Posts

Government Spending is Fuelling the Fire

,

There is a massive disconnect between the RBA’s projections and the reality facing Australian families.

Reckless government spending is fuelling inflation, and everyday people are paying the price.

In this session with the RBA in December, I questioned Governor Bullock on her claim that inflation expectations are ‘anchored’ at 2.5%. With CPI at the time sitting at 3.8% (now 4.2%), that ‘anchor’ looks like it’s dragging. I asked her who has lost credibility here — the RBA or the government?

There’s a real risk of cutting rates too early because of political influence and outside pressure. While Ms. Bullock insists the Board isn’t being swayed by politics, I’m still sceptical about what really happens behind the scenes.

One of the biggest risks I raised was the threat of a federal credit rating downgrade. If the government can’t show budget discipline and we lose our AAA rating, bank borrowing costs will shoot up.

And if that happens, mortgage rates will go up, even if the RBA doesn’t touch the cash rate and that’s a rate hike due to government incompetence.

Finally, we touched on the data. I pointed out how absurd it is that the ABS classifies someone as ’employed’ if they work just one hour a week.

While the Governor appears to trust the official statistics, these numbers are masking the true level of underemployment. There are far more Australians struggling to find work than the headline figures suggest.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about government spending, but I’ll ask a few questions before getting on to that directly. In October, you said to me that ‘all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2.5 per cent’. I know you went to this with Senator Hume’s question, and you continued that’s ‘what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2.5 per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market’. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations. With the Consumer Price Index headline rate now at 3.8 per cent in the year to October and the trimmed mean up 3.3 per cent, it certainly doesn’t appear that we’re heading to 2.5 per cent anymore. Do you still have no evidence that inflation expectations are above 2.5 per cent?  

Ms Bullock: What we’ve observed is what we usually observe, that the very short-term inflation expectations rise, but at the moment we’re still seeing that the longer term inflation expectations are remaining reasonably anchored. But you raise a very relevant point. It’s a risk and it’s something the board is very focused on. 

Senator ROBERTS: What does it say about the credibility of the Reserve Bank or, more likely, the credibility of government in terms of government spending if inflation rears its head again?  

Ms Bullock: I think credibility is demonstrated by where inflation expectations are. Inflation expectations in the long term remain anchored, which I think says a lot about the credibility of the central bank.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2026, are more families going to be pushed to the brink and paying more on their mortgages because you cut interest rates too early while this government attempted to jawbone and pressure you into doing it?  

Ms Bullock: We’ve never been under any political pressure. The board has done what the board has thought was the right thing to do. We thought we were moderately restrictive. We made a conscious decision not to go up as high as some other countries. Our projections still see inflation coming back down, but obviously we’re alert to the possibility that there might be inflation pressures building, and the board will respond accordingly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you expect under current government strategies and policies to be having to deal with the government again on this?  

Ms Bullock: We take what the government is doing as a given, and that is in our forecasts. 

Senator ROBERTS: I refer to federal budget discipline, to the credit rating and mortgage rates. The banks are implicitly guaranteed by the government’s AAA credit rating, which allows them to borrow cheaply. If the federal government were to suffer a significant credit rating downgrade below its AAA, could that imply higher borrowing costs on the banks and a wider spread between the going mortgage rate and the Reserve Bank cash rate? In other words, could interest rates charged by the banks rise?  

Ms Bullock: The Australian banks aren’t only underpinned by the government, they’re underpinned by the fact that they are very strong, unquestionably strong according to the language. They have strong capital, strong buffers, low arrears rates. They’re rated well because they are very strong financial institutions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your clear answers. Nonetheless, if the federal government doesn’t get its spending under control and is given a lower credit rating, what people pay on a mortgage could actually go up without the Reserve Bank raising rates; is that right?  

Ms Bullock: It could possibly tighten financial conditions. Those are the sorts of things that the Monetary Policy Board would take into account in setting the cash rate. Financial conditions can vary for similar cash rates. The cash rate at a particular level now isn’t necessarily the same tightness in financial conditions as the same cash rate in the past. We have to take into account financial conditions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just a quick question to tidy up my understanding of where you get your figures. The RBA, as I understand it, does a lot of listening right through the community. That’s correct, isn’t it?  

Ms Bullock: We have a very extensive liaison program, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the sources of your inflation rate and the unemployment rate? Is it many factors—ABS, for example? Whom else would be involved?  

Ms Bullock: The inflation rate is the CPI published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The unemployment rate is the same.  

Senator ROBERTS: The unemployment rate is just over 4.4 per cent. How many people does that translate into being unemployed right now in Australia?  

Ms Bullock: I’d have to get back to you on that in terms of the actual numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s just a straight calculation, right, arithmetic?  

Ms Bullock: It depends on the labour force and who’s in the market. I don’t know what the number is. I’ll have to come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: That varies month to month of course. My concern is that the actual number unemployed may be far greater than what is indicated by the unemployment rate. As I understand it, the definition—and I’m looking for guidance here—is that anyone who’s employed or works paid work for one hour or more in a week is counted as employed?  

Ms Bullock: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration of underemployment in your deliberations?  

Ms Bullock: Yes, we consider underemployment. That’s a rate that we calculate. Basically, that captures people who are employed but would like more hours.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your level of confidence in the accuracy of the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate?  

Ms Bullock: We’re pretty confident that the ABS does a very good job of calculating these numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is one hour per week employed really employed?  

Ms Bullock: That’s the definition, but there are others. As I said earlier, for what it measures, we’re confident they measure it well. But that’s why we take into account a lot of different indicators, including things like vacancies, job ads and how many people actually have a job but would like more hours. These are all things that we consider as well.  

/0 Comments/by

Can’t Subsidise Our Way Out

,

During Estimates, I tabled a graph from the ABS, showing that electricity prices surged by 23% over two years. While the Government used temporary subsidies to mask the pain, those subsidies have now ended, leaving millions of Australians to face the brutal reality of a 16% “catch-up” spike in their bills.

During our exchange, I pointed out that while subsidies briefly brought headline inflation down to 7%, the underlying cost of power never actually fell and that once the relief stopped, the inflationary shock would be incredible.

The RBA admitted that headline inflation would rise as rebates expired, yet they continue to “look through” these costs to focus on their own definitions of underlying inflation.

I discussed with Governor Bullock on how these soaring energy costs are gutting our national productivity. While the Treasurer talks about “strong real wages,” everyday Australians know the truth when they see their grocery bills and insurance premiums.

The RBA believes inflation expectations are “anchored,” yet you can’t anchor a household budget when the lights cost 23% more to keep on.

You cannot subsidise your way out of an energy crisis. You only delay the pain.

During this session, I also asked some questions on Central Bank Digital Currency, quantitative easing, credit creation and funding the deficits., and I thank Governor Bullock for her well informed and honest answers.

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have circulated a graph from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ms Bullock, I certainly appreciate your direct and concise answers. I think you have talked quite a bit about how the RBA is looking through the energy bill subsidies and impact on headline inflation. What are you seeing in the underlying increases in the price of electricity? As I show in that graph, it has increased 23 per cent in two years. That seems like an incredible shock to the economy. How do you think about that? What is the impact of your management of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: So there are two aspects to that. What you will see from this graph that you have pointed out is that it rises in June 2023. That was the delayed energy price shock that many other countries saw following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Basically, then, it’s a new price level. The price level has risen, but you haven’t seen inflation because the level has just been the same.  

Senator ROBERTS: Flat?  

Ms Bullock: So there is a step up in the level. There has been a more recent increase, as we’ve seen the default market offers rates come out. Basically, the way we would think about it is that, in a direct sense, if you’ve got a supply shock, you’ve got a new price level. That doesn’t necessarily lead to ongoing inflation and an impact on inflationary expectations. We can afford to say that’s a level shift and we will look through it. The extent to which it has indirect impacts through cost impacts on businesses, that’s where we would watch to see that it wasn’t feeding through into consistent and persistent inflation. So far, it doesn’t seem to be driving persistent inflation, the increase in the price level for energy.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are your thoughts about when the energy bill relief stops?  

Ms Bullock: Well, the energy bill relief, obviously, is government policy. They put it in place to address the cost of living. Your graph shows why—because energy prices rose quite a lot. It has moved the inflation figures around quite a bit. As I’ve discussed in many other contexts, we’ve therefore looked at the underlying inflation to get an idea of the underlying pulse of inflation. That is what we have been focusing on in order to base our interest rate decisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: We saw the government’s economic roundtable was supposedly focused on productivity. What do rising energy costs do to productivity? What is the impact, then, on the standard of living?  

Ms Bullock: I don’t know if there’s a very direct impact of rising energy costs on productivity. There’s a much more fundamental thing about productivity, and that’s dynamism in the economy and dynamism among businesses. What we have been observing for decades is that productivity growth has been declining not only here but overseas. To some extent, at least, the evidence suggests that lack of dynamism in business is part of the reason for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the underlying inflation on the electricity index is at 23 per cent. Including subsidies, it has been brought back to seven per cent. Many consumers still have about a 16 per cent increase to catch up with. What will that do to inflation numbers in the future?  

Ms Bullock: Well, headline inflation, as you’ll see from our forecasts, will rise as the energy rebates come off. But the more important thing is what is happening to the underlying pulse of inflation. We are continuing to see that decline.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?  

Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.  

Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?  

Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?  

Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?  

Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. During COVID, the Reserve Bank pursued a policy which had the effect of creating money through electronic journal entries and using that to buy securitised mortgages from Australian banks. How many securitised mortgages originating in the Australian property market is the Reserve Bank now holding?  

Dr Kent: We have to take this on notice. I suspect it’s close to none. We don’t accept them as part of our regular operations. Most of them we would have held would have been a result of the term funding facility, which has now rolled off and completed.  

/by

The Truth About Tokenisation

,

I’ve been keeping a very close eye on the Reserve Bank’s moves toward a digital future. During this exchange with Governor Bullock, I pressed for clarity on exactly where they are headed with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and the “unified digital currency” the big banks have been whispering about.

I asked about developments in both domestic and international settlements. The Governor admitted that while they ran a pilot back in 2023, the focus has shifted. They aren’t looking at a “retail CBDC” right now, which would be digital cash for everyday shopping. Instead, their focus is firmly on looking at how to settle “tokenised assets.”

Tokenised financial products, also called asset tokens, are a way to turn traditional money-related things into digital versions that live on blockchain technology, the same as that used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. These could include shares, real estate, artworks and precious metals.

Normally these are hard to buy and/or sell quickly, especially in small amounts, and often involve lots of paperwork, middlemen and high minimum investments. Tokenisation changes that by creating a digital token that acts like a certificate of ownership for a piece (or all) of that real thing. The token is recorded on a blockchain, which is theoretically secure.

You would be able to buy a share of a home, business, art or precious metals within minutes, allowing small investments to grow your savings more than bank interest would do.

Note: This technology is not there yet! The RBA is scoping it out – as many institutions are.

I will continue to monitor these experiments to ensure that this doesn’t come at the cost of our financial privacy or sovereignty.

— Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: It has been six months since the new board arrangements started. How is that working so far?  

Ms Bullock: I think it is working well. The monetary policy board now has more time to focus on monetary policy decisions. The governance board, I think, is adding significant value in helping me. I was the sole accountable authority for the institution. Now the governance board is the accountable authority. My own view is that the people on that board are adding significant value.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is there going to be a review of these changes?  

Ms Bullock: The governance board is going to do a report, I think, by the end of the year. It is going to talk about all of the recommendations from the review, where we’re at with meeting them and what our plans are to meet those that we haven’t yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You actually have three boards—the monetary board, the governance board and the payment system board. Have there been any developments coming from the work the Reserve Bank is doing on electronic payment systems, whether that’s some form of central bank digital currency, which I think your predecessor acknowledged was done, or a unified digital currency the banks have been talking about? Is anything happening there in either the domestic market or international settlements?  

Ms Bullock: A few things. We have done some experimentation. Back in 2023—we might have talked about this before—we did a pilot of a central bank digital currency. We asked people to come with use cases and so on. The main headline out of that was that the predominant use cases were not what I would call retail CBDCs. It wasn’t about putting central bank digital currencies in the hands of you and me and using them at shops. It wasn’t about that. It was about wholesale digital currencies—how you can potentially use central bank digital currencies in markets for wholesale assets. We’ve got another experiment going on now which is looking specifically at that issue. If you tokenise assets—you put them on a chain, a ledger—how can you use not only central bank digital currencies but stable coins, tokenised bank deposits and standard payment systems to settle tokenised asset sales. That is the current experiment that is going on. We are working with a number of organisations to do that. That will give us a bit more information about the sorts of issues that might arise in moving towards tokenised asset ledgers.  

/by

Australia Must Boost Gold Reserves Amid BRICS Gold Rush

,

It’s no secret that BRICS countries are buying gold at unprecedented rates, which is the main reason gold is appreciating in value so quickly. Speculation suggests BRICS is planning a gold-backed exchange currency to facilitate further movement away from the US dollar as the default currency for settling international trade.

I have asked the Reserve Bank about this on several occasions, highlighting Australia’s puny gold reserves as compared to Russia (a similarly sized economy) and China. Once again, the answer I received indicates the Reserve Bank has its head in the sand on this issue.

Our economy is so closely tied to the United States that a new exchange currency will “free up” a huge amount of US dollars, which will have significant consequences not just for the USA but for major trading partners such as Australia.

Australia must respond to the threat of a new exchange currency by expanding our gold holdings as a hedge against an upheaval in the currency market. One Nation will expand our gold reserves and reduce our exposure to the US dollar—both currency and treasuries.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to gold. Your most recent balance sheet shows gold and foreign exchange assets at $105 billion. How much of that is in gold, and how much has our gold holding changed? Could you provide the tonnes of gold and the value?

Dr Kent: Our long-term gold holdings are still 80 tonnes, which is around 6,430 bars.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s 6,430 bars.

Dr Kent: Yes. That has not changed since 1997. The value as at September was around $9.7 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is that gold physically located, and has the holding been audited since the 2022 audit?

Dr Kent: I don’t believe it has. Another audit is coming due; I would have to take on notice exactly when. It is almost all held in the facility at the Bank of England.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much; I like your precise answers. Saudi Arabia has just been detected as buying 160 tonnes of gold, and the People’s Bank of China bought 1,600 tonnes of gold over the last three
years. China now holds more than 2,000 tonnes. Russia now holds 2,300 tonnes. This is a large element of the demand inflation in the gold price. Are you concerned that BRICS is up to something that needs gold? Should we be increasing our holdings as a precaution?

Dr Kent: I have no intimate knowledge as to why they are purchasing that gold. I don’t think it has implications for us.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not concerned?

Dr Kent: No.

Senator ROBERTS: BRICS have the capacity to pull the rug out from underneath the dollar, and, in my opinion, Australia should mind that risk. What are our current holding of US Treasury notes and currency?

Dr Kent: I will have to get back to you with the precise figure, but it’s an important part of our foreign exchange reserves.

/3 Comments/by

Infrastructure Investment Can Address Australia’s Economic Disaster

,

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Albanese Government have created the worst economic conditions in Australia in 30 years. In an attempt to shift the blame for this mess, the Treasurer has unfairly targeted Reserve Bank Governor, Michelle Bullock. The reality is that the RBA has increased interest rates in response to the government’s policies. While the Treasurer could order the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates, the Government knows that doing this would make Australia’s economy worse. So instead, they trade insults. 

It’s time for Treasurer Chalmers to stop the bullying and focus on solutions. Infrastructure is the key to overcoming this economic disaster. 

In this speech, I outline how One Nation plans to bring down inflation and reduce interest rates.

Transcript

In the last few days Australians have witnessed an unedifying sight: the Treasurer blaming the Reserve Bank for policy outcomes that are firmly the government’s fault. When Treasurer Chalmers was rightly criticised for his misbehaviour the Labor Party rallied the troops, dusting off Labor Party artefact Wayne Swan to defend the Treasurer. This display is why people dislike and distrust politicians. The reality is that high interest rates are the direct result of economic policy under successive Liberal and Labor governments—policy that damaged our manufacturing and farming sectors whilst transferring gross domestic product from real jobs in the private sector to jobs in the government sector. Reserve Bank Governor Bullock’s interest rate strategy is a response to Labor government policy. Labor government policy has decided the RBA’s strategy. 

Instead of bullying the Reserve Bank governor into taking further interest rate rises off the table, Treasurer Chalmers could take action to prevent the need for those rises. Balance the budget and reduce government spending to match your income; Minister Shorten tried to bring the NDIS under control, and you forced him to walk the plank. Stop replacing base load power with net zero wind, solar transmission lines and battery back-up, driving up electricity prices and sending the government into debt. Reduce immigration, which is distorting the housing market and inflating government welfare and infrastructure spending. Stop giving grants and subsidies to foreign multinationals operating solar and wind here, and instead encourage local companies who retain the wealth here. Develop our productive capacity through a national rail loop enabling an Australian steel industry. There’s $100 billion of production, 40,000 real jobs and $25 billion in government revenue just in the Capricornia steel proposal at Queensland’s Abbot Point and the port of Gladstone every year. Treasurer Chalmers should stop bullying and start building, which is exactly what a One Nation government will do. 

/4 Comments/by

Senate Hearing Into Bank Closures in Regional Australia

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. My questions initially go to the Reserve Bank and, if there’s time, to the ACCC. To the Reserve Bank, cash is legal tender. Isn’t it part of a bank’s social licence and a
duty of a bank to provide access to legal tender?

Ms McPhee: The banks obviously do provide cash services. They’re services that they provide to their customers in their own business models. The Reserve Bank doesn’t have any mandate to legislate or to regulate
access to cash services, so that’s really a matter for the banks, as is providing those services to their customers. Banks will usually provide the services their customers are looking to access, and, as long as customers want to access cash services, banks should provide them.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not experienced in your area, but I would’ve imagined that, as part of being a bank, it would’ve been a requirement to be able to provide legal tender, such as cash. Is that not correct?

Ms McPhee: There’s no obligation to provide legal tender services that I’m aware of for the banks, but I’m not an expert in that space. But, certainly, the position that we see is that many members of the Australian public still want to use cash as a means of payment, and they access that cash from their banks. Consumers still want to use cash, although a much smaller proportion of consumers wish to use cash. But there are still consumers who do use it and need to use it, so that is a product that the banks need to provide to their consumers because the consumers demand access to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I would’ve thought it was a responsibility, almost a condition, of having a banking licence, but let’s continue. In your submission, you state:

  • The cash share of payments by consumers in regional areas fell from 35 per cent in 2019 to 14 per cent in 2022 …

What is the measure you used for cash share, please? The Reserve Bank isn’t notified when someone buys a cup of coffee at a cafe with cash, for instance. How did you arrive at these figures?

Ms McPhee: I might hand that to my colleague.

Mr Fisher: I believe the numbers that you’re talking about most likely come from our Consumer Payments Survey, which is something that the Reserve Bank does every three years where it asks people to essentially fill in a diary of every payment that they make over the course of a week. So we have quite detailed information spread across different demographics and different locations of how people are making their payments. I don’t have those precise figures in front of me, but, when we’re talking about the cash share of payments, then most often we’re referring to the results of that Consumer Payments Survey.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get those figures on notice, please?

Mr Fisher: Yes, of course. The numbers I do have in front of me are that the cash share of payments in 2022 was a little under 10 per cent for people living in regional and remote areas. Actually the 2022 survey showed that that wasn’t all that different from people living in the major cities, but that’s not to say that some people don’t use cash much more intensively, including in those regional and remote areas.

Senator ROBERTS: And it doesn’t show the severity of not being able to access cash. For some people it is crucial, because they do everything in cash.

Mr Fisher: That’s right, and one thing we do from the Consumer Payments Survey is that you can classify people into how intensively they use cash. What that shows is that something like one in 20 people during that
survey week use cash for all their in-person payments, and it does show that certain demographic groups tend to use cash a lot more intensively than others, even though those shares have been declining over time.

Senator ROBERTS: The evidence is clear, from previous hearings of this committee, that banks are trying to drive down the use of cash, destroy the use of cash. That’s quite clear. Cash could be circulating more than you state, without your knowledge. Does this figure provide air cover for the banks’ war on cash, without having a solid basis in fact, apart from a survey?

Mr Fisher: I can’t comment on the issue of whether it’s providing cover for the banks. What I can say is that the survey is designed to be very comprehensive. It’s the best measure of cash use that we have. It surveys a
significant number of people, and a lot of effort by the survey firm goes into making sure that it is representative of the Australian population so we have a reasonably good picture, a good snapshot, at a particular point in time, of how people are using cash across the economy.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand, just as a side point, that the Reserve Bank of Australia has done work on establishing a digital currency. That’s correct, right?

Ms McPhee: Like many central banks around the world, we are doing some experiments and some analysis of a digital currency, but we are still working through that, and there are no direct plans to establish a digital
currency.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go back to the cash figures. A merchant who can’t deposit cash in their bank because the bank has been closed, and who can’t deposit in an ATM because their ATM has been ripped out, is
not going to accept cash they can’t bank, can’t use to pay suppliers, insurance, advertising and rent. Isn’t it true that regional merchants are no longer accepting cash because they can’t use that cash in their businesses?

Mr Fisher: What I might speak to there is the analysis that we do, some of which I believe might have been in our previous submission. Our overall assessment is that access to cash, in terms of the distance that people have to travel for withdrawal and deposit services, hasn’t changed a great deal in recent years. The nature of those services may have changed, though. If a bank branch has closed, people may have to either travel a little bit further to access full branch-style services or switch to an alternative source of cash access. I think it is reasonable to say that the elements of what you can call the cash cycle are interrelated. Cash use, cash access and cash acceptance are all, I guess, pieces of the total cash-use puzzle.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a very important point you’ve made. If the banks want to drive people off cash so they can get fees and greater income from handling digital transactions then they can use what you just said.
Mr Fisher: I can’t really speak to the motivations of the banks, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that there are different elements of the cash-use cycle that are related. We’ve published some analysis on the different
elements of the cash-use cycle in one of our bulletin articles, which I’d be happy to provide to the committee if that’s of interest.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s get back to the alternative sources of cash to banks in some towns. Isn’t it true that post offices have a role to play in providing cash? But they are not banks. They do not have after-hours ATMs, when most people take out money.

Mr Fisher: In the analysis that I referred to a moment ago talking about the distance to cash access points, one of the reasons that the distance most people have to travel on average—we say ‘on average’, but it’s different the further remote you go—hasn’t changed a great deal in recent years is the strong geographic coverage of alternatives like Bank@Post outlets. I think it is a relevant question as to whether those offer full branch services. I definitely think that’s a relevant question. Those alternative means of accessing cash that I mentioned a moment ago might not be perfect substitutes for full banking services, for example.

Senator ROBERTS: So there is a need for potentially a post office or a people’s bank to have a greater role than they do right now to provide full banking services.

Program-250324Download
/by

Perfect Storm of Government Incompetence

Labor’s failed management of the economy caused by insane Net Zero spending has resulted in the skyrocketing cost-of-living crisis that’s causing financial suffering in everyday Australians. This is callous behaviour from government.

We must confront the fact that the Net Zero fairy-tale is the biggest single cause of the economic downturn. Australians are seeing the result of this government’s pursuit of Net Zero goals in every aspect of life right now. If even the Bank of England accepts that fact and former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello, along with Australia’s Reserve Bank have all publicly acknowledged Net Zero is inflationary, then the Albanese government needs to sit up and take notice.

End the Net Zero madness now.

Transcript

As the servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I agree with this matter of public importance from Senator Hughes. I’m not sure about ‘triple whammy’. Perhaps a more appropriate term is a perfect storm of government incompetence and callousness. Food essentials are dearer because successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments have taken water off farmers to give to kill trees, driving up the price of irrigation water and, with them, the price of food. Profiteering from Coles and Woolworths is not helping. Both have just booked record profits on behalf of their foreign owners, including BlackRock and Vanguard. Real wages are falling—five per cent in the last year alone. Yet the inflation we’re currently experiencing is on the heads of the previous Liberal government, who, along with Labor, Greens and teals, destroyed the economy to control people and transfer wealth during COVID, in the process printing so much money that inflation was the inevitable result, as I said over and over across 2021 and 2022. 

Interest rates were always going to rise from an artificial low of 0.1 per cent. The reason they’ve risen so quickly and so high is on both sides of this chamber. The largest single cause of our economic woes is the net zero fairytale. Today even the Bank of England accepts that net zero is inflationary. Former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello and Australia’s Reserve Bank accept that net zero is inflationary. When baseload power is replaced by fairytale weather-dependent power, energy costs rise. The sun and the wind are free, true. The materials to capture that very low density energy are not. That’s why the cost per unit of energy is so high. Australians are seeing the result of net zero in their mortgages or rent payments, at the shops and in their utility bills. Money doesn’t go far enough to pay for the net zero fairytale, yet this government continues down that path regardless, despite the financial suffering this is causing everyday Australians—callous behaviour indeed. 

/3 Comments/by

Government Running a Ponzi Scheme

Labor is running a Ponzi scheme covering up a per capita recession. It’s bringing in huge numbers of new arrivals to increase spending to hide the per capita recession. They are running Australia’s economy like a Ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers with their spending. That increased spending adds to inflation and that contradicts the Reserve Bank’s (RBA) strategy of raising interest rates to cut spending in an attempt to stop inflation.

The government’s high level of new arrivals into Australia goes against the RBA strategy and forces the RBA to further increase interest rates. Albanese’s government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and worst decline in per capita income of all the developed nations.

This is why life for everyday Australians is continuing to get worse. Excluding tourists and short stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country competing with Australians for a roof over their head.

One Nation proposes net zero immigration where Australia only replaces the numbers who leave the country until the housing supply, essential services and infrastructure can catch up with the demand.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration and the economy. 

Instead of cutting the record flood of overseas arrivals, the Albanese government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and the worst decline in per capita income in all developed nations. According to Reserve Bank and Bureau of Statistics June quarter data, Australian residents’ spending fell, with the overall total spending driven positive due only to increased demand from tourists and international students. The government is running Australia’s economy like a ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers. Meanwhile, for the typical Australian, life continues to get worse. 

Excluding tourists and short-stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country likely to need a home right now. In one year, the Albanese Labor government issued a record 687,000 student visas—687,000! We only have 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Yet Treasurer Jim Chalmers went on national TV and deceitfully told the Australian people the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’—blatant misinformation. It’s no wonder the government have exempted themselves from their proposed misinformation and disinformation bill. 

The government claim their housing bill will fix everything. What they don’t tell Australia is that we are short hundreds of thousands of homes yet their bill will only build a maximum of 6,000 homes a year. Any Australian who can’t afford a house or who can’t afford rent—if they can find a rental—knows Treasurer Chalmers lied when he said the government doesn’t control how many people come into Australia. The Labor government is letting overseas arrivals— 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart had a point of order. I think it was around the use of the word ‘lie’. Can we just— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw that word and substitute ‘misinformation’. The Labor government are letting overseas arrivals run out of control and don’t even know how many will arrive this year. The government are making a deliberate choice to let Australians suffer so that their big business mates and the banks can profit from a cheap workforce and high property prices. We need to stop this crushing flood of overseas arrivals that are here purely to hide a per capita recession. Our first duty is to take care of people who are here already. 

Question agreed to. 

/6 Comments/by

Labor’s Migration Counteracts Reserve Bank Attempts to Cut Inflation

I asked Minister Gallagher questions about the government’s immigration policy which is bringing large numbers of new arrivals into Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released figures that show that spending from new arrivals is running interference on the Reserve Bank’s attempts to cut inflation rates.

The Minister’s defence was to, once again, blame the previous government, then COVID and then she made the claim that many of the new arrivals were just returning Australians.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australian Bureau of Statistics data and the Reserve Bank for the June quarter reveals that Australian’s spending fell while new-arrival’s spending increased, because the number of new arrivals increased. Minister, the government’s policy of bringing so many new arrivals to shore up domestic demand is acting against the Reserve Bank’s low-inflation strategy. Why do you have your foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank has its foot on the brake?

Senator Gallagher: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I disagree with it, and I don’t accept that we are not working alongside the Reserve Bank. They have their job to do, which is to bring inflation back within the target band without crunching the economy. We have our job to do, which is to implement our economic plan and roll out, as I said before, the cost-of-living relief to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to make much overdue investments into energy, skills and housing across the country, which are causing pressure in other areas of the economy.

In terms of the population growth, or what we’ve been seeing from the net overseas migration numbers in particular—we’ve spoken about this in this place on a number of times—we are seeing some of the results of having our borders closed, essentially, for a couple of years. So we’re seeing people returning to this country, particularly international students to study, at a time when we’re not seeing as many leaving the country. We are seeing that, and that’s reflected in the budget numbers.

But I can absolutely guarantee, Senator Roberts, that we are working with the Reserve Bank. The decisions that we take are about not making their job harder. It’s an already difficult job that they are doing, and our job is to support that in the areas that we have responsibility for, which is to deal with that cost-of-living relief, to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to invest in the productive side of our economy into things like the energy transition, skills and housing, which are areas that were left neglected after a decade—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in the June quarter new private house commencements fell 6.6 per cent and new private apartment commencements fell 19.6 per cent. Minister, in line with the Reserve Bank’s 13 interest rate rises, housing construction is falling when you need to build more homes for all the Albanese government arrivals. What are you going to do—pump up the economy with more arrivals, causing more inflation and more interest rate rises, or accept that you made a mistake and put the brakes on new arrivals?

Senator Gallagher: I would just say that we have not changed the policy settings that were in place around net overseas migration, so your characterisation is incorrect. In response to some of the economic data you cite, yes, we are seeing moderation in a couple of areas, and that is because many Australians are doing it tough right now, and the Reserve Bank is trying to lower demand with some of the decisions that they’ve been taking. So, yes, we are seeing that translate into other areas of economic data, but I would also say to the senator, who voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, that our housing policies are about dealing with this long-term underinvestment and failure to acknowledge that the Commonwealth government has a role to support the construction and delivery of social and affordable housing. That is the area the Commonwealth neglected in the previous decade. We have a range of policies targeted to housing to address—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Talking misinformation about your housing bill won’t save this government. Everyday Australians know they can’t afford their rent or mortgage, and they know your government is swamping the country with even more arrivals. Minister, why are you papering over your economic mismanagement and running an immigration Ponzi scheme?

Senator Gallagher: That question is simply incorrect. I would say that there is a huge amount of work that’s being done by the Home Affairs minister and the immigration minister to fix the broken system that we inherited, and we’ll have more to say on that shortly as the work that they are doing is finalised. But it’s simply not true to allege what you are alleging. We have inherited a migration system that the minister herself has said is broken, so we are dealing with issues to fix that.

But, in relation to some of the numbers that we’ve been seeing, particularly in relation to international students and working holiday-makers who have returned to the country with valid visas after the borders had been closed, just because you say ‘misinformation’ doesn’t mean it is misinformation. These are the facts; let’s deal with the facts. We accept that there is pressure in the housing market, which is why we’re responding to deal with it.

/2 Comments/by

Reserve Bank Uses “Blunt Tool” on Inflation

,

The new Governor of the Reserve Bank is not ruling out raising the cash rate again to further control inflation. She refers to these measures as part of a tightening phase.

The Reserve Bank is unwinding the massive expansionary monetary policy it took during the COVID response which created $500 billion out of thin air. Meanwhile the States and the Federal ALP are spending money like it is play money.

This spending acts against the Reserve Bank’s rate rises. This is why I say this Government is hitting the brake and the accelerator at the same time.

The high rate of immigration is expanding the economy and that also acts against the dampening effect of rate rises. The pain and stress of mortgage rate hikes can be attributed to the costly COVID response and to immigration. That is all on Prime Minister Albanese and Treasurer Chalmers.

One Nation will reduce immigration to reduce rents and take the heat of the property market, removing the need for further rate rises.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Congratulations on your appointment.

Ms Bullock: Thank you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How does it feel being in a highly complex job which is affecting so many people’s lives and livelihoods?

Ms Bullock: I do feel a great deal of responsibility, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Inflation has gone from 7.8 per cent, peak, to 5.4 per cent. In your speech yesterday you went on record to say the Reserve Bank will not hesitate to raise rates again if it looks like inflation is not coming under control. Is inflation coming under control? I’m guessing from your comments so far that you’re wary and there are signs that it’s not.

Ms Bullock: I’d say what I said earlier, which is that we got an important piece of information yesterday. We need to take that away, analyse it and figure out what it means for our forecast going forward. That’s no different to the comment we’ve been making to date, which is that we are—’wary’ is a good word. We’re looking at some of the more persistent parts of inflation and asking ourselves: are there signs that those might be coming down in the future? So, yes, we are wary. We don’t know if the job is done yet, and we’ve made that very clear. Even though we haven’t raised interest rates since our last interest rate rise in June, we’ve made it very clear that we might need to go again. We had not ruled that out, and we’re in the same position now.

Senator ROBERTS: When debating the need for a rate rise, is the effect on mortgage affordability, especially mortgage stress, taken into account? If so, what measure do you use, and what is that measure telling you about how hard life is getting for mortgagees?

Ms Bullock: We do understand that there is a distribution—let me step back for one moment. Higher interest rates and monetary policy work through a number of channels. The one that gets the most attention is what we call the cash flow channel, which is the impact on people who have debt. That gets a lot of attention, particularly in Australia, because, as Chris already mentioned, most of the debt of households and businesses is variable rate debt or very short fixed-rate debt. That’s why that channel gets the most attention, but there are other channels. In fact, Chris gave a speech on that fairly recently. One is the intertemporal channel, which basically means: as interest rates go up, people are incentivised to save rather than to spend, and in fact we are observing that. We are still seeing people in aggregate save, and there’s an incentive even for mortgage holders to save. Their interest rates have gone up, so, for them, there’s an incentive now to try and put even more away into their offset and redraw accounts if they can. That’s the other way that it works. Another channel is the exchange rate channel. The way that works is: as interest rates rise, the exchange rate—if everyone else wasn’t raising their interest rates the exchange rate would rise, but at the moment it means that it hasn’t fallen very much. It has been reasonably stable over the last year. We’re not getting inflation through that particular channel. There are other channels as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you measure the stress?

Ms Bullock: No. We can’t very precisely say: particular channels contribute X to inflation. We can’t do it that way. But they’re all the channels that we’re watching and trying to understand how they might impact.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess whether or not people are under mortgage stress? Ms Bullock: We don’t do individual mortgage stress assessments. What we can observe is data we get from the banks on hardship calls that they’ve got, arrears rates and those sorts of things. We can observe those at aggregate level. The feedback we’re getting at the moment, from the banks and from the data we see, is that that has risen but it’s still at very low levels.

CHAIR: Last question.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely the inflation that’s still hitting Australians has something to do with the Reserve Bank creating $500 billion out of thin air—or, as Dr Debelle said, electronic journal entries—over COVID. Have you thought about that? Your predecessor admitted it was a cause of the inflation problem, creating that $500 billion out of thin air.

Ms Bullock: Basically, you’re referring to the massive expansionary monetary policy that we undertook during the pandemic?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Ms Bullock: I think my response would be that, at the time, we were facing a very, very dire economic situation, and the appropriate response at the time was to run a very expansionary monetary policy. We have now unwound that and we’re in a tightening phase, so, yes, the purpose of the expansionary monetary policy was in fact to encourage demand and encourage growth. That was very much the intention. To the extent that we look back and now say, ‘Well, demand is too strong,’ we are now in a tightening phase to wind that back. But I wouldn’t say it was the sole reason for the increase in inflation. You might remember that there were very big supply chain issues as well, and when constrained supply meets high demand, you get inflation.

Senator ROBERTS: Building on that, you have a very blunt tool to attack inflation, don’t you? Because the cash rate for the entire country is a very blunt tool to try to bring down inflation.

Ms Bullock: Yes, it’s a blunt tool.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/4 Comments/by