This is the text of an open letter from 12 leading economists, sent on Sunday:
To the Treasurer, the Hon. Dr Jim Chalmers, MP
Ahead of the 2022 election, both major parties committed to conducting an independent review of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA).
This bipartisanship was welcome and befitted the independent nature of the conduct of monetary policy, which conditional on the RBA’s mandate ought to be beyond the scope of day-to-day politics.
Now that the election outcome is known, it falls to the new government – and, principally, to you as Treasurer – to establish the terms of reference and logistics for the review process.
It is critical that a review be conducted but the devil is in the detail – poorly crafted terms of reference have the potential to undermine the efficacy of the review and therefore the future conduct of monetary policy.
The review presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
The conduct of monetary policy is critical to the functioning of the Australian economy and through it the welfare of every Australian.
Recent decades have seen the Australian economy buffeted by unprecedented external shocks, which have necessitated rapid adaptation of both monetary and fiscal policy. Meanwhile economies across the world have experienced a long-run secular decline in economic growth and real interest rates.
Now is the time for a wide-ranging, independent review of our monetary policy framework and our monetary authority.
With that in mind, it is our assessment that the review should:
be independent, both of the RBA and government
be headed by an internationally recognised foreign expert
be wide-ranging, encompassing the Reserve Bank Act, the Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy, and the RBA as an institution including its responsibilities, its structure and culture, the composition and appointment of its board, and the ways in which it communicates with the public
be concerned both with past performance and how well the RBA is placed to handle future challenges
explicitly consider the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy.
Full independence is crucial if the review is to make the most of this unique opportunity. No institution can be expected to independently or credibly review itself. A foreign perspective would bring valuable external scrutiny to the process and enable a benchmarking of the RBA against its overseas counterparts.
The review should not be seen as a performance appraisal of a particular regime or individual—rather, it speaks to the performance of the fundamental institutions governing the decision-making process.
It is common for reviews of central banks to be led by foreign experts.
the RBNZ review by Lars Svensson in 2001
reviews of the Bank of England by Donald Kohn in 2000, David Stockton in 2012, and David Warsh in 2014
reviews of the Riksbank by Francesco Giavazzi and Frederic Mishkin in 2006, by Charles Goodhart and Jean-Charles Rochet in 2011, by Marvin Goodfriend and Mervyn King in 2016, and by Karnit Flug and Patrick Honohan in 2022
the review of the Bank for International Settlements by Franklin Allen, Charles Bean, and Jose De Gregorio in 2016.
We are energised by the prospect of a review and optimistic for what it may achieve. Australia is counting on it.
Warwick McKibbin is a former member of the Reserve Bank board. Peter Tulip is a former head of research at the Reserve Bank.
- ^ Begoña Dominguez (theconversation.com)
- ^ Chris Edmond (theconversation.com)
- ^ Saul Eslake (theconversation.com)
- ^ Renée Fry-McKibbin (theconversation.com)
- ^ Steven Hamilton (theconversation.com)
- ^ Richard Holden (theconversation.com)
- ^ Warwick McKibbin (theconversation.com)
- ^ John Quiggin (theconversation.com)
- ^ Kristle Romero Cortés (www.unsw.edu.au)
- ^ Chris Richardson (www2.deloitte.com)
- ^ Peter Tulip (www.cis.org.au)
- ^ Danielle Wood (theconversation.com)
Authors: Steven Hamilton, Visiting Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University