CBWCENTRAL BANK WATCHEROFFICIAL COMMUNICATION MONITOR
← BACK TO LIVE WIRE
Reserve Bank of AustraliaMeeting account / minutesEN

Minutes of the April 2025 Monetary Policy Board Meeting

SPEAKERand Chair

PUBLISHED15/04/2025, 01:30:00
EVENT / LOCATIONNot stated

Minutes of the Monetary Policy Board Meeting

Sydney – 31 March and 1 April 2025

Members present

Michele Bullock (Governor and Chair), Andrew Hauser (Deputy Governor and Deputy Chair), Marnie Baker,

Renée Fry-McKibbin

, Ian Harper AO, Carolyn Hewson AO, Steven Kennedy PSM, Iain Ross AO, Alison Watkins AM

Others present

Sarah Hunter (Assistant Governor, Economic), Brad Jones (Assistant Governor, Financial System),

Christopher Kent (Assistant Governor, Financial Markets)

Anthony Dickman (Secretary), David Norman (Deputy Secretary)

Meredith Beechey Osterholm (Head, Monetary Policy Strategy), Andrea Brischetto (Head, Financial Stability

Department), Sally Cray (Chief Communications Officer), David Jacobs (Head, Domestic Markets Department),

Michael Plumb (Head, Economic Analysis Department), Penelope Smith (Head, International Department),

Claudia Seibold (Senior Manager, Domestic Markets Department, for the discussion of ‘Assessing the

RBA’s government bond holdings’)

First meeting

The Governor welcomed members to the inaugural meeting of the Monetary Policy Board.

Financial conditions

Members began their discussion of financial conditions by reviewing central bank policy rates in advanced

economies. All central banks had acknowledged the heightened and ongoing uncertainty surrounding both the

scope and potential impact of US trade policies. Members noted that expectations for policy rates in the

United States and Canada had eased over prior months. Central banks in both countries had communicated

downside risks to growth and upside risks to inflation from US tariffs, though the US Federal

Reserve’s central expectation was for the effect on domestic inflation to be transitory. The lower

expected path for US policy rates also reflected reduced market expectations of stimulatory fiscal

policies and some softer-than-expected economic data.

In other major economies, financial market expectations for central bank policy rates had been more

stable. In Europe, expectations of substantial fiscal stimulus – driven by an anticipated increase

in defence spending and a relaxation of fiscal rules – had tempered expectations for further policy

rate cuts. Expectations that the Bank of Japan’s policy rate would be increased had risen in

response to stronger-than-expected wages data and broader expectations that inflationary pressures in

Japan are likely to be sustained.

In Australia, market participants’ expectations for the path of the cash rate had shifted a little

higher in the near term, in response to communication following the February monetary policy meeting, but

expectations had declined further out in response to international developments. Members noted that

market pricing at the time was for further cuts in the cash rate totalling 50-75 basis points by the

end of 2025 – with little-to-no probability of a cut at the present meeting and around a

65 per cent probability of a cut in May. The cash rate path expected by market economists was a

little higher than that reflected in market pricing. Members discussed possible explanations for this,

including that market pricing incorporated some probability of very adverse outcomes associated with a

marked escalation in trade tensions.

Longer term sovereign bond yields in advanced economies had drifted lower in the United States and Canada

but had risen slightly in Europe and Japan, in part reflecting the different shifts in expectations for

central bank policy in those economies. In the United States, market-implied measures of inflation

expectations derived from bond yields had increased at the two-year horizon but remained largely

unchanged at longer horizons, suggesting that market participants expected the announced tariffs would

not have persistent effects on US inflation. Outside of North America, market measures of inflation

expectations were little changed, including in Australia.

Turning to conditions in corporate funding markets, members noted that equity prices in the United States

had fallen by almost 10 per cent from their peak as risk sentiment had deteriorated and the

outlook for the US economy had weakened. By contrast, European equity prices had risen by more than

10 per cent since November, in response to expectations of greater defence and infrastructure

spending and increased hopes of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Equity prices had declined in

Australia by less than in the United States but by a similar amount to other small open economies that

were particularly exposed to declines in global trade. Members noted that despite these recent movements,

measures of compensation for risk in equity and corporate bond markets remained very low in all advanced

economies. An important question was whether that optimism was justified on the basis of a relatively

positive outlook for global activity, or whether it indicated the potential for financial conditions to

tighten considerably if outcomes deteriorated, even modestly, relative to market expectations.

In China, total social financing had increased as a result of very strong growth in Chinese Government

bond issuance. Household credit growth had also picked up but remained very low, with weakness in the

property sector an ongoing constraint.

The Australian dollar had depreciated slightly on a trade-weighted basis since the previous monetary

policy meeting. This had been driven by depreciation against the Chinese renminbi, the euro and the yen,

and mainly reflected changing interest rate differentials. Commodity prices – another key

determinant of the Australian dollar historically – had been little changed for several months. In

trade-weighted terms, the Australian dollar was at the bottom of the range it had moved in over recent

years and close to, or a little below, the various staff estimates of its long-run equilibrium value

based on current information. Members noted that the Australian dollar had been an important automatic

stabiliser for the economy in the face of sizeable global shocks and was expected to continue to play

that role.

Members noted that Australian households’ debt servicing payments were still around their highest

levels since 2012 as a share of household disposable income. Scheduled debt payments had stabilised

relative to incomes over the second half of 2024, including because of growth in household incomes.

However, households had increased their extra mortgage payments over the same period to pay down debt

more quickly. Members noted that the reduction in the cash rate in February would reduce required

household debt servicing payments somewhat and could provide indebted households with scope to finance

higher consumption.

While overall financial conditions in Australia had eased a little with the cut in the cash rate target in

February, members’ assessment was that they were still restrictive. Members nonetheless explored the

extent to which competition among banks over preceding years and other factors had relaxed financial

conditions. Aggregate credit growth had been somewhat stronger than in the years leading into the

pandemic, which was unusual during a period of relatively high interest rates and in contrast to other

advanced economies. Business credit growth had strengthened further in preceding months, though housing

credit growth had moderated alongside weak housing price growth. Household credit had declined a little

relative to income over preceding years, and business debt had risen only slightly as a share of GDP,

from low levels.

International economic conditions

Members discussed the implications for the global economy of ongoing trade policy uncertainty. The US

administration had imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, increased tariffs on China and set

25 per cent tariffs on aluminium and steel imports from all countries. Canada, China and the

European Union had announced retaliatory tariffs. The United States had signalled that it would raise

tariffs further, with an announcement of additional tariffs expected shortly after the meeting.

Members noted that a range of timely indicators of US economic sentiment had declined sharply, including

consumer confidence, some business surveys and equity prices. This had increased the likelihood of lower

growth in US household spending and business investment. Market economists’ forecasts for output

growth in North America had been downgraded following announcements of higher tariffs, though forecasts

for growth in Australia’s major trading partners had been less affected so far. The overall impact

on global growth would depend on the policy responses in other economies. Members noted that recent data

had suggested some pick-up in growth in China. Chinese authorities had also confirmed a

5 per cent GDP growth target in 2025, backed by more supportive fiscal policy to offset

headwinds from tariffs and the still-weak property sector.

Members observed that the implications of tariffs for inflation could further complicate the global

economic outlook. Inflation was still above central banks’ targets in some advanced economies and

progress on disinflation had stalled or even reversed a little in some cases. Against this backdrop,

countries imposing tariffs could experience higher import prices, supply chain disruptions and efficiency

losses (resulting from tariff-induced distortions to trade patterns). These developments would raise the

price level. If they also resulted in inflationary pressures that offset the disinflationary effects of

lower output growth, policymakers in countries imposing tariffs could be faced with the challenging

combination of slowing output growth and higher inflation. A range of market economists saw this as the

most likely outcome for the United States in the period ahead.

The extent to which these international developments would affect the Australian economy was a further

source of uncertainty and depended on a range of factors. Assuming the global tariffs announced so far

and that the Australian Government did not impose retaliatory tariffs, a model-based scenario showed that

the effects on GDP growth and inflation in Australia could be relatively modest. This reflected

Australia’s limited direct trade exposure to the United States, additional policy support in China

and Australia’s flexible exchange rate. There were clear downside risks for Australian growth

relative to this scenario, if tariffs and policy uncertainty have a greater effect on global growth than

expected, if the spillovers to Australia are larger or if there were further material increases in

tariffs in other economies, including those that are important for Australia. However, the risks to

Australian inflation were more two-sided and would depend on the timing and relative size of the effects

on aggregate demand and supply: weaker global demand and the possibility of trade diversion away from the

United States could reduce inflation in Australia, but a larger exchange rate depreciation or more

substantial global supply disruptions could increase inflation.

Members observed that concerns about US trade policy were already having a material influence on planning

activities of some globally oriented Australian firms, but did not yet appear to be a widespread

consideration for domestically focused firms. Similarly, trade measures were yet to have a significant

effect on measured activity or inflation in Australia. Members nevertheless emphasised the importance of

being alert to any signs of this changing.

Domestic economic conditions

Turning to domestic conditions, members noted that recent domestic data had been generally consistent with

the forecasts in the February

Statement on Monetary Policy

.

GDP growth had picked up in the December quarter 2024, broadly as expected and consistent with a continued

recovery in domestic demand. In per capita terms, GDP had risen for the first time since late 2022,

albeit only slightly. Private demand had increased modestly in the December quarter, led by household

consumption, while public demand had continued to support growth. The limited information available about

activity in early 2025 suggested that the pick-up in GDP growth had been sustained. Natural disasters in

parts of Queensland and New South Wales, while having a significant impact on affected areas, were

expected to have only a modest impact on aggregate GDP. The

2025/26

Australian Government Budget had not conveyed material changes to

the outlook for overall public demand.

Household consumption growth had started to recover in the December quarter, underpinned by the ongoing

pick-up in real household incomes. While some of this recovery in consumption appeared to reflect

price-sensitive consumers concentrating spending in promotional periods during the December quarter, the

pick-up in spending growth among components not affected by sales events suggested there had been a

genuine improvement in underlying momentum. More recent indicators signalled that some of this pick-up

had been sustained.

Members noted the staff’s overall assessment that labour market conditions remained tight. The

unemployment rate had increased slightly in early 2025, as expected, and was little changed since

mid-2024. Underemployment had declined further to its lowest level since early 2023. Other indicators had

also contributed to the assessment that labour market conditions were tight, including job vacancies, job

advertisements and the share of firms reporting labour availability as a significant constraint on

output. However, the quits rate – which measures the share of employees voluntarily leaving jobs

– had continued to decline, perhaps signalling that inter-firm competition for labour had eased.

More broadly, the NAB measure of firms’ capacity utilisation had declined a little further in

February, consistent with gradually easing capacity pressures outside the labour market.

Members discussed the surprising decline in employment and the participation rate in February. Given this

was only one month’s data, it seemed possible that the declines were a result of volatility in the

monthly labour force data rather than an indication of softening in labour market conditions. Other

sources of information were not indicating a sharp deterioration in employment growth: employment

intentions from liaison and business surveys had stabilised or picked up a little recently, and income

tax withholding collections had not exhibited any unusual patterns. Members agreed on the importance of

monitoring employment outcomes closely over coming months.

Data on wages and labour costs received since the previous monetary policy meeting had provided somewhat

contradictory signals. Year-ended growth in the Wage Price Index (WPI) had eased in the December quarter

2024, to 3.2 per cent. This pace of wages growth was in line with expectations, but revisions

to the quarterly data suggested there was slightly less momentum at the end of 2024 than had been

expected. By contrast, average earnings from the national accounts and unit labour costs – which

are more comprehensive but more volatile measures of labour compensation and labour costs than the WPI

– had grown more strongly in late 2024 than expected. Unit labour costs had increased by around

5½ per cent over 2024, significantly higher than the average growth rate over the inflation

targeting period, in part reflecting ongoing weakness in measured productivity. Members noted the

staff’s assessment that, on balance, the information in the data on wages and unit labour costs

received in preceding weeks was broadly offsetting in terms of implications for the inflation outlook.

This judgement would, however, be reviewed as part of the updated forecasts in May.

The monthly CPI indicator suggested that trimmed mean inflation would be likely to fall below

3 per cent in the March quarter, even with some likely pick-up in the quarterly outcome because

of anticipated strong growth in certain administered prices and the unwinding of some temporary factors.

Recent outcomes in other inflation sub-components had been consistent with the staff’s expectations.

New dwelling construction prices had declined slightly in recent months, though advertised rents had been

stronger than expected. Some firms continued to report in liaison that weak demand had limited the extent

to which they could pass input cost pressures through to consumer prices. Members noted that the energy

rebate extension announced in the Australian Government Budget would affect the profile of headline

inflation in 2025 and 2026.

Financial stability assessment

Members considered the staff’s semi-annual assessment of financial stability risks. The staff

assessed that the Australian financial system had continued to display a high level of resilience, and

that banks were well placed to continue supporting the economy even in the event of a significant

economic downturn. Accordingly, members observed that there were no immediate implications for monetary

policy arising from domestic financial stability considerations.

While financial pressures remained pervasive across the Australian community, they had generally eased a

little. This reflected lower inflation, the Stage 3 income tax cuts and the reduction in the cash

rate in February. The share of borrowers who had fallen behind on their mortgage payments had stabilised

at around pre-pandemic levels, and most mortgagors had maintained large liquidity and equity buffers.

While lower income borrowers had been more likely to fall behind on their mortgages, arrears rates for

these borrowers were well contained and had been declining since mid-2024. Borrowers in aggregate had

continued to add to prepayment buffers over recent months. The share of borrowers in severe financial

stress was likely to decline further in the period ahead under the staff’s central projections for

the economy, although uncertainty about the outlook remained pronounced.

Looking further ahead, members noted that the RBA and other regulators were attentive to vulnerabilities

that might build in the financial system if households responded to an actual or anticipated easing in

financial conditions by taking on excessive debt. While lending standards were currently sound,

historical experience both in Australia and abroad suggested that periods of lower interest rates can

coincide with riskier borrowing activity, a rapid increase in house prices and, at times, a relaxation of

lending standards. Historically, borrowing by investors had been particularly sensitive to changes in

conditions in the mortgage market. The potential for this activity to amplify the credit and housing

market cycle would be monitored closely.

Business insolvencies had continued to rise but, on a cumulative basis, were still slightly below their

pre-pandemic trend. Members observed that broader spillovers to the financial system had been limited

because insolvent firms were generally small and did not have significant levels of bank debt. Most

business borrowers had continued to manage the pressures on their finances, and leading indicators of

financial stress in the corporate sector – such as overdue trade credit – had stabilised or

improved.

Notwithstanding the resilience of the domestic financial system, members recognised the potential for

heightened geopolitical tensions and global trade policy uncertainty to interact with existing

vulnerabilities in the global financial system. In this context, members acknowledged the work being done

by the RBA and other agencies of the Council of Financial Regulators to reinforce the resilience of the

financial system to withstand geopolitical risks, including risks relating to cyber threats and

potentially severe operational disruptions to financial and other national infrastructure.

Members discussed several vulnerabilities in key international financial markets that also had the

potential to affect the Australian financial system. Term premia for long-term advanced economy

government bonds had begun to increase, after several years during which they had been unusually low,

partly in response to deteriorating fiscal outlooks. Members noted the potential for more significant

adjustments in global bond term premia if geopolitical or fiscal risks were to worsen. Compressed risk

premia in US equity and credit markets also increased the likelihood that adverse news could spark a

disorderly correction in international asset prices. The increased use of leverage and large positions

established by some international hedge funds in key overseas financial markets had the potential to

amplify such shocks. In an extreme scenario, a rapid and disorderly repricing in global asset markets and

disruptions to funding markets had the potential to spill over to the Australian financial system.

Domestically, members noted the importance of banks and superannuation funds ensuring their liquidity risk

management frameworks were able to withstand severe-but-plausible liquidity shocks. In the past, the

superannuation sector had generally displayed a high level of resilience to market shocks and funds’

investment activities had tended to support financial stability, but the growth in assets under

management meant that strengthening superannuation funds’ governance and risk management practices

remains a focus of regulators. Members also discussed the Australian Prudential Regulation

Authority’s expectations that smaller banks should take steps to improve the diversification of

their liquidity portfolios.

Considerations for monetary policy

Turning to considerations for the monetary policy decision, members noted that the flow of data since the

previous monetary policy meeting had been largely in line with the expectations of the staff. Inflation

had continued to decline gradually. The labour market was judged to be tighter than was consistent with

full employment and, at this stage, the large fall in employment in February was considered more likely

to be a statistical aberration than a turning point in labour demand. Members assessed domestic financial

conditions to be still somewhat restrictive. The most significant development in the period leading up to

the meeting had been the significant rise in uncertainty about global trade policy, although the effect

of this on sentiment and economic developments in Australia was not yet clear.

In light of this assessment, members agreed that the outlook for inflation and the labour market set out

in the February

Statement on Monetary Policy

remained an appropriate starting point for

their policy deliberations. So far, the economy appeared to be tracking in line with the staff’s

forecasts, which were for underlying inflation to return to the 2-3 per cent range from

mid-2025 before settling a little above the midpoint.

Members turned their discussion to the risks that were most prominent in their thinking about the economic

outlook, and the relative importance of these. They agreed that the risks to the outlook were two-sided,

with some that could result in economic activity and inflation in Australia being weaker than expected

and others that could result in economic activity and inflation strengthening more noticeably.

Regarding risks emanating from the domestic economy, members judged that the nature and importance of

these had not changed materially since the previous monetary policy meeting. They noted that several of

the domestic risks could result in a tighter labour market and higher inflation were they to materialise.

These risks included the potential for the tight labour market and strong growth in unit labour costs to

have a more pronounced effect on inflation than anticipated. Members noted that it was also possible that

the emerging recovery in domestic private demand could prove stronger than expected. They observed that

this could occur if financial conditions were less restrictive than they currently assumed. Members also

observed that an important assumption underpinning the forecasts was that productivity growth picked up

and that this was not assured. They emphasised that the prolonged period of above-target inflation over

prior years made these risks more salient and discussed the importance of not jeopardising the progress

that has already been achieved in bringing inflation sustainably back to the midpoint of the target by

easing monetary policy prematurely, particularly considering the experience of some other countries where

disinflation appeared to have stalled.

At the same time, members noted that several other domestically generated risks could see economic

activity and inflation slow by more than expected. They observed that the degree of tightness in the

labour market was still uncertain and that, if there turned out to be more capacity in the labour market

than the staff had assessed, inflation could return to target sooner than currently forecast. The

likelihood of that possibility would increase if the slowing in wages growth in late 2024 continued or if

the recent weakness in employment persisted. It was also possible that the anticipated pick-up in

consumption growth again proved to be overly optimistic.

Regarding risks to the outlook for the global economy, members noted that these had increased and were

tilted to the downside. They agreed that a significant further increase in global tariffs or other trade

restrictions could materially disrupt global trade. Uncertainty about global economic policy settings

could also lead firms and households to reduce spending and investment. If either of those consequences

were to transpire, global economic activity could fall significantly, though the implications for

inflation would be more complicated.

Members agreed that the implications of global developments for the Board’s policy decisions would

depend on their effects on Australian activity, inflation and employment. It was possible to envisage

circumstances in which the impact was significant, and members acknowledged that it is important for

monetary policy to be forward-looking. However, the information to hand did not imply a significant

change in the outlook, despite the substantial level of uncertainty. Even with the recent adjustments in

some markets, pricing in financial and commodity markets was cautiously optimistic. And heightened global

uncertainty did not yet appear to be having a significant effect on domestic spending. Members noted that

while concerns about global trade policy were receiving scrutiny by Australian companies that export to

the United States, sentiment among domestically focused companies had not yet adjusted downwards. The

implications for Australia of global tariff settings would also depend on how Chinese authorities

respond, and members noted the Chinese authorities’ stated commitment to maintaining output growth

around 5 per cent. Importantly, the Board would need to monitor closely the implications of

global developments for Australian inflation. Some of those developments could exert disinflationary

pressure, including weak demand and the potential for trade diversion, but others could be inflationary,

such as potential impairments to global supply chains and exchange rate depreciation.

In light of these considerations, members agreed that it was appropriate to maintain the cash rate target

at its current level at this meeting. There had not been sufficient information to alter the central

outlook for the Australian economy significantly. In addition, members judged that it was not appropriate

at this stage for monetary policy to react to the potential risks that could move outcomes in either

direction. It was nevertheless important to remain alert to the evolving balance of risks. Members

observed that the May meeting would be an opportune time to revisit the monetary policy setting with the

benefit of additional data about inflation, wages, the labour market and trends in economic activity,

along with a fresh set of economic forecasts and further information about the likely evolution of global

trade policies. Collectively, this information would have a considerable bearing on their decision.

Looking forward, the Board discussed the monetary policy strategy, which was to bring inflation back to

the midpoint of the target band while maintaining as much of the gains in employment as possible. While

the available information suggested that the strategy was on track, members agreed that it was not yet

possible to determine the timing of the next move in interest rates. They noted that future decisions

would, in each instance, depend on new information and its implications for the economic outlook. Members

noted risks to the outlook on both sides, and that monetary policy was well placed to respond to

international developments were they to have material implications for Australian activity and inflation.

Given this, members agreed that it would be helpful if the Board’s public communication following

the meeting made it clear that the outcome of its next decision was not predetermined.

In finalising the policy statement, members emphasised the need to be cautious and alert to the evolving

economic outlook, and the importance of future decisions being guided by the incoming information and the

assessment of risks. They agreed that sustainably returning inflation to target is the Board’s

highest priority and that it will do what is necessary to achieve that outcome.

The decision

The Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 4.10 per cent, and the rate on Exchange

Settlement balances unchanged at 4.00 per cent.

Assessing the RBA’s government bond holdings

Members discussed the staff’s latest assessment of the pace at which the RBA’s holdings of

government bonds were running down. The current approach – which had been endorsed by the Reserve

Bank Board in December 2023 – is to hold these bonds until maturity but review it periodically. As

in previous assessments, the paper considered the options of continuing with the current approach or

reducing the RBA’s holdings by gradually selling bonds. Members agreed that there were no clear

reasons at present to vary the pace of rundown for monetary policy or financial stability purposes, but

the scale and maturity structure of the holdings did have implications for the RBA’s risks and

returns. Given that, members agreed to seek the views of the Governance Board on risk and return

considerations. A decision could then be made in due course on the basis of those considerations and any

potential implications for monetary policy and financial stability.

VIEW ORIGINAL OFFICIAL SOURCE ↗