The Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Board sets the cash rate meeting by meeting, and its recent statements show a long list of considerations rather than a fixed route.

Every few weeks, a group of nine people decides the price of money in Australia. Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser made the point himself in an ABC 7.30 interview on 8 September 2026: the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) Monetary Policy Board has nine voting members, and he would not pre-commit to what they might do next.

Three weeks later, on 29 September, that Board unanimously raised the cash rate target by 25 basis points to 4.60 per cent, its fourth increase of 2026. Governor Michele Bullock then made the same point Hauser had: "I'm not going to give you forward guidance."

So how does the Board arrive at a decision, if not by following a pre-set path? The RBA's published material does not lay out a formula, but its statements, minutes and speeches show what it weighs.

A calendar, not a conveyor belt

The Board meets on a published schedule. For the rest of 2026, the next meeting is on 2–3 November, with the decision at 2.30 pm on 3 November, followed by a final meeting on 7–8 December. Eight meetings are scheduled for 2027:

  • 8–9 February
  • 22–23 March
  • 3–4 May
  • 21–22 June
  • 9–10 August
  • 27–28 September
  • 1–2 November
  • 13–14 December

Each meeting is a fresh decision. In August (10–11 August), the Board unanimously held the cash rate at 4.35 per cent, judging policy "sufficiently restrictive". Seven weeks later it tightened, again unanimously. That sequence illustrates how the outcome can change as the evidence does, even when the Board speaks with one voice.

Minutes follow each meeting. The September minutes are due at 11.30 am AEDT on Tuesday 13 October; their contents are not known until then.

Six things the Board says it weighs

The Board's 29 September statement, together with recent minutes and speeches, points to a set of recurring considerations.

1. Inflation against the target. The target is 2–3 per cent, with a midpoint of 2.5 per cent. Headline CPI inflation was 4.0 per cent over the year to August 2026. Underlying inflation is lower but still above target: Bullock said it had been "about 3.5 per cent for the past six months", and the trimmed mean was 3.6 per cent in the June quarter. The August minutes forecast underlying inflation above 3 per cent until mid-2027 and around 2½ per cent in late 2027.

2. The balance of risks. In August, members were "alert to the upside risks to the inflation outlook and being ready to act should they materialise." By September, the Board said some had, including further disruption to global oil supply from the Middle East conflict and strong AI-related demand pushing up technology-goods prices. Hauser had flagged three upside risks on 8 September: the Middle East crisis, "a really unexpected global boom driven by AI", and weak supply potential in the Australian economy.

3. Capacity pressures. The statement said capacity pressures remain. Bullock put it directly: "Inflation is too high and has been driven by domestic capacity pressures."

4. The labour market. On 18 September Bullock told a parliamentary committee the labour market was close to, but a little tighter than, full employment. By 29 September she cited an unemployment rate of 4.6 per cent, and the Board's statement said labour market conditions had eased broadly as expected.

5. Spending, housing and credit. The statement noted output growth has slowed, consumer spending is easing gradually, housing prices have fallen in most capital cities and new housing loans have declined noticeably, while business investment and debt growth are strong. The RBA's August Financial Aggregates showed business credit up 10.9 per cent over the year, against 7.3 per cent for housing.

6. Inflation expectations. "It's critical that we stop expectations for high inflation from becoming embedded in price-setting decisions", Bullock said on 29 September.

Gradualism and its limits

Weighing those factors also involves judgements about pace. Hauser described the Board as taking a gradual approach to protect jobs, while adding that it could raise rates further if needed.

There is also the question of timing. Bullock told the parliamentary committee on 18 September that monetary policy works with a lag and that the full effects of recent rises were not yet visible. In August, Assistant Governor Christopher Kent said "the three cash rate increases earlier this year are having their intended effects", and that "The current cash rate is around the top of the range of central estimates of the neutral rate". That was when the cash rate was 4.35 per cent. Kent also noted that AI investment and higher offshore bond yields could make a given cash rate less restrictive.

Then there are things the Board says it does not target. "Monetary policy does not target housing prices", Bullock told the committee. And on the most extreme scenarios, her language was conditional: only if inflation expectations became unanchored, she said, "that is a circumstance in which I think you might need to have quite a dramatic slowdown in the economy". On recession, she said: "That is not our central base case at this moment."

What the Board has and hasn't said about next steps

The Board's formal position is that it "will continue to do what it considers necessary" to return inflation to target and remains attentive to the data. It has not published a path for the cash rate, and Bullock and Hauser have both declined to pre-commit.

Before the 3 November decision, the Board will have more information to consider: the September CPI on 28 October, and the RBA has said its next forecast update is in November. How members will read that information is not known, and the RBA has given no indication of the outcome.

The bottom line

The RBA Board's process is less a pre-set path than a recurring assessment: inflation against target, the balance of risks, capacity pressures, jobs, spending and credit, and inflation expectations, all weighed afresh at each scheduled meeting. Nine voting members reached unanimous decisions in both August and September, but with different outcomes. That record is the clearest illustration that the Board's next move depends on how it reads the evidence at the time, which is why officials say they will not pre-commit.