UPDATE: As of 5pm all four banks have already passed on the interest rate increase.

For the second time in as many years, the Reserve Bank has helped cement the banking community’s reputation as a cuddly bunch of warm-hearted funsters by using Melbourne Cup Day to stick it to home-owners.

.One of a series of interest rate front pages which clobbered John Howard ahead of the 2007 poll.

While you were munching on some prawns the RBA increased rates from 3.25 per cent to 3.5 per cent, resisting the temptation to go for a much more dramatic and painful 0.5 per cent rise, but still sticking by its warning that there would be more more pain to come.

Many people with mortgages will shrug this one off – we’re still about $700 a month better off in terms of repayments than we were when the GFC hit.

But the rate that stopped the nation will be felt most acutely by working-class and middle-class families in Sydney and Melbourne with inflated mortgages, and young first home-buyers around the nation who borrowed in the past 12 months when rates were at an historic low.

There will be a fierce debate as to whether the RBA needs to opt for another hike before Christmas, especially when all the inflationary targets are at what the Bank itself regards as the lower end of the spectrum.

And if the RBA argues that it needs to use the blunt interest of a rate increase to take the heat out of the Sydney property market – by clobbering home-owners again, as it did with its ill-conceived rate hike in the first quarter of 2008 – it may again find itself the focus of suburban rage in our biggest city.

As an aside, there’s a whole separate argument to be had here about the near-criminal failure of the NSW Government to release enough land to help reduce home prices in the Sydney basin by simply enabling the construction of more homes.

But the most interesting and immediate results from today’s rates increase will be a political one.

Firstly, if it looks like rates will continue to rise and rise into next year, Kevin Rudd will be tempted to call an election sooner rather than later, say in March or April, rather than face the political hell which confronted John Howard in 2007 when he found himself campaigning in the middle of the sixth rate hike at the very end of his three-year term.

Secondly, it will give new energy to the Opposition, buoyed as it obviously is from yesterday’s seven-point turnaround in Newspoll, as it argues that the rate increases are the result of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan’s profligacy with money. Whether it’s true or not, and setting aside Labor’s argument that the economy would have totally nose-dived without stimulus spending, Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey will be out there saying that it’s Labor’s fault because they’ve blown the surplus, jacked up the deficit, and lumbered the nation with inter-generational debt.

There are things you want to own as politicians. Interest rate increases are obviously not among them.

It’s worth recapping the shambles which John Howard was in ahead of losing both the election and his seat to Labor almost exactly two years ago. Front-page headlines such as that featured above gave John Howard full personal ownership of these rate hikes. When he clumsily said sorry when rates jumped at the end of the campaign - and then retracted his apology, saying he only meant he was always sorry if rates rose - he inadvertently drew attention to the fact that it had become his problem.

Howard does not believe that he would have won the 2007 election if the Reserve Bank had not increased interest rates in the middle of the election campaign. But he has wondered aloud whether he and some other Liberals in marginal seats might have been able to hold on if the RBA had not acted with such audacity in green-lighting a mid-campaign rate increase which, at worst, nuked their claim to superior economic management, and at the very least provided a massive distraction which kept them off message in the final days ahead of the poll.

But if John Howard isn’t maintaining the rage, there are plenty of other Liberals who have never forgiven Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens for taking the unprecedented decision to jack up the official cash rate in the heat of an election campaign, for what was the sixth successive rate rise since the 2004 poll.

Stevens is openly derided by some conservatives for continuing to slam the brakes on the economy at a time when - with some revisionism as to the extent of their public statements - there were fears on the Coalition side that the global economy was about to tank, meaning that rates should have remained static or even been cut.

Whatever the case – in the middle of the 2007 campaign, the sixth successive rate hike turned into a political nightmare for a party that had long traded on its economic credentials, and even framed its entire 2004 victory over the Mark Latham-led ALP around the cocky “who do you trust on interest rates?” slogan.

That slogan – which the RBA hated – offended the usual sense of distance between the government and the Central Bank.

The government of the day is always determined to stress the independence of the Reserve Bank, to point to the arms length-relationship between its own stewardship of the economy and the Central Bank’s management of monetary policy.

But the two functions are so obviously intertwined – and in the minds of home-owners pretty much interchangeable – so much so that the voting public regards the cost of its mortgage as the most telling report card on government performance.

And as John Howard found out, while you can get away with taking the credit for low interest rates in the good times, the voters will make you own high interest rates in the tough times.

The Rudd Government does not need to panic, at least not yet. It will take some cover from Governor Stevens declaration just now that “economic conditions in Australia have been stronger than expected and measures of confidence have recovered”. It will also try to argue, as Wayne Swan did this morning, that the stimulus will be tapering off into next year, so as to avoid accusations that they’ve been reckless in their spending.

But it appears that the Libs have succeeded in establishing this as a valid debating point, and an issue in the public’s mind. Combined with a couple of other uncontrollable factors – such as a procession of boats carrying asylum seekers towards our shores, to whom we’re simultaneously showing toughness and fairness, if you can work that out – Labor might find that today’s Newspoll wasn’t an aberration, but the start of something much more alarming.

33 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Brad Coward says:

      03:37pm | 03/11/09

      You won’t hear a word from Kevin Rudd about this or any future interest rate rises.  Someone else will have to be the governments mouthpiece as Kevin doesn’t “do” bad or uncomfortable news !

    • Timex says:

      03:49pm | 03/11/09

      You are right the “perfect ” man hates bad news!

    • Mr L says:

      03:57pm | 03/11/09

      Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan will be saying “we have acted on the advice from…......” taking no resonsibility for anything, I can hear it now.

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:16pm | 03/11/09

      Kev (what is the sound of one hand clapping?) 007 will lay this one on the previous government.

      And the media will idly let him, just as they let him win the last election without, as I recall, Kev detailing a single one of his policies.

    • Steve Smith says:

      04:20pm | 03/11/09

      Please put your figurative hand up if you thought interest rates would stay at 3% through to 2010?

      Pity the Libs can’t get their act together, they might have had a chance against Rudd at the next election with all this nonsense.

    • Wakey Wakey says:

      04:28pm | 03/11/09

      Please get a bloody grip. Stuck it to home owners be sugared.
      Flagged from the outset of the crisis, its just another 0.25%pts, pretty much the smallest possible rise, and long since expected.

      Any half-smart existing home loan borrower would have kept their payments up as rates fell. Every half-smart new borrower over the last 12 months would - should- have factored in a return to normal rates in the coming 2 years or so.

      For god’s sake get a grip. We’re not all fricken stupid.

    • Neil says:

      04:30pm | 03/11/09

      “can I say, we are in a very difficult and challenging situation”

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:56pm | 03/11/09

      “….Labor might find that today’s Newspoll wasn’t an aberration, but the start of something much more alarming”.

      Interest rates         up
      Asylum seekers         up
      AGW tax           up
      Deficit           up
      Cost of seat on UN Security C   up
      Health Care cost         up
      Tax review - hmmm         up
      Current Account deficit     up

      Not looking good.

      Also as an aside, could it be that the Peter Costello appointment for example was one way of getting people of this calibre off his back.

    • shabangabang says:

      05:00pm | 03/11/09

      Only the ill-advised would ping rate rises on the government. As the Reserve Bank Governor said ‘There is no need for rates to stay at emergency levels’. Damn straight. In my opinion they will rise from the current 3.5% up to 5.25-5.5% by the end of 2010.
      If people have been stupid enough to think that 3% interest rates are normal, look back to the 80’s when rates were closer to 15%. If they have the hide to punish someone else for their stupidity, the country will be the loser.

    • machugh says:

      05:22pm | 03/11/09

      Why does the media persist in stating that there were six or eight or ten, “...successive rate hikes since 2004”, as they did during the last election? The RBA board meets 11 times per year - if rates rose 6 times between 2004 and 2007, they did not do so successively - there were many times when the RBA board left rates on hold, signalling very sound economic management by Howard/Costello. The disastrous “inflation” ranting by Rudd and Swann in early 2008 led to 5 rate rises in quick succession, stopping the economy in its tracks, followed by equally rapid cuts when the loonies realised what they had done. This is not sound management, it is reactionary foolishness.

    • Annonymous says:

      05:36pm | 03/11/09

      Mr Crudd will say “Now let me say”, and then crap on in a very neutral monolgue about how well his government saved our skins. Eventually this will wear thin with anybody with an IQ over 100 and he and his party will revert to the Opposition. Goodbye Kevvy.

    • Louise says:

      05:42pm | 03/11/09

      Steve, it’s clear Turnbull is still failing to cut through (which I think is a pity), but I wouldn’t be surprised if more of the lies and spin used to win the last election start to unravel Rudd and co. Australians do have a tendency to give new governments at least two terms, but our current PM may distinguish himself as the leader of the second Aust government (I think?) to win only one term.

    • iansand says:

      06:26pm | 03/11/09

      The Coalition and Team Journalist demonstrate, once again, that they have the attention span of a slightly bewildered nonagenarian.

    • spartacus says:

      06:48pm | 03/11/09

      By sucking huge amounts of money out of the economy, Fudd and Tweety Pie have guaranteed interest rates will rise. Not only have they blown the surplus they inherited, they have borrowed on a spectacular scale.  The private sector is competing with the government for finance.Since government spending is not productive,  we are in deep trouble which will stay with us for years.  Before the faithful start prating on about low interest rates, they should look at the interest rates in the other developed nations.  15-18% here we come.  We’ve seen it all before.

    • danj says:

      06:54pm | 03/11/09

      So interest rates are rising, and the government’s economic stimulus package is still going, at least the 50% business investment allowance is, and I presume that work on the schools wouldn’t be completely finished.

      I no economist but wouldn’t rising interest rates and economic stimulus be working against each other?

    • Darryl Price says:

      08:47pm | 03/11/09

      Never ever forget that K Rudd has used the GFC to justify profligate spending on the stimulus package. Schools (“we, unlike those opposite,  are serious about education”) have been carpet bombed with money indiscriminately. Every household in the country now has a plasma television and Gerry Harvey has done quite nicely thank you very much. Now the RBA (and I am operating under the reasonable assumption that they correspond with the Government) has seen fit to raise rates yet again to take the stimulus out of the economy to keep inflation in check. Here’s an idea Rudd/Swan. STOP SPENDING BORROWED MONEY TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. Send me the proper form and I’ll write it down for you. GOSH. The prolem is, Kevin Rudd thought winning the election was the job and his mind has moved on to developing the next rung on the ladder of his own ambition, outside Australia. What other explanation can there be for allowing his government to make such a cock up of the financial management of the country? Despite all his other shortcomings he is not unintelligent.

    • Tim says:

      10:49pm | 03/11/09

      Penberthy, I’m not convinced more land releases in Sydney is the biggest hurdle to more affordable housing. I’d rather see greater density closer to the heart of the city and around public transport hubs.

      There’s no point releasing land if it’s not going to be serviced by public transport.

    • Liz says:

      09:01am | 04/11/09

      We all hate bad news don’t we? Does it make us perfect? I think not an banks own the world so maybe Glen would be good for our first President.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      09:15am | 04/11/09

      @ Darryl Price says: 08:47pm | 03/11/09
      Just in case you didn’t know, Ken Henry is on the RBA board. Your “assumption that they correspond with the Government” should have read “RBA intimately corresponds with the Government”. Don’t you worry about that, Barbie Ken & Kev are constantly talking to each other. When Kev starts a statement with “I’m advised” you’ll know when that came from : - )

    • Daniel says:

      09:30am | 04/11/09

      There’s a simple way to make homes more affordable.  Make auctions illegal.  Too much room for artificially inflating the market, both by fraud/dummy bidding and simple human nature.  Talk the market up, then go to auction and watch everyone bid like it’s the last house they’ll ever be able to afford.

    • ihmn says:

      11:09am | 04/11/09

      INTEREST RATES ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
      When John Howard said that his party would keep the interest rates low how ever many years ago that election was he was lying, by promising something to the idiotic masses that he could never truly control.

      If Kevin Rudd come out and says anything about interest rates in his election campaign he will be a liar too.

      But we all adore the free market, right?

    • Louise says:

      11:46am | 04/11/09

      ihmn, it’s not a lie. Put simply, interest rates are the cost of money.  The cost of money, like all commodities, is affected by demand and supply.

      When the government runs a deficit budget they are demanding more money than they have and therefore increase pressure on the price i.e. interest rates. Of course many other factors influence interest rates, but the Government’s management of the economy and its own demand for money are very significant factors.

      When Howard was PM the government was spending less than it was collecting in tax. The invested surplus was available to other borrowers, adding to supply and therefore putting downward pressure on interest rates.

      Now that the government is borrowing and spending a lot of money (demand) they are contributing to the upward pressure on interest rates.

      The problem is, it is difficult to explain that to the “idiotic masses” in a 5 second sound bite.

    • Andrew says:

      11:52am | 04/11/09

      Get your facts right Penbo. Last year the RBA reduced the cash rate by 75 basis points! They can harldy be accused of “sticking it to home owners” on Melbourne Cup day for the second time in as many years. Furthermore I’m confused as to how any home owner who is going to “struggle” to meet their mortgage after these rate rises. The cash rate is still 425 basis points lower than it was in mid 2008. If you could afford your mortgage then I’m sure you can afford it now. The only people who may struggle to make repayments are those who purchased recently and budgeted for their mortgage repayments on an assumption of a cash rate of 3 - 4% which would indicate that they probably are a few sandwhiches short of a picnic.

    • Andrew says:

      11:54am | 04/11/09

      Correction: The cash rate is 375 basis points lower than at its peak

    • ihmn says:

      12:19pm | 04/11/09

      @Louise

      What I am saying is that the Reserve Bank is independent of the government, it is not a government body that was controlled by John Howard, nor by Kevin Rudd. So fine your explanation does not fit into a soundbite, but that does not make the message being promoted any truer.

      Also, by your reckoning, the only way Howard could ‘attempt’ to keep the interest rates lower was to reign in spending while handing out tax cuts to high earners. Which he did by cutting back university funding, not spending on education or health?

      I don’t find that better?

    • Matt C says:

      12:19pm | 04/11/09

      Why would the rise be felt “most acutely… in Sydney and Melbourne”??

      Houses are as expensive in Perth as they are in Melbourne. The Punch is yet another two-town ‘national’ media outlet.

    • Andrew says:

      04:22pm | 04/11/09

      If simply running a large surplus is enough to keep interest rates low then why did we have successive interest rises while we were also experiencing an ever increasing federal budget surplus?

    • Glen says:

      04:50pm | 04/11/09

      Please remember that interest rates are applicable to a far wider field than just home loans.  They also affect small business loans, personal loans, credit cards etc.  Small business drives much of the Australian economy.  They have suffered quietly through the GFC, unable to get loans to finance their plans.  The increase in the interest rates will increase the costs of hard to get money.  It will squeeze them further.  Have your credit card interest rates decreased through the GFC?  No?  Not surprised, they are only interested in home loans as they are the most visible.  These interest rate rises that we knew were coming and are out of step with the rest of the world will hurt Australia, how much we will know when it is too late.  These rate rises were not necessary as the banks are making far more money than they admit.

    • Louise says:

      07:19pm | 04/11/09

      Andrew, it’s not that simple.

      During the period to which you refer the private sector was in a very expansionary phase. Just look at the economic growth figures. Consumer borrowing and spending was huge. China’s boom gave very large disposal incomes to a significant portion of the economy, who borrowed heavily to buy (or build) McMansions. Cheap goods from China fuelled the “wide screen TV” keeping up with the Jones mentality etc, etc.

      The govt’s fiscal policy meant the govt was not contributing to the pressure on interest rates. Had the govt run a deficit at the time, rates would have risen faster and higher.

      Now, according to Wayne Swan, we have “the private sector in retreat”, yet interest rates are going up.

      Forget requiring primary school children to spend 90 minutes a day learning mandarin. Since voting is compulsory and we elect our government primarily (but not exclusively) to run the economy, economics should be a compulsory subject beginning in primary school.

    • JACK says:

      07:57am | 05/11/09

      Another scaremongering article written by a know all journo, for god sake surely we all know Interest rates have to rise, but why frighten people with ongoing predictions.
      And to the rest of you liberals I did not see you putting pen to paper when your fearless leader and treasure had 10 interest rises in a row

    • Andrew says:

      05:09pm | 05/11/09

      Lousie, I know it’s not that simple. I was just hoping you would take of your rose-coloured glasses and admit that there is far more going on that puts pressure on interest rates than the Government. What Wayne Swan says about the private sector being in retreat currently is true. The government has stepped in with stimulus spending to cover the gap which is putting upward pressure on the emergency interest rates we currently have.

      Interest rates need to return to normal levels to encourage people to save increasing reserves and allowing the banks to create new loans because honestly 3.25% interest isn’t much incentive to save. However, the media conveniently forgets this side of the interest rates equation.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:03pm | 05/11/09

      Who said “Its great illusion was its belief in the limitless possibilities of compromise”?

      It could have been about Rudd…

    • Louise says:

      01:04am | 06/11/09

      Andrew, the partisan, take your corner, fight! approach to these issues can be quite entertaining, but I was talking about the way govt and consumer behaviour interact from an economic point of view.

      If you agree with Swan that the private sector is in retreat, then the only source of inflationary pressure must come from the government’s spending. Therefore you agree they are responsible for the increase in interest rates.

      In economics there is no such thing as “emergency rates” or “normal levels” - that’s Rudd/Swan, Hawker Britton, Ken Henry spin.

      Official rates in Europe, England and the US are 1%, 0.5% and 0.25% respectively, so an official rate of 3.5% (it went up on Tuesday) is very high in this environment - hence the strong Aussie dollar. That’s a spread we haven’t seen for quite sometime (if ever?).

      The official rate is the govt lending rate for institutions. Simple cash savings accounts are paying 4-5.11%  So, if inflation remained at the lower end of the RBA target of 2-3%, then the reward for taking almost no risk in your investment would be net 1.0 - 3.11%, which is quite a good risk free return.

      However, I can tell you from experience that people who save do so because they are good at managing their spending. It has nothing to do with interest rates and there are plenty of investment opportunities for well organised savers offering much higher long term returns.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @JenBrockie: A take on social media from India http://t.co/5XCerDTB @tehelkadotcom

Lucy Kippist

RT @alaindebotton: So many of our problems would be alleviated if we had 3 or 4 exceptional friends living within a 2 minute radius.

Paul Colgan

RT @latikambourke: Yes, @PeterSlipperMP is genuine.

Anthony Sharwood

It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

150 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter