly with the Act’s text.

1. Legal entitlement check before surcharging (s 5(1)(a), s 4)

• Confirm statutory authority to collect the base payment: Before charging any surcharge, verify that the entity has power, function or duty under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law to collect the underlying base payment (s 5(1)(a)). Document the statutory source of that authority.
• Confirm the base payment is not already a surchargeable payment: Check whether any Commonwealth, State or Territory law already authorises the entity to charge a surcharge in relation to that base payment (s 4 definition of surchargeable payment and s 5(1)(b)). If another law has already authorised surcharging for the base payment, this Act will not be the source of authorisation for an additional surcharge.

2. Design surcharges to avoid “amount[ing] to taxation” (s 5(2))

• Treat the “not taxation” constraint as a gateway test. Where practicable, align surcharge design with clearly definable processing cost recovery or payment‑method differential rationales (s 4 payment surcharge (a) and (b)), and document the cost drivers that underpin the surcharge quantum. Keep a documented rationale linking surcharge levels to processing costs or incremental costs of payment methods, because the Act’s prohibition against taxation is categorical but undefined.

3. Adopt or await Ministerial policies and track legislative instruments (s 7(3), s 7(1))

• Monitor and obtain the “Commonwealth payment surcharging policies” made by the Minister by legislative instrument (s 7(3)). These policies will set the operative expectations that entities “must take all reasonable steps” to comply with (s 7(1)). Implement internal procedures to align surcharging practices with those policies, including internal checklists, approvals, and policy adherence audits.

4. Implement governance and accountable authority reporting processes (s 7(4))

• Establish internal reporting lines so the entity’s accountable authority is promptly alerted to any non‑compliance with the reasonable‑steps policy duty. Ensure the accountable authority can notify the Minister in writing “as soon as practicable” if aware of non‑compliance (s 7(4)). Maintain contemporaneous records that show when non‑compliance was discovered and the steps taken thereafter.

5. Prepare for Ministerial directions and compliance (s 7(5)-(6))

• Have processes to receive, review and implement legislative instrument directions from the Minister. Because the Act requires entities to “must comply” with directions (s 7(6)), subject to other Commonwealth law (s 7(7)), entities should evaluate directions for conflicts with other statutory duties prior to implementation and seek legal advice where conflicts arise.

6. Refund policy and exercise of discretion (s 6)

• Draft and publish an internal refund policy that sets out when an entity will exercise its discretion under s 6 to refund whole or part of a surcharge. Although the Act’s statutory refund power is discretionary (“if the Commonwealth entity believes that the refund would be appropriate”), a transparent refund policy reduces inconsistency and reputational risk.

7. Recordkeeping and documentation

• Maintain clear records of the statutory authority for base payments, the legal assessment that the base payment is not surchargeable under other laws, the basis for surcharge quantum, communications with payers, internal approvals, the application of Ministerial policies, and any notifications to the Minister under s 7(4). Documentation will be critical given s 7(2) preserves validity but does not remove other legal risks.

8. Training and consumer communication

• Train front‑line staff and payment processors on which payment methods are surchargeable, how surcharges must be described to payers (consistent with s 4 definitions), and how refund requests are to be handled. Ensure payment interfaces clearly identify any surcharge and the reason for it to reduce disputes and administrative costs.

9. Liaise with legal and finance teams

• Legal teams should review surcharging proposals for compliance with the “not taxation” requirement and with other Commonwealth legal obligations that could affect the entity’s duty to comply with Ministerial directions (s 7(7)). Finance should quantify processing costs and document the cost base that supports the surcharge.

10. Monitor State and Territory legislation

• Because a “surchargeable payment” may arise from State or Territory law, coordinate with any intergovernmental or State legislative frameworks relevant to payments the entity collects (s 4). Where payments cross jurisdictions, ensure that the lawful source of surcharging is clear.

By following these steps grounded in the Act’s text, entities can operationalise lawful surcharging, meet the statutory governance duties placed on accountable authorities, and be ready to respond to ministerial policies and directions. Documentation and internal procedures are the primary compliance levers under the Act.