sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The Reserve Bank will need to raise OCR by more than it assumed, Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod says, due to 'ongoing sizable increases' in administered prices

Economy / news
The Reserve Bank will need to raise OCR by more than it assumed, Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod says, due to 'ongoing sizable increases' in administered prices
A composite image of grid paper overlayed with a bill on a clipboard, hands holding money, lightning bolt logos and percentage logos.
Composite image source: 123rf.com and interest.co.nz

The Reserve Bank will ultimately need to raise the Official Cash Rate by more than they assumed in their September meeting, Westpac NZ senior economist Satish Ranchhod says, as he expects “ongoing sizable increases” in administered prices like local government rates.

Even before the recent spike in oil prices, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) has had “little headroom to absorb upside inflation surprises”, Ranchhod says, with the large cost increases to administered prices playing a role.

Administered prices are things like electricity prices, local government rates and insurance premiums.

With the expectation that many of these costs will continue to increase, Ranchhod says: "That is a key reason why we expect domestic (non-tradables) inflation will be higher than the RBNZ expects over the longer-term.”

“That ongoing firmness in domestic inflation is also a reason why we expect the RBNZ will ultimately need to raise the Official Cash Rate (OCR) by more than they assumed in their September [Monetary] Policy Statement," he says in a Westpac NZ economic bulletin, released on Thursday.

Westpac NZ economists are projecting a 25 basis-point rise at the RBNZ’s December meeting and expect the OCR will peak at 4% next year.

The Monetary Policy Committee raised the OCR to 2.75% from 2.50% at its September meeting. Although the RBNZ Governor Anna Breman has hinted at an OCR pause at the next meeting on October 28. Following the release of the latest gross domestic product (GDP) figures, some bank economists have since suggested that the OCR needs to increase at the October meeting.

Meanwhile, annual inflation, as measured by Statistics NZ’s Consumers Price Index (CPI) increased to 4.1% in the June quarter - the highest annual inflation rate NZ has seen since it hit 4.7% in December 2023. The RBNZ aims to keep inflation between 1% and 3% with a mid-point target of 2%.

Higher petrol prices were the main contributor to the June quarter CPI increase, which was no surprise as conflict in the Middle East has continued to impact fuel supply and has caused major supply disruption in the global oil market. If fuel prices had not changed, the CPI, according to Stats NZ, would have been 2.9% in the year to June.

Inflation is high for other reasons besides oil prices

Even before the spike in fuel costs, Ranchhod says inflation was running hot for an extended period, being above 3% since mid-2025, and above the RBNZ’s 2% target midpoint for five years.

“That persistent firmness in inflation is particularly notable as, based on RBNZ estimates, the New Zealand economy has had a negative output gap since September 2024, with softness in economic growth and a weak labour market. Those conditions would typically be associated with more moderate inflation than we’ve seen.”

He projects that inflation is set to remain outside of the RBNZ's target band (above 3%) until at least mid-2027.

Little headroom for RBNZ to absorb upside inflation surprises before fuel cost spikes

Ranchhod says looking beneath the surface, much of inflation's strength over the last year is due to administered costs, and price increases in parts of the economy with little, or no, exposure to competition.

“For instance, over the past year, local council rates rose nearly 9%, electricity prices rose by 12% and health insurance premiums rose by 19%.

“The less competitive nature of some of these sectors means they aren’t very responsive to changes in interest rates. Instead, they are most likely to behave in a ‘cost-plus’ manner. And in some cases, recent years have seen large increases in operating costs that are now being passed on to consumers.”

Ranchhod says the increases we are seeing are not one-off price rises, with large increases to administered costs happening for several years now.

“That’s been reflected in measures of core inflation, which strip out swings in volatile items like fuel and instead track the underlying trend in prices.”

 

Even without elevated fuel prices, inflation in the year to June was 2.9% - running close to or above 3% for five years now, Ranchhod says.

“That’s meant that the RBNZ had little headroom to absorb upside inflation surprises even before the recent spike in fuel costs.”

Ranchhod anticipates continued large increases in some administered costs. Using local council rates as an example, he says many councils will need to fund significant infrastructure spending over the coming years.

“There have been efforts to limit the extent of those increases, such as the Government’s cap on council rates. However, that doesn’t change the underlying reason for the large rates increases in recent years, such as increased spending on essential infrastructure. And if councils can’t raise the required revenue through rates, they may have to look at other approaches like user pays."

He says this could shift costs for households, rather than reducing them.

OCR will need to rise by more than the RBNZ has assumed

With the RBNZ focusing on the overall level of inflation rather than individual prices in the CPI, Ranchhod says: “In essence, it doesn’t matter why inflation is elevated - all that matters is that it is elevated and how persistent inflation will be.”

With core inflation already elevated, he says “it’s hard for the RBNZ to look through the large and continuing cost increases that we’ve seen across a range of areas that are less exposed to competition.”

“And given the risk of ongoing large increases in these costs, we expect that domestic (non-tradables) inflation will be higher than the RBNZ has assumed over the longer-term.

“That’s part of the reason why we continue to expect that the RBNZ will need to raise the Official Cash Rate by more than they had assumed in their September [Monetary] Policy Statement."

We’re forecasting a 25 basis point rate rise at the RBNZ’s December meeting and expect the OCR will peak at 4% next year. That risk is being compounded by the protracted nature of the current rise in oil prices, along with other risks such as El Niño which could boost food prices over the coming year.”

‘An uncomfortable but necessary trade-off’

Because administered costs are not responsive to changes in interest rates, Ranchhod says: “As a result, when inflation pressures are centred on such areas, the RBNZ needs to work harder to keep overall inflation in check.”

“It does this by leaning against inflation in areas of the economy that are more responsive to interest rates to bring aggregate inflation pressures down towards target in a timely manner.”

But rather than leaning against the source of inflation pressures, he says the impact of tighter policy will be to “dampen demand and price-setting in other more interest rate-sensitive parts of the economy such as the construction sector or discretionary retail spending."

“This is an uncomfortable but necessary trade-off. Tighter policy will weigh on discretionary spending, the labour market and near-term growth, and would affect prices in parts of the economy that are not the drivers of inflation," he says.

Having a higher OCR also means increases in households’ debt-servicing costs and for some households that would be very challenging, Ranchhod says.

“However, looking through or not responding to these sorts of ongoing large cost increases would still leave households dealing with significant increases in overall living costs. In the long run, that could be more damaging for households and the economy.”

While he says there’s a softness in demand that may be limiting some firms to lift prices at the current time, he also raises the risk that businesses, expecting continued high levels of inflation, may try to push through larger price rises when demand eventually firms again.

“That means inflation could remain high even when the immediate impact of temporary boosts to inflation, like an oil price spike, fades. This is a key reason why it’s important to get inflation back to 2% on a consistent basis, rather than allowing inflation to run at levels closer to the top of the RBNZ’s target band.”

Ranchhod says the RBNZ does has discretion in how aggressively it responds to inflation, “and that is where the source of inflation matters”.

“The RBNZ is likely to adjust the OCR more gradually when inflation is related to less interest rate-sensitive areas, like oil costs or government charges. And when doing so, it does account for how changes in the OCR could affect the labour market and economic activity.

“But even if the RBNZ responds more gradually to inflation, it can’t ignore ongoing large cost increases indefinitely. Eventually inflation needs to be brought back to target.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

36 Comments

I also wonder how much the OCR needs to rise to help the failing NZD (now referred to as the NZ Peso). Our weak dollar is also inflationary. 

When will central government tackle out of control council rate increases? The government's rate cap (2-4%) doesn't come into affect fully until 2029. That still gives councils plenty of scope to hike rates beforehand. But the fundamental problem is that central government doesn't trust local governments, hence why they will never trust local governments with a larger share of the total tax take. 

You can see why there is a lack of trust. Many local councils have been hijacked by a bunch of left-leaning activists, who want to use councils as a platform to launch their view of how the world should be run. Its going to require a total rethink of what the actual purpose of City council should be. I believe the expectation from most rate payers is that core council activities only should be handled by councils only. I.e. Water, rubbish, local roads, libraries etc. 

Up
12

“Many local councils have been hijacked by a bunch of left-leaning activists, who want to use councils as a platform to launch their view of how the world should be run”
 

Really? Almost all of local government is dominated by councils voted in by right-leaning, conservative, home-owning, older voters/ratepayers. Everyone campaigns on keeping rates reasonable, but then when in council they realise their responsibilities extend much further than just managing parks, roads and pipes. They end up seeing the value in community resources like libraries and social events that help bring communities together. All while being told by central government that they do a crap job and can’t have more money no matter what. 
 

Up
10

"Almost all of local government is dominated by councils voted in by right-leaning, conservative, home-owning, older voters/ratepayers"

Really?

It would appear to me that the vast majority of council workers across the country would most probably be politically aligned with Labour and the Greens. Obviously not all, but I would suggest a majority. 

The focus seems to have been on increasing rates, increasing the public service workforce size, changing names of everything possible to Maori with signage and advertising. Whether these are good are bad things are for the individual to decide - but they wouldn't appear to be aligned with right-leaning conservative motivations. 

Up
8

I'd probably agree that council workers are more likely to lean left in voting preference, however I was talking about the people who vote. The data is pretty clear for local government elections - it's older home owning folks to actually end up voting in local elections, thus deciding the local government they get.

Up
8

Perhaps more of a lack of choice in terms of who is running and can be voted for. If the majority are left leaning - and chances they are for a public workforce job - then its likely you'll end up with left leaning councils and policies.

Right leaning folk generally speaking want to work corporate or for themselves (eg tradies, farmers etc). 

I spent time in Wellington over 10 years ago and was blown away by how left leaning all of the ministries were. The lesson I learned was that it was the unelected people in Wellington who were largely running the show and manipulating the information going up to ministers - so even if you had a right leaning government - Wellington itself and its ministries were all still highly left leaning and pushing against any right leaning policies. At the time I was there it was under National and John Key so it was probably a reasonable balance between right leaning minisiters working with ministries of left leaning Wellington workers.. I can only imagine how much of a left leaning hell hole things turn into under the solely led Adern Labour government. The echo chamber of left leaning ideology would have been insufferable. 

Up
6

That's problem. It's the employed/appointed staff that heavily swing left and thus taint everything they touch with their bias and ideology that is apparently "the best choice for everyone".

Up
5

What an interesting piece of research that would be.   Survey all employees for their preference/vote on central government and co.pare it to the population at large.  No doubt there is some unconscious bias even if there is an effort to be politically neutral.

Up
5

Universities are worse in this respect - studies have shown up to 90% of university lecturers are left leaning.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/106164761/are-new-zealands-universities-too-leftwing

So those getting ‘educated’ are potentially being brainwashed to view the world more through a liberal perspective than a balanced or conservative view. Extremely rare to find conservative lecturers these days. 

Up
2

I know of one. They keep their mouth shut a lot

Up
4

Evolutionary psychologists/biologists get slammed by the humanities department. They can't stand their research findings because it runs against all the fruit loop nonsense they preach.

Up
1

Education, local government and central government are the worst. My daughter starts uni next year and I always tell her to think for herself. Question everything, left or right. Ask, "does this make sense?"

Up
2

Many local councils have been hijacked by a bunch of left-leaning activists, who want to use councils as a platform to launch their view of how the world should be run.

Or, more likely societal values have shifted from 30+ years ago and these are being reflected in what ratepayers want when engaging with council, however voter engagement is another large problem, given that only those who do engage, write submissions etc get their voices heard vs the rest who do nothing and then complain.

Up
1

Sort of, but it is really just money.  A change of financial circumstances occurred - the housing market went from high demand to low demand.  

The left-wing activists are NIYBYs, not-in-your-back-yard types, because it provides employment to the knowledgeable and sociable. In a high demand market the right-wing conservatives lean NIMBY, because it restricts housing supply and house prices go up more.  With high demand the two groups are an imperfect harmony.

But in times of low demand, restrictive policies make house prices jump off a cliff without any safety net. The safety net being when new developers enter the market and a new equilibrium is reached.  The right-wing conservatives suddenly are no longer NIMBY and frantically want less restrictions in the sector.

Up
1

The issue with NYMPY is a preserve of the well to do neighbourhoods.  Look at Remuera or the recent Devonport outrage - where residents associations work to preserve a narrow housing options.  And for the record - where the wheels fall off ACT's libertarian stance is that they know that they have to exclude housing from Epsom.

Up
3

Some of the costs in a number of sectors are central government (us the electorate)  driving up standards.  Examples since 2002:

  •  If you want higher quality discharges from your wastewater you get higher costs. Rates.
  •  If you require higher quality stormwater treatment you get higher costs.   Private developments and rates.
  • If you allow heavier trucks on the roads expect higher costs. Rates and fuel taxes.
  • If legislate for stronger buildings expect higher costs. Commecial and industrial building including councils.

    The list probably goes on.  Each on there own seems reasonable and affordable.   Add them all up and we get to ouch.  AI thinks its $100 billion. 

If aggregating the $5 billion annual broad business compliance baseline, the multi-billion-dollar compounding infrastructure debt taken on by councils, and the strict inflationary premium added to the multi-billion-dollar building sector, the direct and indirect cost of absorbing these post-2002 legislative frameworks safely exceeds $100 billion in cumulative spending and structural overhead over the last two decades.

Up
1

Feel for FHBs. Bearing the brunt as always. 

Up
2

I'm sure future FHBs will be quite happy at the ongoing slide in house prices this will cause. It looks increasingly like we're on a path back to economic sanity. 

Up
8

If we are on the path to sanity, we're being dragged kicking and screaming down it. Sure as hell no rational decision making involved!

Up
1

You could always sell up your rentals and increase the supply of houses for sale, thus helping prices drop further for them so they don’t need to take on so much debt to buy a house.

But you won’t. 

So I see your view above as false virtue signalling - ‘look at me who cares about the plight of FHBs even though I’ve been rewarded greatly financially in the creation of their suffering (high house prices/capital gains but also high debt levels for FHBs as a result) but will refuse to do anything to help them’ (like selling your rentals to help increase supply of houses for sale and reduce prices and therefore less debt load for them). 

Up
2

We made this mistake in the early 2010s, trying to get rates back to 'normal'. Our economy can't handle high debt costs - it drives a significant transfer of cash from spenders and to savers, crushing demand. Only Govt deficit spending and export income are stopping us slipping into recession. Buckle up. 

Up
6

Our economy can't handle high debt costs because we accumulate too much risky debt when it's cheap. More of the same just makes the problem worse. 

I suppose I'd be OK with keeping the OCR lower if it came with robust DTIs and LVRs. 

Up
9

Who would possible want to do anything to reward saving - you know that thing that is used for future investment. 

As I keep pointing out - we've spent about 2-3 decades lowering rates, and increasing mortgage lending to increase aggregate demand to prevent us falling into deflation. This was always a crazy way to run an economy. We offshored production and manufacturing to benefit from cheaper labour input costs, which drove down inflation/CPI, which became a deflationary force, to which we lowered mortgage rates (to create aggregate demand in the economy to prevent all out deflation) and pushed our private debt/GDP up to circa 150% before and subsequently to the GFC. And ended up with stupidly high house prices relative to income and productivity.

Fools paradise. Send production and jobs overseas, and create a mountain of private debt at home so we can become debt slaves to our banking sector. Dumb....dumb....dumb....

The strategy was always going to backfire on us. It is/was only a matter of time before it does (if not already happening). 

Up
14

You could not sum it up better.

Up
4

Apparently the issue is raising rates because we’ve been importing inflation now - but it was never a problem when we drop rates for decades because we were importing deflation.

The cognitive dissonance in this reasoning is painful.

Up
2

I think you focus too heavily on the 'fairness' or attitude towards this from some vs the empirical use of the OCR. While I agree with your view, it is still useless sucking money from the economy when we are stagnant at best, and given the level of population holding a mortgage is much lower now than say in the late 1990's when the OCR was implemented, and more thus effective a tool, we have to be realistic in saying that hiking the OCR adds costs to businesses which then will be passed to the NZ public. The demand for our dollar is clearly lowering which further impacts us all given we pay for imported fuel in USD, so it;s a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation regardless of our views on landlords or housing as an investment. The key being what has the last negative impact on the country as a whole, and the sad part being that a lowering dollar and higher inflation hurt everyone.

Up
0

And Keyed open the door to every man, his grandmother and dog, for our money printing capital gains tax dodge. It's almost like he was working for ANZ before he was working for ANZ? 

Up
4

Sorry, what, you think savings drive investment?!? It's the other way round.

We agree on the rest! We used private debt expansion to pay our bills to the rest of the world. Now what? 

Up
2

Buckle up. 

Yup. Our financial reality is dictated by events offshore. A price and thus debt reset like post 87 is required. Especially to teach the naughty bankers a lesson. Been stacking vulture fund for a while. The kaaaarkkk moment is indeed approaching...

Up
5

If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Another article today looks at the rise in financial hardship. If the OCR is aggressively  pushed higher, the inevitable result will be more financial hardship, more unemployment, reduced consumer spending, probably a lower tax take. At what point do these considerations weigh more heavily than inflation in the RB's thinking?

Up
2

Don't disagree. The real underlying issue is we are all but a captured nation enslave to our banking overlords. Almost all our productive effort is exported as bank profit. Imagine NZ if houses and rents were half what they were, and a larger slice of effort stayed in NZ for the betterment and support of life and community. One parent working, sport and community support, children choosing to stay in NZ, etc etc.

Up
3

Exactly - but we’ve made our bed now and will be forced to sleep in it - and those who warned how uncomfortable the sleep was going to be in such a poorly made bed were laughed at, ridiculed and dismissed as ‘doom gloom merchants’

Up
2

Agreed. Most of the people throwing the DnG tag around dropped off when required to pay $.27 a day to post. Those that stayed have gone silent running in the face of repeated facts about the crash. 

🍿 

Up
5

So which is it then? The Denarius? The Papiermark? The Zimbabwean Dollar? 

Up
0

I reluctantly say I have to agree - with current knowledge anyway (these things can change rapidly)

When I say reluctantly, its not because I have debt that I'm worried about, its the NZ economy I'm worried about. This will not end well. 

Up
0

Administered costs indeed. All the halfwit decisions both parties have made over the years are catching up with us. 

You can start with the abandonment of the Bill Rowling Labour govt super scheme that has left us lagging behind Australian capital pools ever since. 

You can toss in the introduction of the RMA as giant and continuous cost booster.

You can add the Max Bradford Electricity 'reforms' to the cost plus pile up ensuring that mills and factories go broke struggling with electricity spot price spikes when they can least afford it.

You can add the employment contracts act as a way to ensure that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. And the working middle class starts to disappear.

Then you can go full Labour throttle driving up the required standards for everything people need in life employing an army of bureaucrats as a get in the way layer on every activity known to man.

And very few politicians have addressed the main question - how do we pay for a decent standard of living for anyone if the productive enterprises that provide the funds and export dollars are slowly being strangled to death by add on after add on after add on and by an army of bureaucrats telling them what to do when the said bureaucrats have no idea how things work outside the social and political networks that they operate in.

If you are going to require 1st world standards (keep up with the European Joneses) then someone is going to have to pay for it. Or you can cut your cloth to suit your budget and take a more practical view on what is required to keep the lights on, the roads paved, the citizens liquid, the medical system adequate, energy costs affordable, finance available, etc...

We are a bit like the Germans, finding out that without an industrial base all the nice to haves are going to have to be replaced by the what you can afford.

 

Up
3

We are a bit like the Germans, finding out that without an industrial base all the nice to haves are going to have to be replaced by the what you can afford.

The issue for Germans is that their industrial base was built on energy, and they were enjoying the benefits of dirt cheap, plentiful Russian gas to fund this. An example here indicates in 2015 alone they only produced locally 6% of the countries demand for gas. Given that has dried up somewhat and they have been hellbent on renewables (long term not a bad thing but nowhere near the energy they need), they are struggling with the higher energy costs and thus, profit margins in manufacturing that they have previously enjoyed. 

Up
0