‘Remains tight': Why the RBA held interest rates in July
The central bank released its meeting minutes on Tuesday, showing the board decided to hold the cash rate despite inflation sitting within its target range.
'Recent monthly CPI indicator data – which can be volatile and do not cover all items in the CPI – were broadly consistent with this expectation,' the RBA board said.
But with more Australians currently in work, the RBA was wary the strong employment figures could lead to an increase in inflation.
'The labour market was assessed to have remained tight, with measures of labour utilisation little changed over the prior year,' it said.
'Growth in private demand had begun to recover, but was still subdued.'
The RBA had to work with May's unemployment figures, which showed just 4.1 per cent of eligible Australians were out of work.
When the June figures were released after the RBA meeting, it showed unemployment had jumped to 4.3 per cent, with 34,000 Aussies losing their jobs.
But households may not have to wait long for interest rate relief, with the RBA's meeting minutes seemingly clearing the way for further rate cuts.
'All members agreed that, based on the information currently available, the outlook was for underlying inflation to decline further in year-ended terms, warranting some additional reduction in interest rates over time,' the RBA minutes said.
A cautious RBA monetary board held the official cash rate at 3.85 per cent following its July meeting, with the shock move defying expert commentators and predictions from the money markets.
The board voted 6-3 in favour of the hold.
'A minority of members judged that there was a case to lower the cash rate target at this meeting,' the board said.
'These members placed more weight on downside risks to the economic outlook – stemming from a likely slowing in growth abroad and from the subdued pace of GDP growth in Australia.'
Fronting the media after the decision, Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock said the votes were 'unattributed' and declined repeatedly to reveal her position.
She said the board wanted to wait for the full quarterly data to be released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
'By then we will know what the June quarter CPI is and if it comes in as we think it will – a little bit at the margin, we're a little bit worried about – but if it comes in as we think it will, continue to decline, then that validates our easing path,' she said.
Opinion remains divided as to whether the hold was the right decision.
Westpac chief economist Luci Ellis, who worked for the RBA for 15 years, says the central bank might have chosen to 'assert its independence' by bucking expectations of a rate cut.
'There was no real economic benefit to waiting five more weeks,' Ms Ellis wrote in an economic note released last week.
While the decision may have left homeowners frustrated, Ms Ellis said it was a low-risk decision for the central bank from a broader economic perspective.
'The dirty little secret of monetary policy is that small differences in the level of interest rates or the timing of changes make essentially no difference for inflation outcomes,' Ms Ellis said.
'If holding the cash rate 100 basis points lower for a year only boosts inflation by 0.2 per cent or so – broadly the result from the RBA's main model – then 25bp higher for five weeks is not even a rounding error.'
The RBA will next meet on August 12, with money markets widely forecasting a rate cut.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
10 minutes ago
- ABC News
ATO reversed its own decision to bill former PM Paul Keating's company nearly $1m after three-year battle
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) wrote off almost $1 million in interest and penalties owed by one of Paul Keating's companies in 2015, in an abrupt about face after negotiations with the former prime minister and his financial advisers. This was unusual because for most taxpayers, formally challenging such a decision would require them to contest the matter in the Federal Court. In this case, the payment notice was cancelled after a negotiation, raising questions about the treatment of powerful people by Australia's chief revenue collection agency. It also raises questions about a lack of transparency in how the tax office conducts confidential settlements. Four Corners does not suggest any wrongdoing by Mr Keating or his advisers in seeking to have the debt cancelled. Four Corners first contacted Mr Keating two weeks ago to request an interview about how this settlement came about, but he declined. The interest and penalties bill was issued after the ATO discovered in 2012 that Mr Keating's company, Brenlex Pty Ltd, had not reported profits from an earlier share sale. This followed a 2010 agreement by Mr Keating to settle tax liabilities of more than $3 million involving another of his companies, Verenna Pty Ltd. At the time, Mr Keating was questioned about his other companies, including Brenlex, and his advisers confirmed it had paid a significant amount of tax relating to the sale of shares and was up to date with its tax liabilities. Mr Keating agreed he would ensure his tax affairs were in order henceforth. However, the ATO later discovered that Brenlex owed $446,000 in tax from the sale of shares years earlier in Lake Technology, an audio engineering company Mr Keating had advised. Brenlex agreed to pay the tax debt, but the ATO demanded more than $600,000 in interest and penalties which had accrued in the years since Mr Keating sold the shares. These are known as a general interest charge (GIC) and late lodgement penalties. Mr Keating's advisers fought to avoid the interest and penalties, asking the tax office to write them off entirely via an ATO rule known as a "Commissioner's discretion". The argument went back and forth through 2013 and 2014. By October 2014, the debt had grown to $904,000, at which point the ATO sent a formal notice to not waive the interest and penalties charge. "Your request has been fully considered and it has been decided that on this occasion the circumstances detailed do not warrant remission of the GIC," the notice said. "There is a clear acknowledgement that the Company should have accounted for the disposal of shares in the relevant financial years returns and did not." In April the next year, the ATO issued Brenlex a formal creditor's statutory demand to pay the debt within 21 days, which had now grown to $953,396. Mr Keating then became involved in the correspondence as part of efforts by his advisers to persuade the ATO to waive the bill because, they said, it was an honest mistake. Mr Keating's advisers told the tax office the former prime minister had mistakenly believed his company Brenlex had paid the tax. They argued he had "inadvertently failed to advise his directors" of the sale, despite filing a substantial shareholder notice reporting the disposal of the Lake Technology shares. Mr Keating's advisers argued "the lodgement and payment of the Company returns were overlooked" but the tax office said "This is not a valid justification". The ATO was told Mr Keating had truly, though incorrectly, believed that all tax matters with Brenlex were up to date. The tax office refused to alter its position. In July 2015, a last-ditch letter from Brenlex was sent to the ATO requesting a meeting. Ten days later, the tax office made a backflip. In a four-line email it wrote off the almost $1 million debt. "I am able to confirm that the GIC and Late Lodgement Penalties … have been remitted in full," the email said. "Consequently the balance of the account has been reduced to nil and the amount payable as stated in the Creditors Statutory Demand is no longer owed." The email gave no reason for the sudden change of heart. The ATO's reversal of its decision, having issued the October 2014 notice, was unusual. Just how unusual can be seen from a joint submission to a Senate committee this year by five accounting bodies. They said it was unfair that the only recourse available to taxpayers to challenge this kind of decision was an appeal to the Federal Court, which was a "lengthy and complex process that is out of reach of most taxpayers". They complained that these decisions were "not subject to an internal ATO review. The only recourse available to the taxpayer is to appeal the ATO's decision in the Federal Court". In a reminder published on its website last month, the ATO said: "Taxpayers should be aware that remission requests are carefully assessed to ensure a level playing field for those taxpayers who pay on time." These revelations come at a time when the ATO's handling of this issue is under review. The Tax Ombudsman is scrutinising the management of general interest charges, to ensure "decisions are fair and reasonable and are made consistently for taxpayers in like circumstances". Typically, the ATO does not comment on the tax affairs of specific taxpayers due to confidentiality obligations. It told Four Corners in a statement that "inadvertently overlooking" the need to pay tax was generally not valid grounds on which to cancel GIC. "However, there may be instances where GIC is remitted when a taxpayer inadvertently overlooks the requirement to lodge a form or make a payment, depending on the individual circumstances of the taxpayer," the ATO said.
ABC News
24 minutes ago
- ABC News
Can customers trust how banks are using AI?
ING's Australia's chief executive Melanie Evans responds to ASIC's warning that the banks can't afford to get the implementation of artificial intelligence wrong.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Canberra builder says his life's work is 'tarnished' over orders to pay home owners almost $25,000
A Canberra builder has told the ABC his reputation has been been "tarnished" and he was forced to close his business after ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) findings against him. The matter relates to a new home build in Throsby in Canberra's north, with the homeowners successfully suing the building company they engaged which belongs to David Ryan. The builder was known as Wombat Hillton Pty Ltd, trading as David Reid Homes ACT, when the homeowners first engaged the company in 2018 — but the tribunal's report noted the business name had changed in 2020 to David Ryan Homes. Mr Ryan, who has since retired, said he has "nothing to hide" after a career in which he said he prided himself on "his detail, costings and transparency". "I can't sell the business now. I've closed the business down. I can't sell it because of this case and the bad name caused by ACAT to my business," Mr Ryan said. In the proceedings, the burden of proof fell to the homeowners, meaning they had to convince the tribunal of their claims on the balance of probabilities. The tribunal heard a number of disputes between the homeowners and Mr Ryan's previous building company had surfaced by early 2019. Those issues prompted the couple to hire an independent building consultant to "assist in the handover" of their new home. The homeowners had also complained to Access Canberra which investigated the complaints and found that there were "defects associated with the construction of the premises". That resulted in two rectification orders, with the latter in March 2023 listing a number of defects, including water ingress into bedrooms, the kitchen and an ensuite, faulty door seals, and overdriven roofing screws. Mr Ryan argued the water was leaking into the home only through cables that were installed by a solar company post-construction. He asked the tribunal to review the rectification orders but discontinued that action after preparing a program of works which were accepted. But that's not where the dispute ended. In mid 2024, the homeowners sued the builder for compensation, costs and damages, "including building consultant and expert report fees". The applicants claimed they were owed more than $25,000 but "compromised the value of the claim" so it could sit within ACAT's monetary jurisdiction. Mr Ryan responded by denying the claims and made a counter claim against the homeowners of $15,000 on top of his tribunal filing fees. He went on to withdraw that counter claim but reiterated his company's "denial of liability". Mr Ryan submitted to the tribunal that the homeowners paid for a consultant of their own volition and not because they were required to by authorities. The tribunal agreed. He also argued he had complied with the rectification order and said his program of works was approved by the relevant authorities. He insisted there was no evidence to begin with that supported claims of improper cladding installation. 'There was a small chip ... one tiny scratch which you couldn't see from three metres away," Mr Ryan said. "And one sheet was put on back-to-front during construction. Two years it sat there facing the street and no one knew about it. 'Somehow, someone picked it up and we replaced that sheet ... it was done.' But the applicants had submitted that "panels were installed backwards; there was improper fastener placement; bowing or cupping of the panels and that the panels were damaged". "Although the respondent has attempted some rectification, the applicants alleged ongoing problems caused by the respondent's acts during the attempted rectification," the tribunal member added. Mr Ryan did not accept those findings. ACAT has ordered Mr Ryan's building company to pay the homeowners $24,584 which includes rectification costs for damages to cladding. The amount also covers variations to what was agreed upon, including window, skylight and hot water system positions. But Mr Ryan argued the clients had not given selections for the placements of many elements and they kept changing their minds. "If the client doesn't give their selections, we rely on estimates and allowances that we leave during construction," Mr Ryan said. "During construction, the client changed on changed on changed everything, over and over and over. In fact, we were getting three to four phone calls every day," he said. "The whole home was changed with the best you could put in it … and the home came to ... 60 or 70 thousand dollars above what we were allowing for." In their considerations, the tribunal member remarked that "building a home is a costly and often stressful event for clients and builders". "The builder has a multitude of complex tasks to perform, and the client has a multitude of complex choices to make on fixtures and fittings whilst maintaining their budget. "Builder and client relationships can become strained or even fail entirely." The tribunal member said it would be "ideal" if parties could resolve their disputes but acknowledged that in cases such as this, it was not always possible. The builder has 28 days to pay the amount.
