Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 - Interchange Fees in the EFTPOS System (November 2012)

The Standard rests on a small set of defined technical concepts that determine scope, measurement and compliance. These concepts are set out in the application and definitions (para 4) and the substantive rules (paras 8-16, 17-19). Practitioners should map these definitions to contractual terms in the EFTPOS Scheme Rules and the Company constitution.

Key concepts are:

• EFTPOS system and Company: The Standard applies to “the payment system operated within Australia known as the EFTPOS system” designated on 12 June 2012 (para 3). The Company is EFTPOS Payments Australia Limited, ABN 37 136 180 366 (para 4). The Standard therefore targets the EFTPOS network and its governing body, rather than card schemes generally.
• Member, EFTPOS Issuer, EFTPOS Acquirer and Self Acquirer: These role definitions are incorporated from the EFTPOS Scheme Rules (para 4). The Standard’s duties and reporting obligations flow to the Company and its Members, and to Acquirers and Self Acquirers who are parties to Bilateral Agreements (paras 5, 19). Whether an entity is a Member, Issuer, Acquirer or Self Acquirer is determined by the Scheme Rules, which may affect who bears reporting and compliance duties.
• Interchange fee: Defined broadly as a wholesale fee payable between an EFTPOS Issuer and an EFTPOS Acquirer or Self Acquirer, directly or indirectly, in relation to an EFTPOS Transaction in the EFTPOS system (para 4). The Standard treats directionality explicitly: Acquirer-to-Issuer payments are positive, Issuer-to-Acquirer payments are negative (para 8). GST is excluded for cap measurements (paras 9, 12).
• Bilateral interchange fee and Bilateral Agreement: A bilateral interchange fee is a fee agreed under a Bilateral Agreement between two or more Members for payment solely between those Members (para 4). Bilateral Agreement is given the meaning in the Scheme Rules and includes “any other agreement permitted under the EFTPOS Scheme Rules” that varies interchange fees from Company-specified fees (para 4). The Standard therefore recognises bilateral contracting within the Scheme Rules but subjects bilateral fees to the benchmark cap (para 9).
• Multilateral interchange fee: A fee determined by the Company to apply to transactions between Members unless a Bilateral Agreement applies (para 4). The Standard limits the weighted average of implemented multilateral interchange fees, computed as an average cents-per-transaction figure over the previous financial year (paras 12-14).
• Benchmarks and linkage to Visa Debit: The bilateral and multilateral benchmarks for EFTPOS at any time are defined to be the same as the benchmarks applying to the Visa Debit system under the RBA’s Visa Debit Standard, published on the Reserve Bank’s website (paras 10, 15). Both benchmarks may be re-calculated in accordance with the Visa Debit Standard (paras 11, 16). The Standard therefore delegates the numerical limit setting to the Visa Debit Standard as published and updated on the RBA website.
• Transparency and reporting: The Company must publish multilateral fees (para 17), certify to the Reserve Bank annually covering 12 months ending 31 October (para 18), and Acquirers/Self Acquirers party to Bilateral Agreements must report ranges of bilateral fees to the Reserve Bank by 1 November each year (para 19). The RBA may publish the industry range (para 19).

Interpretation rules (para 7) state the Standard is to be interpreted in accordance with its objective (promoting efficiency and competition) and by “looking beyond form to substance”. The Standard also contains a severability provision (para 6), which limits the effect of any partial invalidity.

Taken together, these concepts allocate rule‑making and data‑reporting responsibilities to the Company and Members, set numerical caps that mirror the Visa Debit Standard, and create an annual compliance and transparency cycle tied to financial year activity and particular calendar reporting dates.

The Standard directly affects the Company, its Members, and parties to Bilateral Agreements within the EFTPOS Scheme Rules (paras 3-5, 19). It operates through the Scheme Rules and the Company constitution, so practical effect depends on contractual relationships and role classifications under those documents (para 4). The primary categories of affected stakeholders are:

• The Company, EFTPOS Payments Australia Limited: the Company is the obliged entity to publish multilateral interchange fees (para 17) and to certify compliance annually to the Reserve Bank by 30 November (para 18). The Company also must “do all things necessary on its part to ensure compliance with this Standard” (para 5). That creates a corporate compliance duty encompassing governance, recordkeeping and monitoring of Members’ practices.
• Members of the Company: Members are obliged by para 5 to do all things necessary on their part to ensure compliance with the Standard. Members include Issuers, Acquirers and Self Acquirers as defined in the Scheme Rules (para 4), so issuers and acquirers must ensure their interchange arrangements conform to the benchmarks and reporting obligations.
• EFTPOS Issuers: Issuers will be the payees or payers of interchange depending on the sign convention (para 8). Where the bilateral benchmark delivers a positive figure payable to issuers (as in the explanatory preamble which states the Visa Debit benchmark was “currently 12 cent paid to the issuer”), issuers stand to receive interchange flows up to that cap. Issuers must ensure Fees charged to or paid by them do not breach the bilateral or multilateral caps, and they may be indirectly affected by the Company’s certification and potential RBA scrutiny.
• EFTPOS Acquirers and Self Acquirers: Acquirers are responsible for reporting ranges of bilateral interchange fees to the Reserve Bank by 1 November where they are parties to Bilateral Agreements (para 19). Acquirers may also be net payers of interchange if bilateral fees are positive to issuers, and they are affected by any shift in who receives interchange that the Standard effects.
• Merchants and consumers: Although not named in the Standard, merchants and consumers are economically affected because interchange is a wholesale price between issuers and acquirers that flows through to merchant service fees and potentially to consumer product pricing. The Standard’s objective statement points to efficiency and competition in the payments system (Objective), but the Standard does not set direct obligations on merchants or end-consumers.
• Regulators and market observers: The Reserve Bank is the authorising and oversight authority, and its publication of the Visa Debit benchmarks on its website drives the caps (paras 10, 15). The RBA may publish industry ranges for bilateral fees (para 19), which affects public transparency and competitive dynamics.

The Standard’s scope is constrained to EFTPOS Transactions as defined in the Scheme Rules, excluding credits, refunds, reversals and chargebacks (para 4), and the financial year reference point is the year ending 30 June (para 4). Entities that operate across multiple schemes must therefore map their EFTPOS activity separately to the EFTPOS Standard and to whatever arrangements apply under Visa Debit or other systems.

Who pays and who decides, in simple terms: interchange flows are paid and received by Issuers and Acquirers (para 4 and para 8). The Company and its Members must ensure compliance (para 5). The Reserve Bank determines and publishes benchmarks for Visa Debit which the Standard uses to set the EFTPOS caps (paras 10, 15), and it receives certificatory and reporting material (paras 18-19). Bilateral Agreements permitted by the Scheme Rules remain contractually relevant but are subject to the benchmark caps (para 4 and para 9).

The Standard imposes specific duties principally on the Company and Members, and reporting duties on Acquirers or Self Acquirers that are parties to Bilateral Agreements. There are also definitional rights in the sense that the Company may determine multilateral fees under the Scheme Rules, subject to the cap. The main duties and limited rights are:

Duties

• Duty to ensure compliance: The Company and each Member “must do all things necessary on its part to ensure compliance with this Standard” (para 5). That is an express obligation that reaches corporate governance, procedural steps and any contractual enforcement within the Scheme necessary to maintain compliance.
• Bilateral fee cap: No bilateral interchange fee (excluding GST) paid on any EFTPOS Transaction in Australia may exceed the bilateral interchange fee benchmark (para 9). This is an absolute cap expressed as an entitlement to withhold or not charge beyond the benchmark.
• Multilateral fee cap: On set dates, the weighted average of multilateral interchange fees implemented in the EFTPOS system (excluding GST) must not exceed the multilateral interchange fee benchmark (para 12). The dates include 1 November every third year after 2012 and any date a multilateral interchange fee is introduced, varied or removed (para 13). The weighted average calculation is specified (para 14).
• Publication obligation: The Company must publish any multilateral interchange fees applying to EFTPOS Transactions on its website or otherwise make them publicly available (para 17). This creates a transparency duty for the Company.
• Annual certification: The Company must certify in writing to the Reserve Bank on or before 30 November each year that interchange fees complied with the Standard over the prior 12 months ending 31 October (para 18). This is a formal attestation duty.
• Reporting by Acquirers/Self Acquirers party to Bilateral Agreements: Any such Acquirer or Self Acquirer must report to the Reserve Bank by 1 November each year the range of bilateral interchange fees it received or paid in the previous financial year (para 19). The Reserve Bank may publish that industry range.

Rights and operational discretion

• Company’s rule-making discretion over multilateral fees: The Standard recognises multilateral interchange fees as “determined by the Company” under the Scheme Rules (para 4). The Company retains the practical right to determine and implement multilateral fees, subject to the weighted average cap and transparency obligations (paras 12, 14, 17).
• Bilateral contracting: Members may enter Bilateral Agreements as provided for in the Scheme Rules, and such agreements may set interchange fees that vary from Company-specified fees, subject to the overall cap (para 4 and para 9). That preserves contractual freedom within the Scheme Rules, constrained by the benchmark cap.
• Reliance on Visa Debit benchmark: The right to use the Visa Debit benchmark, and the Reserve Bank’s capacity to re-calculate it under the Visa Debit Standard, is embedded in the Standard (paras 10-11, 15-16). The Company and Members therefore have a predictable linkage to an external benchmark, but not a fixed dollar amount in this instrument.

Form and substance interpretation

• Interpretive duty: The Standard is to be interpreted in accordance with its objective and “by looking beyond form to substance” (para 7). This gives the Reserve Bank and the Company room to consider economic substance over strict contractual form when assessing compliance.

Administrative and compliance mechanics

• Calculation mechanics: The weighted average formula in para 14 is a specific compliance test. The Standard also sets expression rules for sign conventions (para 8) and excludes GST when measuring caps (paras 9, 12).
• Timing duties: The annual certification and reporting dates, and the multilateral assessment dates in para 13, create a compliance calendar that Company and Members must follow.

Notably, the Standard does not set out sanctions or enforcement procedures within the text reproduced here. It creates obligations, monitoring and reporting steps, and a benchmarking mechanism tied to the Visa Debit Standard. Any enforcement powers or penalties that the Reserve Bank may have under the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 are not contained in this Standard text, beyond the duties and reporting mechanisms specified.

The Standard sets out compliance duties, reporting obligations and transparency measures, but the text reproduced here does not itself specify statutory penalties or enforcement mechanisms such as fines, injunctions or specific sanctions. The instrument does, however, embed supervisory tools that facilitate oversight and potential follow-up action by the Reserve Bank:

• Certification and reporting as supervisory inputs: The Company must certify annually that interchange fees complied with the Standard over the prior 12 months (para 18). Acquirers or Self Acquirers that are parties to Bilateral Agreements must report the range of bilateral interchange fees to the Reserve Bank annually (para 19). The Company must publish multilateral fees (para 17). These reporting and publication duties supply the Reserve Bank with information necessary to detect non-compliance.
• Interpretive emphasis on substance: The requirement that the Standard be interpreted according to its objective and by looking beyond form to substance (para 7) broadens the Reserve Bank’s scope to assess compliance on economic substance, not merely formal labels.
• Duty to ensure compliance: The Company and each Member are required to “do all things necessary on its part to ensure compliance with this Standard” (para 5). That phrasing creates a proactive corporate obligation and supports the Reserve Bank’s ability to require corrective steps or remediation if it becomes aware of non-compliance.

What the Standard does not provide, within the reproduced text

• No specific statutory penalty clause is included in the Standard text: The Standard does not set out fines, civil penalties, criminal sanctions, or specific enforcement processes. It relies on reporting, certification and publication obligations to enable oversight.
• No procedural enforcement steps are described: The Standard does not describe notice, rectification periods, administrative hearings, or referral mechanisms within its text. Practitioners looking for enforcement powers must therefore consult the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 itself and any RBA policy statements, as enforcement powers are likely located in the parent Act or in administrative practice.

Consequences in practice

• Supervisory leverage: The annual certification, reporting of bilateral ranges, and public publication of multilateral fees provide the Reserve Bank with data to identify breaches and to use any statutory powers available under the Act outside of this Standard. The requirement that the Company do “all things necessary” to ensure compliance imposes reputational and governance pressure.
• Disclosure risk and market consequences: The Reserve Bank may publish industry ranges of bilateral interchange fees (para 19). Publication can lead to reputational and commercial consequences for Members that have charged or received fees outside the industry norms and for those who have not complied with caps. That public visibility is an enforcement mechanism in itself, though not a formal penalty.
• Interpretive risk and compliance costs: The broad interpretive instruction to look beyond form to substance (para 7) may expand the range of conduct that the Reserve Bank can find non-compliant. Members should therefore expect that compliance assessment will consider economic outcomes and practical effects of fee arrangements, not only their contractual labels.

For a precise account of statutory enforcement powers and specific penalties, practitioners must consult the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 provisions that confer enforcement powers on the Reserve Bank, and any relevant regulations or administrative instruments not reproduced in this Standard. The Standard, as written, creates reporting and attestation duties and a benchmarking framework that enable oversight rather than specifying discrete punitive measures within its text.

The Standard interacts with a small set of legal instruments and contractual rules referenced in its text. The principal interactions to note are:

• Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998: The Standard is determined under s 18 of the Act and published in accordance with s 29(2)(a), as stated in the preamble and para 2. The Standard’s legal authority derives from that Act, and its operation should be read in conjunction with regulatory powers, procedural rules and enforcement provisions found in the Act. The Standard itself does not reproduce those Act provisions, but cross-references the Act as its enabling instrument.
• The Standard The Setting of Interchange Fees in the Visa Debit Payment System: The bilateral and multilateral benchmarks in the EFTPOS Standard are explicitly defined to be the same as the benchmarks applying to the Visa Debit system under the Visa Debit Standard, as published on the Reserve Bank’s website (paras 10, 15). Both bilateral and multilateral EFTPOS benchmarks “may be re‑calculated in accordance with the Standard The Setting of Interchange Fees in the Visa Debit Payment System” (paras 11, 16). That creates a direct regulatory linkage, so changes to the Visa Debit Standard and its benchmark calculations will flow through to EFTPOS caps without amendment of the EFTPOS Standard itself.
• EFTPOS Scheme Rules and the Company constitution: Definitions such as Bilateral Agreement, EFTPOS Issuer, EFTPOS Acquirer, Self Acquirer, EFTPOS Transaction, and EFTPOS Interchange Activity are given by reference to the EFTPOS Scheme Rules and the Company constitution (para 4). The Standard preserves contractual freedom within the Scheme Rules by recognising Bilateral Agreements permitted under the Scheme Rules, but caps those bilateral fees via the benchmark (para 4 and para 9). Practitioners must therefore read the Scheme Rules and constitution to determine how interchange is contracted, how Bilateral Agreements are formed, and whether any bilateral arrangements are permitted that interact with the Standard’s caps.
• GST and taxation law: The Standard explicitly measures bilateral and multilateral fee caps “excluding GST” (paras 9 and 12). That exclusion determines the monetary base for comparing fees to the benchmark, and will require Members to be precise about GST treatment when calculating compliance.
• Privacy and competition laws: While not mentioned in the Standard, the transparency and reporting obligations (paras 17-19) require the Company and reporting Acquirers to disclose fee ranges and multilateral fees. Those disclosures may intersect with confidentiality clauses in contracts, privacy obligations and competition law concerns about information exchange, particularly if the Reserve Bank publishes industry ranges (para 19). The Standard itself does not resolve conflicts between transparency obligations and confidentiality or competition law constraints, so Members should evaluate any tension between Scheme Rules or commercial confidentiality and the mandatory reporting obligations here.
• Prior EFTPOS Standard and revocation: The explanatory preamble states the Standard is determined concurrently with the revocation of the previous Standard “The Setting of Interchange Fees in the EFTPOS System” as applied to the EFTPOS system designated in Designation No 2 of 2004, and that the previous requirement that bilateral interchange fees be between 4 and 5 cents paid to the acquirer is removed and replaced by the Visa Debit benchmark linkage. That change demonstrates a regulatory substitution , moving from a fixed cents prescription to benchmark parity with Visa Debit. Practitioners dealing with transitional contractual arrangements must check whether contractual provisions created under the earlier Standard are still enforceable and how transitions are to be implemented under the Company’s and Market’s operational arrangements.

Operational interactions and monitoring

• The Reserve Bank’s publication practices determine the numerical caps in practice because the EFTPOS benchmarks are defined by reference to what is published on the RBA website under the Visa Debit Standard (paras 10, 15). Entities must monitor the RBA site to discover benchmark recalculations and apply them to their bilateral and multilateral fee structures.
• The Company’s publication obligation (para 17) and the Reserve Bank’s power to publish industry ranges (para 19) create a flow of public information. That information will interact with market contracts, pricing choices and competitive dynamics, and may influence compliance and commercial negotiation.

In summary, the Standard is not a stand-alone piece of law. Its substantive caps and administrative duties are implemented in the context of the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act, the Visa Debit Standard, the EFTPOS Scheme Rules and commercial contracts. Practitioners must therefore coordinate compliance work across these instruments, with particular attention to benchmark updates published by the Reserve Bank and to the Scheme Rules that define Member roles and Bilateral Agreements.

The Standard document includes explicit dates and references relevant to its genesis and commencement. The information in the text provides a concise amendment and implementation timeline:

• Designation of the EFTPOS system: The EFTPOS payment system was designated as a payment system on 12 June 2012 (preamble and para 3). This designation is the starting point for the Reserve Bank’s regulatory intervention under the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act in relation to EFTPOS interchange.
• Determination and signature: The Standard was determined and signed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, on 29 November 2012 (preamble). The printed Standard carries that signature and date.
• Commencement: The Standard states it comes into force on 1 July 2013 and is current as at that date (Commencement date). That establishes the operative date for caps, reporting and publication obligations.
• Revocation of previous Standard: The explanatory preamble states the Standard was determined concurrently with the revocation of the previous Standard, “The Setting of Interchange Fees in the EFTPOS System”, as applied to the EFTPOS system designated in Designation No 2 of 2004. The practical effect stated in the preamble is to remove the prior bilateral fee requirement of 4 to 5 cents paid to the acquirer and replace it with the Visa Debit benchmark parity. Although the text does not reproduce the revocation instrument, it records the policy change in the preamble.
• Benchmark linkage and recalculation: Both the bilateral and multilateral EFTPOS benchmarks are defined to be the same as the benchmarks applicable to the Visa Debit system and “may be re-calculated in accordance with” the Visa Debit Standard (paras 10-11, 15-16). The Standard therefore embeds an ongoing amendment channel: any recalculation under the Visa Debit Standard can adjust the EFTPOS caps without amending this EFTPOS Standard.
• Periodic review points: The Standard requires evaluation of the weighted average multilateral interchange fees on specific dates, notably 1 November of every third year after 2012 and the date any multilateral interchange fee is introduced, varied or removed in the EFTPOS system (para 13). These trigger points produce periodic compliance assessments and imply future recalculations of the weighted average relative to the benchmark.

What the text does not include about amendment history

• No later amendments are recorded in the reproduced text beyond the 29 November 2012 determination and the 1 July 2013 commencement. The Standard mentions that benchmarks may be re-calculated via the Visa Debit Standard but does not itself record subsequent recalculations or later amendments to the EFTPOS Standard.
• There is no express transitional schedule in the Standard text for legacy Bilateral Agreements other than the broad statement in the preamble that the practical effect is to replace the previous requirement. For the precise operation of the revocation and any transitional arrangements, one must consult the revocation instrument and any Commissioning or transitional rules in the Scheme Rules or the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act, which are not reproduced here.

Practical notes for practitioners

• Monitor the RBA website and the Visa Debit Standard for benchmark recalculations, because those recalculations feed through automatically into the EFTPOS caps (paras 10, 11, 15, 16).
• Check the EFTPOS Scheme Rules and the Company’s constitution for any transitional provisions, implementation guidance or amendments that were made contemporaneously with the revocation of the prior Standard.
• Maintain an audit trail for the annual certification obligations and for the computation of weighted averages on the triennial dates specified by para 13, because those dates are explicit triggers for compliance testing.

The document captures a discrete policy shift implemented in late 2012 that became operative in mid-2013, and sets up an ongoing linkage to Visa Debit benchmark updates as the channel for future numerical adjustments.

The Standard text as reproduced contains no case law, judicial determinations, or references to litigation. The instrument itself is an administrative standard, and the document records no disputes or court proceedings arising from its operation. The only named actor is the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Company, EFTPOS Payments Australia Limited.

Operational implications for litigation risk

• Absence of litigation in the text does not indicate absence of legal risk. The Standard creates obligations and reporting duties that could be the subject of challenge or enforcement action under the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998. To establish whether there is any litigation history,either in relation to the Standard itself, the revocation of the prior Standard, or disputes over compliance,practitioners must search court records, administrative tribunal decisions, and Reserve Bank correspondence or enforcement actions not included in this instrument.
• Potential litigation or dispute themes to be considered, based on the Standard’s content, include: calculation disputes over the weighted average for multilateral interchange fees (para 14), the correct application of the Visa Debit benchmark to bilateral fees (paras 10 and 11), disputes about the scope of Bilateral Agreements permitted under the Scheme Rules (para 4), and claims about whether the Company or Members have fulfilled their obligation to “do all things necessary” to ensure compliance (para 5).
• The interpretive instruction to “look beyond form to substance” (para 7) could be relevant in litigation, because it indicates that the Reserve Bank intends to assess outcomes substantively. Litigation could therefore centre on economic substance, not merely contractual labels.

Recommended steps before considering litigation

• Exhaust administrative remedies: The Standard establishes reporting and certification channels to the Reserve Bank (paras 17-19). Parties should present compliance data and seek clarification through those channels before initiating litigation.
• Document calculations and contractual arrangements: The weighted average computation and sign conventions (paras 8, 14) are precise technical points that would likely be scrutinised in any dispute. Maintain contemporaneous records showing how interchange revenue and transaction counts were computed.
• Check the Scheme Rules and Company constitution: Many disputes about bilateral contracting, permitted Bilateral Agreements, and the scope of the Company’s multilateral fee‑setting power will turn on Scheme Rules provisions and any transitional governance documentation that accompanies changes to the Standard.

In short, the Standard contains no litigation history within its text. Any assessment of litigation risk or precedent must draw on external sources of case law and administrative decisions, which are beyond the content reproduced here.

This Standard contains several technical and operational features that may catch practitioners and market participants unprepared. The following are concrete pitfalls and compliance risks to flag, with references to the relevant paragraphs.

1. Benchmark linkage to Visa Debit, not a fixed number (paras 10-11, 15-16)

   • What looks like a cap is not a fixed cent amount in the Standard itself. The bilateral and multilateral benchmarks are defined by reference to the Visa Debit Standard as published on the RBA website. That means numbers can change without amendment to the EFTPOS Standard. Practitioners must monitor the RBA’s published Visa Debit benchmark and incorporate updates into compliance systems.

2. Directional sign convention matters (para 8)

   • The Standard requires interchange fees paid from an EFTPOS Acquirer to an EFTPOS Issuer to be expressed as positive numbers and from an EFTPOS Issuer to an EFTPOS Acquirer as negative numbers. If internal accounting systems use a different sign convention, that mismatch can produce erroneous compliance assessments and flawed weighted average calculations.

3. GST exclusion in cap measurements (paras 9 and 12)

   • The caps are measured excluding GST. Fees may be invoiced inclusive of GST or subject to different tax treatments; failure to strip GST before comparing to the benchmark can lead to apparent breaches.

4. Bilateral Agreements still permitted but capped (para 4 and para 9)

   • Bilateral Agreements permitted under the Scheme Rules may set fees that differ from Company-specified fees, but any bilateral interchange fee must not exceed the bilateral interchange fee benchmark. Parties who relied on the previous Standard’s 4-5 cent bilateral prescription should check whether existing bilateral contractual terms need amendment to conform.

5. Weighted average calculation complexity and timing (paras 12-14)

   • The weighted average of multilateral interchange fees is defined as total interchange revenue that would have been payable under the implemented fees for the previous financial year, divided by the number of EFTPOS Transactions in that year (para 14). This requires counterfactual revenue calculations if fees were changed partway through the year, and careful treatment of transaction counts. The Standard triggers this test on 1 November every third year after 2012 and on the date any multilateral interchange fee is introduced, varied or removed (para 13), so changes to multilateral fees instantly create an obligation to measure the weighted average.

6. Annual reporting deadlines are fixed and asymmetrical (paras 18-19)

   • The Company must certify compliance by 30 November each year for the prior 12 months ending 31 October (para 18). Any Acquirer or Self Acquirer that is party to a Bilateral Agreement must report ranges of bilateral interchange fees by 1 November each year (para 19). These calendar deadlines require that recordkeeping and internal audit cycles be aligned to those dates. Note that the Acquirer deadline (1 November) precedes the Company’s certification deadline (30 November), which can create interdependent timing constraints.

7. Interpretation instruction introduces substance-based review (para 7)

   • The “look beyond form to substance” instruction indicates the Reserve Bank will consider economic outcomes in assessing compliance. Parties cannot rely solely on contractual drafting to escape a finding of non-compliance if the substantive effect violates the benchmark or objective.

8. Publication and disclosure risks (paras 17, 19)

   • The Company must publish multilateral interchange fees, and the RBA may publish industry ranges of bilateral fees. That can reveal commercially sensitive information to competitors and counterparties. Members must consider confidentiality clauses in Scheme Rules or bilateral contracts and how to reconcile them with mandatory disclosures.

9. Role definitions depend on Scheme Rules (para 4)

   • Terms such as EFTPOS Transaction, Acquirer, Issuer and Self Acquirer are defined in the Scheme Rules. Different entities might be classified differently under those Rules, and classification affects who has reporting duties and who is subject to caps. Don’t assume label parity with other card schemes.

10. Severability and partial invalidity clause (para 6)

    • If part of the Standard is invalid, only that part is ineffective without invalidating the rest. That reduces the risk that a single procedural defect will nullify the entire regime, but it also means parties may face piecemeal uncertainty if particular provisions are challenged.

11. Previous Standard replacement and transitional uncertainty (preamble)

    • The preamble describes that the previous Standard required bilateral fees of 4-5 cents paid to the acquirer, and that the new Standard replaces that requirement. Contractual arrangements entered under the old Standard may need review to determine transitional treatment and whether amendments or re-negotiations are necessary.

12. Reporting range rather than specific bilateral rates (para 19)

    • Acquirers are required to report ranges of bilateral interchange fees they received or paid. The Reserve Bank may publish the industry range. Reporting a range may obscure individual bilateral fee levels, but it can also expose the overall dispersion in fees. Parties must keep records to substantiate reported ranges if the Reserve Bank requests verification.

These gotchas create quantifiable compliance tasks: update monitoring of RBA publications, align accounting and tax treatments to GST exclusions, standardise sign conventions, build weighted-average computation logic, and plan for disclosure consequences. Failure to manage these points can produce inadvertent breaches, reporting errors, or public disclosures of sensitive commercial information.

Compliance with the Standard requires operational changes, recordkeeping, governance steps and monitoring practices. The following is a pragmatic checklist mapped to the relevant Standard provisions:

1. Governance and accountabilities (para 5)

   • The Company and each Member must “do all things necessary” to ensure compliance. Implement board-level oversight and assign clear operational responsibility for interchange compliance to specific teams, such as payments operations, finance and compliance. Establish escalation protocols for any fee changes and ensure the Company has authority to enforce Member compliance under Scheme Rules.

2. Monitor RBA benchmark publications (paras 10-11, 15-16)

   • Maintain an RBA-watch function to detect changes to the Visa Debit benchmark published on the Reserve Bank website. When the Visa Debit benchmark is re-calculated, update internal systems immediately because both bilateral and multilateral EFTPOS caps are defined by reference to that published benchmark.

3. Standardise fee expression and accounting conventions (para 8; paras 9 and 12)

   • Ensure internal accounting and compliance systems use the Standard’s sign convention: Acquirer-to-Issuer = positive; Issuer-to-Acquirer = negative (para 8). Ensure all cap comparisons are made excluding GST (paras 9 and 12). If invoicing systems or ledgers include GST, build an automated pre-check to remove GST for compliance tests.

4. Review and, if necessary, renegotiate Bilateral Agreements (para 4 and para 9)

   • Audit all Bilateral Agreements permitted by the Scheme Rules to confirm they comply with the bilateral interchange fee benchmark. Where bilateral fees exceed the benchmark, plan renegotiations, or adjust pricing/settlement mechanics to conform. Ensure that new Bilateral Agreements include representations and covenants to comply with the Standard.

5. Compute weighted average of multilateral fees and maintain supporting records (paras 12-14)

   • Implement or update data systems to produce the weighted average per para 14: calculate total interchange revenue that would have been payable under the implemented multilateral fees for the prior financial year, divide by the number of EFTPOS Transactions in that year. Validate transaction count sources and revenue calculations, including treatment of part-year fee changes. Retain evidence to support calculations.

6. Establish the annual certification process (para 18)

   • Prepare internal audit and compliance documentation to support the Company’s annual written certification to the Reserve Bank by 30 November. The certification covers the 12 months ending 31 October, so ensure the certification package includes reconciliations, evidence of fee levels, weighted average computations, and a summary of any Bilateral Agreements.

7. Set up Acquirer reporting workflows (para 19)

   • For any EFTPOS Acquirer or Self Acquirer party to Bilateral Agreements, prepare to report the range of bilateral interchange fees to the Reserve Bank by 1 November each year. Create templates, collect historical fee data and verify accuracy. Be ready to respond to any Reserve Bank queries and to manage potential publication of the industry range.

8. Transparency and publication obligations (para 17)

   • The Company must publish multilateral interchange fees on its website or otherwise make them publicly available. Ensure that the publication is current, accessible and complies with any disclosure protocols set by the Company or the Reserve Bank. Consider legal review of published material for confidentiality and competition law risks.

9. Internal controls for fee changes (para 13)

   • Because para 13 triggers a weighted-average test on 1 November of every third year after 2012 and any date any multilateral fee is introduced, varied or removed, ensure that fee changes follow an approval workflow. Require pre-change compliance checks and run the weighted average calculation as a precondition for implementation.

10. Reconcile scheme definitions with internal classifications (para 4)

    • Confirm how your organisation is classified under the EFTPOS Scheme Rules: Member, Issuer, Acquirer or Self Acquirer. Classification determines duties and reporting obligations. Where classifications are ambiguous, seek clarification through Scheme governance channels or from the Reserve Bank.

11. Data retention and audit trail

    • Maintain archived transaction-level data, interchange invoices, bilateral agreement copies, calculation spreadsheets and certification records. The Reserve Bank’s potential publication of industry ranges (para 19) could trigger information requests. Good recordkeeping reduces dispute and enforcement risk.

12. Legal and regulatory coordination

    • Co-ordinate with legal counsel to handle confidentiality clauses, competition law issues around information disclosure, and any tax treatment questions (GST). Ensure Scheme Rules and bilateral contracts are reconciled with the Standard’s obligations.

13. Training and stakeholder communication

    • Train commercial, operations and compliance teams about the sign convention, GST exclusion, benchmark linkage and reporting deadlines. Inform counterparties and negotiation teams that interchange caps are benchmark-linked and that bilateral fees are subject to reporting and potential public disclosure.

14. Contingency planning

    • Prepare contingency plans if the Visa Debit benchmark increases or decreases materially, or if the Reserve Bank signals enforcement. This includes merchant pricing, merchant service fee contract language, and changes to interchange flows between issuers and acquirers.

15. Seek clarification where necessary

    • Use the Company governance channels or the Reserve Bank’s published contacts to seek interpretive guidance where the Scheme Rules and the Standard intersect ambiguously, for example on treatment of partial-year changes or non-standard transaction types that the Scheme Rules may define differently.

By building these compliance elements into operations, the Company and Members can satisfy the Standard’s duties (paras 5, 17-19), manage the timing constraints (paras 13, 18-19), and apply the benchmark linkage reliably (paras 10-11, 15-16). Documentation and auditability are key: the Standard’s emphasis on publication and certification makes transparency a core compliance control.