
RBA wary of cutting rates until it has more evidence on inflation, Bullock says
In a speech to the Anika Foundation in Sydney, Bullock also said the RBA was not targeting 'a certain unemployment rate or number of job losses' in its pursuit of low and stable inflation.
Unions have harshly criticised the RBA's reluctance to cut interest rates despite inflation dropping well below 3%, saying the surprise decision on 8 July to not offer further mortgage relief had been a 'blow to workers'.
Jim Chalmers has been more circumspect, but still noted that 'millions of Australians' would have been disappointed by the outcome.
But Bullock in her speech defended the bank's record and its cautious approach, saying price pressures have been largely brought under control over the past two-and-a-half years without the significant rise in unemployment that has typically been the price of taming inflation.
The key jobless measure ticked up to 4.3% in June, but has held largely steady at 4-4.1% over the preceding 18 months. Inflation is at 2.4%.
Instead of job losses, the labour market has adjusted via Australians working fewer hours, voluntary job switching, and a drop in job vacancies, she said.
'Having your hours cut is tough, but it's often preferable to losing a job altogether. And it's worth noting that some of this decline in hours has been voluntary, especially over the past year or so.'
While it's clear the RBA believes it will lower rates further this year, Bullock said the bank believed there was 'still some tightness in the labour market', and that the monetary policy board had become more concerned that consumer price growth was not falling as quickly as expected.
'We still think it (the consumer price data) will show inflation declining slowly towards 2.5 per cent, but we are looking for data to support this expectation.'
Bullock said the bank's focus on keeping as many of the post-pandemic employment gains led to the board's decision to raise rates more slowly than in other countries.
The flip side was that interest rates in Australia did not rise as high as they did in some other economies, and 'so we may not need to lower them as much on the way down'.
This lingering concern over inflation contributed to the monetary policy board's surprise decision to hold the cash rate at 3.85% following its last meeting - although the decision had not been unanimous, after three of the nine board members voted in favour of a cut.
Confirmation that price pressures are still easing are expected to come as soon as next Wednesday with the release of the inflation report for the June quarter.
Financial markets and most economists at this stage are again predicting the cash rate will be lowered following the next policy board meeting on 11-12 August.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Australia's 'biggest brown-noser' politician named on protest sculpture - as Albanese government signs AUKUS deal with the UK
A provocative piece of street art has taken aim at federal Defence Minister Richard Marles, labelling him 'Australia's biggest brown–noser'. The crude installation, spotted outside his Geelong electorate office on Saturday, featured a large sculpted nose smeared with what appeared to be fake faeces. There was also a pile of 'faeces' resting on a sign which said: 'This memorial erected by The New Radicals in honour of Australia's biggest brown-noser Richard Marles.' It was chained to a nearby post in the city's CBD before disappearing by 5pm, and images of the artwork were shared on social media by the activist group. Australians praised the artwork as 'incredible', with one user on X quipping: 'The drips on the ground are what makes it.' The New Radicals have previously claimed responsibility for similar stunts in the same location, including a mock submarine called 'HMAS Richard'. The submarine are understood to have been a reference to those promised to Australia in the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the United States. Meanwhile, the latest piece of art coincided with Marles' formal signing of a historic bilateral security pact with the UK on Saturday. The deal, dubbed the 'Geelong Treaty', was signed in the city to represent a 50-year co-operation arrangement between the two allies under the AUKUS banner. Marles described the agreement as a transformational moment for the nation's defence and industry: 'In doing this, AUKUS will see 20,000 jobs in Australia.' 'It will see, in building submarines in this country, the biggest industrial endeavour in our nation's history, bigger even than the Snowy Hydro scheme. 'In military terms, what it will deliver is the biggest leap in Australia's military capability, really, since the formation of the navy back in 1913.' The announcement followed the annual AUKMIN talks in Sydney, with Marles and UK Defence Secretary John Healey celebrating the deal with a beer at a Geelong brewery. It came just days after the Albanese Government transferred a further $800million to the United States under the AUKUS program, despite the agreement being under a review ordered by US President Donald Trump. 'There is a schedule of payments to be made, we have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC's Afternoon Briefing on Wednesday. 'It is about increasing their industrial capacity, and as part of that, we have Australians on the ground, learning the skills so that when it comes to the SSN–AUKUS—the submarines being built here in Australia, we have those skills.' The AUKUS deal includes Australia acquiring eight nuclear–powered submarines expected to cost between $268billion and $368billion over the next three decades. Despite internal unrest, with several local Labor branches voting to oppose the deal over the previous months across the country, the government has remained firm in its support for AUKUS. The timing of the expected conclusion of the US review into AUKUS remains unclear. It is being led by Elbridge Colby, who has publicly expressed scepticism about the pact and warned it could leave American sailors exposed and under-resourced. Daily Mail Australia has contacted Marles' office for comment on the artwork.


Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain cannot afford to keep Rachel Reeves any longer
How bad does Britain's economic performance have to be before Sir Keir Starmer fires Rachel Reeves from the Treasury? Ever since she sat crying on the Treasury Bench three weeks ago the data have become worse. She ought to be crying a lot more. The Government's Labour Force Survey shows that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 178,000 in the last year, and by 41,000 in the last month alone, since the Chancellor's higher National Insurance contributions for employers took effect. How many more unemployed must be created before the Government admits that higher taxes drive formerly productive people out of the workforce, creating more claimants on an already tottering welfare state? Vacancies in the last quarter also fell, by 56,000, with openings decreasing in 14 of the 18 industrial sectors denominated by the Government. The UK economy contracted in May for the second consecutive month, by 0.1 per cent after falling 0.3 per cent in April. The fall was mainly caused by lower industrial output and less work in the construction sector. Inflation rose to 3.6 per cent. The Chancellor seems to have no conception of the link between the supply of money and the rise in inflation; the Government's failure to keep its promise to cut the welfare bill – which the Prime Minister himself described as a 'moral' question – will further increase borrowing, the cost of debt and prices. Labour governments always do this, and appear unable to snap out of it. And if the effect of taxing people more heavily to create jobs is proving disastrous, the effect of taxing the very rich, who can with ease leave and pay their taxes elsewhere, is to drive down the tax take and force yet higher borrowing. On what appears to be a point of principle, Labour will not reduce the tax burden on those who create jobs and wealth. As a result, there are fewer jobs, and fewer people to tax. As a result the choice of whom to tax will narrow, until Labour's 'working people' – who usually cannot afford to flee abroad – end up paying more and more, as the Government avoids the obvious course of cutting its extravagant public spending programmes on what the Victorians called 'the undeserving poor'. The word is that Sir Keir will hold a reshuffle after the summer recess, which starts this week. He has implied that Ms Reeves's job is safe; but if she cannot, or will not, implement policies that help create wealth rather than destroy it, she simply becomes a dead weight dragging down an already deeply unpopular administration. Also, the more articles such as this, suggesting she is not up to her exceptionally demanding job, appear in the media, the more Sir Keir will dig in his heels and seek to avoid sacking her, uttering the old mantra that he will not allow his administration to be chosen by political commentators. Even someone with so few natural political instincts as he possesses must realise that he, and the country, cannot go on like this. You cannot on the one hand pontificate about growth and then take every possible measure to eliminate it, by driving people out work, companies out of business and the rich out of the country. Ms Reeves seems to find all of those things entirely acceptable. Eventually reality will force Sir Keir to conclude that there will have to be changes, both of personnel and of policy, or the money will run out. What he must try to decide is what constitutes the point of no return for his inept Chancellor.


Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
There's still one way that Britain can awaken from this nightmare
Sorry to keep banging on about how much worse things were in Britain in the 1970s. This must be like being lectured by your grandmother on how their generation survived the Blitz. But for those who lived through that pre-modern era when ordinary people were held hostage by titanic monopoly powers against which elected governments appeared to be helpless, it is difficult to see today's problems as the end of the world. It wasn't just the daily power outages which brought darkness and the shut down of all electrical equipment for hours at a time. There were as well the horrendous economic pressures which put today's difficulties into a sobering perspective. It may be true – as the young point out with some bitterness – that property was unbelievably cheap. At the end of the 1960s, it was possible to buy a suburban house in London for under £10,000. (TEN THOUSAND POUNDS.) The first great property boom soon quadrupled those prices but even in 1979 you could buy a four bedroomed semi-detached house in a good neighbourhood for around £50,000. But that home owning idyll is deceptive. What followed was a staggering, scarcely credible by today's standards, rise in inflation. At its height in 1975, the inflation rate was 26.9 per cent – which makes the obsessive concern over today's inflation increases look rather silly. What did that mean for all those people who had bought their homes at what we would now consider absurdly low prices? Their mortgages which had originally been linked realistically to their incomes – and all their household bills which were also being hit by the inflationary spiral – became terrifyingly unaffordable. This was a personal, familial crisis for countless households who suddenly discovered that they could not go on living as they had reasonably expected to do. The cost of their homes was suddenly way beyond the reach of their pay levels. The quality of life and the purchasing power of even well paid people, crashed with a suddenness that was deranging. It was now almost impossible for a mortgaged household to survive on one income so women had no choice but to go out to work. (Even though most mortgage lenders at the time would not take a wife's income into account which made practical planning problematic.) But it was not only the economics that was going badly wrong. The later 60s and the 70s produced some ugly social dynamics that are scarcely recalled now, perhaps because they are so shaming. There were menacing mobs of skinheads whose racism and anti-social delinquency were blatantly violent. My husband and I once stood over a pair of Asian boys on the tube to shield them from a pack of shaven headed thugs who were threatening to pull them off the train. Somehow London had gone from its world-conquering moment in the Swinging Sixties to this: rubbish piling up in the streets, endless transport strikes and a great many people deciding that it was time to leave the country forever. Those who lament today that 'nothing works' can scarcely imagine the havoc of unreliability that was everyday life in that chaotic decade. The antagonism toward the trade unions and the closed shop nationalised industries famously dominated the historic account of this awful period but what may be forgotten is the political despair that accompanied it. A succession of governments and party leaders had revealed themselves, to the disgust of the electorate, to be utterly useless. The 60s as we remember them had got under way with Harold Wilson who seemed to have achieved a fairly jolly accommodation with the most powerful trades unions. The 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' technique of conciliation and kinship – which actually involved caving in to most union demands to avert strike action – seemed to offer some kind of sustainable mode of operation. Until it didn't. The unions would not be bought off indefinitely and their growing militancy was undermining major British industries like car manufacturing. The country then turned, more in desperation than hope, to the Conservatives under Edward Heath who promised legislation to curb the spread of disruptive union activism. When that proved an ineffectual disaster Harold Wilson was returned to power. He then retired from office (due sadly to the onset of dementia) and was followed by James Callaghan who had the misfortune to preside over the 1979 Winter of Discontent. The deterioration of confidence in the political leadership of the country, by this time, seemed irreversible. It was genuinely believed by a great many responsible people that national decline was not just inevitable but was already fully under way, and that this was attributable to the low standard of government performance: lack of conviction, failure of nerve and the poverty of ideas for dealing with the modern, post-imperial world. And what is more, this low standard was believed to be incurable. British politics was exhausted intellectually and morally. You know what happened next. The Callaghan government lost a vote of confidence in the House (dramatically by one vote). A general election followed which was won by Margaret Thatcher's new model Conservative party and – not overnight but over a period of several years – confidence was restored not just in the economic future but in the possibility of effective government. British politics was not dead after all: it had simply sunk into a defeatist depression. The Left which had been broken and demoralised first by its experience in government and then by the public renunciation of its trades union wing which had propelled the Thatcher Tories into power, now had to reinvent itself. First came the Social Democrats with their extreme Centrism, who were determined to 'break the mould' of party politics – which is to say, replace Labour and challenge the Tories' all out commitment to free markets. A lot of initial excitement was generated by this development, but it subsided into a footnote as the Thatcherite spirit of the 1980s swept it aside. Finally, Tony Blair's plagiarism of the Tory philosophy brought Labour back into the game. And so, confidence in recognisable party politics returned. What it took was nerve and fresh ideas. There must be a lesson there.