The Reserve Bank of Australia has conformed to expectations and decided to lift the official cash rate. It is the third successive interest rate hike this year as the bank tries to suppress expectations of runaway price inflation in the economy and subsequent wage increases.

The RBA opted for a standard 0.25 hike, which takes the official cash rate to 4.35 per cent. After hikes in February and March, it now completely erases all the rate cuts following the hiking cycle in response to Covid-driven inflation.

The official cash rate last sat at 4.35 per cent 16 months ago.

RELATED

The hike in March was a close call, with five Board members in favour and four against. This time, it was a very different story.

Only one Board member voted to hold rates steady today, with eight voting for the hike.

“There are early signs that many firms experiencing cost pressures are looking to increase prices of their goods and services. Short-term measures of inflation expectations have also risen,” the RBA Board warned in its accompanying Monetary Policy Statement on Tuesday afternoon.

“Developments in the Middle East are having an impact on inflation. Higher fuel prices are adding to inflation and there are indications that this is likely to have second-round effects on prices for goods and services more broadly. This inflation impulse is in addition to the high inflation recorded around the start of 2026, reflecting capacity pressures in the economy.”

The RBA pointed to huge uncertainty in the Middle East and said a protracted conflict would mean inflation will likely get worse before it gets better.

“A longer or more severe conflict could put further upward pressure on global energy prices; this would push up near-term inflation and could also increase inflation further out as these costs are passed through,” it said, adding this scenario risks price rises getting “built into longer term inflation expectations”.

“Higher prices and prolonged uncertainty may cause growth to be lower in Australia’s major trading partners and also in Australia,” the statement said.

That confluence of factors has some economists worried about us entering into a period of stagflation.

Average mortgage holder paying $3,200 more

Today’s hike will take the average owner-occupier variable home loan rate to 6.26 per cent.

It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, does it? Someone decides to go to war, the oil stops flowing, prices go up and our economy starts shutting down.

The best response we can come up with is to raise interest rates, to dampen demand a little more. As if doubling the price of petrol won’t do that enough.

Problem is, raising interest rates only hurts people with mortgages and renters, typically not high on the wealth ladder. People with no debt get more money, and will spend it. And the rising interest rates hurt the businesses that have already been hit. Just when we want to raise supply.

RELATED:

Besides interest rates, standard macroeconomic thinking is there’s only one other lever. We could reduce net government spending, which is hard to do when you’ve just cut taxes on diesel and petrol, which will fuel demand just when you don’t want that to happen.

But there may be a third way. To our collective credit, Australia has set up what many regard as the world’s best superannuation system. As at December 2025, we had close to $4.5 trillion set aside for our futures. And, every hour of every day, 12% of our income is added to the pile.

It’s been suggested that the super guarantee levy might be used as the third ‘lever’ to modulate the economy, in addition to fiscal and monetary policy.

This was actually one of the arguments used when the levy was introduced back in 1992. Instead of giving workers a wage rise, which might trigger wage-inflation, Bill Kelty and Paul Keating negotiated a compulsory savings scheme. Workers would benefit, but not immediately.

Perhaps it’s worth revisiting that negotiation. Say you want to set the levy at 12% over the long term. When times are tough you might put the 12% rate down a little to stimulate the economy. Instead of a $100 wage and $12 in super, people get $102 for now and $10 for later. We get through.

Or, when inflation is running you might nudge the 12% up a little to constrain demand. The extra isn’t paid by business. Instead of the $100 wage and $12 in super, people get $98 for now and $14 for later. Given the cost of living crisis, maybe the lever only cuts in above a certain income.

This would arguably be fairer, easier and more effective than the interest rate sledgehammer. It would inject or remove the same amount of money from the economy. But the pain is spread, people keep their own money rather than paying it to the banks, and businesses aren’t hit by higher interest rates just when you want them to invest in their capacity.