Source: Airservices Australia
Joseph Fisher’s enduring legacy
It is a privilege to be here this evening, and I am very grateful to Adelaide University for the honour of delivering the 2026 Joseph Fisher Public Lecture.
I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we meet, the Kaurna people, and by paying my respects to Elders past and present.
Joseph Fisher was a businessman, a parliamentarian and philanthropist who understood that economics, at its best, is a public good.
Fisher’s legacy in South Australia, and nationally, was grounded in a profound sense of public responsibility and a conviction that economic thinking should serve society, inform policy, and be tested in the real world.
It is fitting that this lecture invites reflection not just on economic ideas, but on how those ideas are formed, challenged and ultimately applied over time.
Speaking here tonight, I want to reflect on what I have learned and what Fisher’s journey teaches about economic leadership and public responsibility, and about how institutions like universities, boards and central banks think and operate.
I also want to consider how today’s economic challenges differ from, but in some cases echo, those of the past.
Economic thinking still matters profoundly and its connection to public purpose is no less important today than it was in Joseph Fisher’s time.
Fisher’s story is one of conviction joined with a generous spirit, and of intellect placed firmly in the service of the public good. Arriving in South Australia at a formative moment in its history, he quickly recognised that prosperity depended not only on enterprise, but on education, fairness and informed public debate. He was a commercial leader and a reformer, and above all a citizen who believed deeply in responsibility beyond self-interest.
He understood that commerce, and public and commercial institutions, should contribute to social stability. His work as a banker and company director, including his service on the board of the Bank of Adelaide, reflected a belief that businesses and markets must operate within moral boundaries, and that trust in institutions is earned through independence of judgement and integrity in decision-making.
Fisher also understood that institutions that endure are built not only in parliaments and boardrooms, but across civic life more broadly. His endowments explicitly call out commerce, civilisation, social responsibility, and the human consequence of moral choices.
This evening, I will draw on Fisher’s legacy as a lens through which to reflect on economic leadership, on how institutions make decisions under uncertainty, and on what that means for monetary policy today.
As someone who has the mighty Adelaide Crows running deep in my veins, I have often reflected on the role sport plays in shaping shared standards, identity and trust. It is no coincidence that Fisher devoted decades to the administration of cricket in this state. He understood that whether an institution is financial, political or sporting, it carries an obligation to the community it serves.
As a member of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s Monetary Policy Board, that obligation to the Australian community is one I take seriously.
The Board’s decisions are often complex, frequently contested, and rarely comfortable. But they must always be grounded in evidence, guided by independence, and directed toward the public interest.
That standard of responsibility reflects something Joseph Fisher understood well. His insistence that economic knowledge be rigorous, widely shared and tested in practice speaks directly to the demands of economic governance today. His endowment of this University was not an act of prestige and was not explicitly focused on profit or finance, but an investment in future generations, in people of character and social responsibility who would be asked to make difficult decisions on behalf of the community.
In that sense, this lecture series carries forward his quiet challenge, to think carefully, act responsibly, and place long-term public benefit above short-term gain.
That challenge has shaped my own professional life. I have been fortunate to work in financial centres and boardrooms across cities and continents far from home, yet Adelaide has always remained the place to which it all connects.
The responsibility to act in the interests of the community rather than narrow advantage sits at the heart of how I think about economic leadership today.
In monetary policy, economic thinking is translated into public outcomes that matter to households, businesses and communities across the country.
At the centre of that responsibility sits what is often referred to as the RBA’s dual mandate.
The RBA’s mandate and the public good
Australia’s framework for monetary policy is deliberately anchored in public purpose. The RBA is charged with supporting low and stable inflation and a high level of employment as part of a broader obligation to promote the economic welfare of the Australian people, not just today, but over time.
That pairing is sometimes misunderstood as a compromise between competing goals. In fact, it reflects a longstanding insight in economics that prosperity is not sustained by price stability alone, nor by employment outcomes in isolation, but by the interaction between the two.
Over the longer term, price stability makes a central contribution to the economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian people. When inflation is low and stable, households can plan, businesses can invest, and institutions can make decisions with greater confidence and focus their efforts on productive activities. That environment supports innovation, capital formation and ultimately jobs.
Price stability and full employment are therefore complementary and not competing objectives over the long term. The challenge is that the economy does not always behave smoothly or predictably. Over shorter periods, shocks can disrupt this balance. Supply constraints push inflation higher at the same time as they weaken economic activity and employment.
These moments test institutions like the RBA, not because their goals have changed, but because achieving them – and achieving both elements of the RBA’s dual mandate – becomes much more complex.
It is often said that central banks face a stark choice in such moments between prioritising inflation or prioritising jobs. But for those of us responsible for policy, that framing misses the point. It is not a question of which objective matters more; instead, it is about understanding that they are generally complementary over the longer term.
Seen this way, the RBA’s dual mandate is an expression of economics in service of the broader public interest. It recognises that technical expertise must be guided by judgement, that independence carries responsibility, and that trust is built when institutions act consistently with the long-term interests of all Australians.
The challenge then is translating those principles into decisions, particularly when the economic environment is uncertain, the data are incomplete, and the consequences matter deeply for households and businesses. That is where governance, process and judgement come together.
From principles to practice: the Monetary Policy Board
Turning now from principles to practice, I want to talk about how those values – governance, process and judgement – are brought to life in the work of the Monetary Policy Board.
Each decision is grounded in a disciplined and searching briefing process. Ahead of each meeting, Board members consider a substantial body of material prepared by RBA staff. And during each meeting, there is significant time devoted to discussion, challenge and differing perspectives.
We are briefed directly by senior executives, including Dr Sarah Hunter, Assistant Governor – Economic, who presents economic analysis and forecasts, including how monetary policy is affecting economic behaviour. And we are briefed by Dr Christopher Kent, Assistant Governor – Financial Markets Group.
Today, I will focus on the financial markets’ elements of these briefings.
The presentation by Dr Kent covers developments in global and domestic financial markets including interest rates, bond and equity markets, exchange rates, funding conditions and credit. Importantly, those developments are framed around questions that matter for monetary policy, including how financial conditions are evolving, how markets are interpreting economic data, and how policy decisions are likely to be transmitted through the financial system to the economy.
In the context of the Board’s deliberations, developments in short-term interest rates are a natural starting point for our discussion on financial conditions. Market expectations at the short end of the yield curve reflect how participants are interpreting current conditions and anticipating future policy settings. Those expectations matter because monetary policy works not only through the current cash rate, but through expectations of future rates that influence longer term borrowing costs, asset prices, the exchange rate and financial conditions more broadly.
We watch how government bond markets, particularly at longer maturities, provide further insight into how markets view the persistence of inflation and the outlook for growth. The shape of the yield curve can offer signals about momentum in the economy and the balance of risks while also highlighting uncertainty. These signals are never decisive on their own, but they form an important part of the overall assessment.
We watch corporate bond spreads and equity markets, as they provide insight into risk appetite, financing conditions and profit expectations. Movements in these markets can influence firms’ access to funding and affect decisions about investment, hiring and output. They also help indicate whether financial conditions are tightening or easing in ways that may reinforce or offset the intended stance of policy.
The exchange rate is another important element of transmission, particularly in a small open economy like Australia. Changes in the exchange rate affect import prices, export competitiveness and overall financial conditions. Understanding whether these movements reflect temporary volatility or more persistent shifts in fundamentals – like differences in interest rates here and offshore, or commodity prices – is crucial for assessing their implications for inflation and activity.
Bank funding costs and lending rates also matter because they determine how changes in the cash rate pass-through to households and businesses. Monitoring developments in wholesale funding markets and the extent of pass-through to mortgage and business lending rates helps the Board assess the extent to which monetary policy is working as intended. It also provides insight into the resilience and functioning of the financial system.
Credit growth and credit availability offer further perspective on how policy is affecting behaviour. Developments in household and business borrowing shed light on confidence, balance sheet positions and spending capacity. The Board also pays close attention to the composition of lending, including which lenders or markets are providing new forms of funding to ensure risks are not building in some corners of the financial system.
Taken together, these indicators help us understand current economic conditions, and how expectations are forming about where they may be headed.
One way in which monetary policy affects Australians directly is through household cash flows. Changes in interest rates alter mortgage payments and other debt servicing costs, influencing disposable income and spending decisions. The Board considers these effects in aggregate, but also how those effects are distributed across households, recognising differences in debt levels, incomes, savings buffers and loan structures.
But despite the salience of the cash flow channel, the transmission of monetary policy also occurs through its effect on savings and investment behaviour, and its effect on asset prices. These are the so-called intertemporal channels and wealth channels of monetary policy transmission, which are important even if they are more difficult to quantify.
To bring all of this together, the Board assesses whether the stance of monetary policy is expansionary, neutral or restrictive and whether it will achieve our mandate. Concepts like the neutral interest rate that neither grows nor restricts the economy provide useful reference points for assessing the stance of policy, but they are inherently uncertain. For that reason, assessments of policy restrictiveness are made as part of a broader evaluation of financial conditions encompassing interest rates, credit availability, asset prices, the exchange rate and observed behaviour across the economy.
Early in my career, I began working in markets during the period of Australian financial deregulation in the 1980s, when the float of the Australian dollar and the entry of foreign banks were fundamentally reshaping the system. Experiencing that transition firsthand taught me that market structures matter, and that policy assumptions are always tested and often revised by changing conditions.
That experience, reinforced through later roles in risk management and governance, left me acutely aware that while economic models are a helpful framing device, you can’t use them to analyse your way out of uncertainty. Managing uncertainty under real constraints made judgement a discipline, rather than an abstraction, and that lesson has stayed with me.
This was especially true more than two decades later during the global financial crisis, when the speed and severity of the crisis that spread from the United States caused significant uncertainty and disruption in global financial markets. As chair of Westpac’s risk committee at the time, the importance of the judgements made then to avoid exposure to risky financial instruments provided me with a practical example of managing this kind of uncertainty in the real world.
When dealing with uncertainty, the Board does not consider models or market intelligence in isolation. Financial markets move quickly and can be noisy, and what matters just as much is what we hear directly from the real economy.
Indeed, one of the RBA’s distinctive strengths is its longstanding business and community liaison program. Every month, staff speak regularly with various businesses across regions and industries as well as with unions, community organisations and economists in the private sector. These conversations provide timely insights into hiring, investment, pricing, costs and confidence that are often difficult to capture fully in official statistics.
As Governor Bullock has emphasised, monetary policy is stronger when it is informed by real world experience, not solely by models or market pricing.
For me, the liaison program plays a crucial role in testing assumptions and assessing whether the story told by the data aligns with what firms and households are experiencing on the ground.
Listening also matters inside the RBA. One of the key recommendations of the RBA Review was that the Board hear a wider range of staff perspectives.
Engaging directly with the RBA staff from across the organisation who are responsible for the analytical work, through briefings and policy discussions ahead of Board decisions, has deepened my understanding of many of the important issues facing the economy. Importantly, doing so has reinforced the need to hear diverse views and engage in debate.
All of this analysis, intelligence and listening serves a single purpose: forming considered judgements in an uncertain and changing world.
Judgement in an uncertain world
I am often asked, ‘what is the most important role of the Monetary Policy Board’ ?
It is the formation of sound, credible judgement. Those judgements matter most when the global environment is particularly unsettled, as it is today.
While uncertainty is not new, the economic context in which we are operating is very different from the one that shaped policy thinking during the global oil crisis of the 1970s.
Understanding those differences is essential to sound monetary policy, particularly in how we assess inflation, shocks and economic resilience.
My perspective on this has been shaped not only by institutional experience, but also by personal history.
It begins in the late 1970s. My postgraduate studies at Cambridge coincided with a period of exceptional economic turbulence in the United Kingdom. I arrived in the late 1970s when inflation, having reached extraordinary levels earlier in the decade, remained persistently high. Weak productivity growth, large fiscal deficits and fragile confidence shaped daily economic life. Pressures on wages, prices and the currency culminated in widespread industrial disruption during the so-called Winter of Discontent from 1978–1979.
That period left a lasting impression on me. It was my first direct exposure to the power of inflationary expectations and to the profound economic and social costs that arise when they become entrenched.
Academically, those years also broadened my exposure to global economic thinking, particularly in finance and banking. I was fortunate to learn from economists such as Joan Robinson, a close intellectual collaborator of John Maynard Keynes, whose work stressed the importance of institutions in shaping competition, aggregate demand and income distribution, and Phyllis Deane, who underscored the central role of history and context in economic analysis.
That environment deepened my interest in macroeconomic policy, even if at the time I had little sense of where that interest might lead. My subsequent career unfolded alongside the transformations that followed.
I entered financial markets in Australia at a moment when economics moved decisively from textbook abstraction into lived reality. What I had studied in lectures and seminars was playing out in real time through prices, balance sheets and policy choices. Beginning my professional life in banking and risk management during the 1980s and early 1990s meant learning to think about trade-offs, incentives, and uncertainty not as theories, but as forces with real consequences.
Those lessons were later reinforced through board roles, periods of crisis and governance responsibilities, settings where judgement mattered most and where the costs of getting it wrong were borne not in models, but by people.
Over time, this brought into sharper focus the critical role that institutions play in supporting sound judgement, particularly in the context of a financial system as interconnected as Australia’s.
This is reflected in the way Australia’s financial system has been built. Its resilience rests on a coordinated and well-calibrated regulatory architecture that has evolved over many decades.
In 2014, I joined David Murray on the panel of the Financial System Inquiry, commonly referred to as the Murray Inquiry.
The Inquiry was not simply concerned with profit or efficiency. It deliberately took a broad view of what a well-functioning system should achieve and how it could be strengthened, motivated by what best served the public good.
While the Inquiry preceded my appointment to the then Reserve Bank Board, it provided a valuable perspective across many aspects of the RBA’s broader remit beyond monetary policy. This included payments, financial stability and, importantly, the role of the financial system in supporting economic growth, productivity, and innovation.
The Inquiry sought to reduce the risk of systemic collapse by ensuring commercial banks are unquestionably strong, with an eye to macroeconomic stability. It also aimed to deepen prudential oversight and build resilience across the system. It addressed the distortions associated with institutions perceived ‘as too big to fail’. At the same time, it placed fairness and consumer outcomes at the centre of public policy. This included improving financial advice, safeguarding household savings and clarifying the role of the superannuation system to provide income to Australians in retirement.
The objective was to create a system that is stable, trusted, competitive and innovative. One that gives households and businesses reliable access to the financial services they need to plan with confidence, while supporting the broader economy by providing credit that enables investment, growth and long-term prosperity.
For central banks, a system with these features is highly desirable. By supporting growth in the economy’s productive capacity, it allows for higher employment without creating inflationary pressure. A stable financial system is also essential for effective monetary policy transmission, particularly when policy adjustments are needed.
But institutions alone do not explain the differences between then and now. To understand today’s economic and policy challenges, it is important to recognise how much has changed since the last major oil shock.
The broader policy framework has evolved significantly. Central bank independence is stronger, mandates for low and stable inflation are clearer, financial markets are deeper, and regulatory frameworks are more robust.
At the same time, the structure of the economy has shifted in important ways. And so has the role of energy, especially oil.
In the 1970s, oil was central to production and transport. Energy use per unit of output was far higher than it is today, and oil price shocks fed quickly and powerfully into inflation across almost every sector of the economy. When oil prices rose sharply, inflation often rose with them and remained elevated, reinforced by adaptive expectations and institutional arrangements that struggled to break inflationary momentum.
Today, the Australian economy is far less oil intensive. That does not mean fuel prices no longer matter – far from it.
Higher petrol and diesel prices still affect household budgets and business costs and are immediately visible to the community. But improvements in energy efficiency, technological change and shifts in the structure of the economy mean energy now represents a smaller share of overall spending by businesses and households. Fuel price increases tend to add to inflation in the short term, but they are far less likely to dominate inflation outcomes in the way they once did.
Related to this is a broader structural adjustment. The shocks of the 1970s forced economies to adapt. Over time, many countries diversified their energy sources, invested in efficiency and reduced oil’s centrality to economic activity. Energy still matters, but oil no longer sits at the core of macroeconomic stability. That shift has helped to make economies more flexible and less vulnerable to disruptions from a single source of supply, a perspective that is particularly relevant when assessing today’s geopolitical shocks.
These structural changes are highly relevant in considering the economic effects of the current conflict in the Middle East. The war has disrupted energy production and shipping in the region, driving sharp increases in global prices for oil, liquefied natural gas and other key commodities, such as fertilisers. As a result, inflation here in Australia has lifted, building on inflationary pressures that were building ahead of the war.
Based on what we know so far, RBA staff assess that oil prices will weigh only moderately on economic activity, though the outlook depends on the duration and severity of the disruption, and how households and businesses respond.
The fuel price increases seen so far imply a modest impact on real incomes for a typical household though that impact is uneven and more acute for some than for others.
Energy commodities nevertheless remain important to the Australian economy. While we are a net exporter of energy overall, we rely on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products. Most industries use fuel as an input, particularly diesel, with transport, mining and agriculture accounting for a large share of business fuel use. Around 90 per cent of diesel consumption is by businesses, while households consume most petrol directly. Gas is another key domestic energy source, and again Australia is a net exporter.
Higher energy prices therefore affect inflation both directly through fuel and utility prices, and indirectly through higher transport and production costs. Over time there is also the risk of second-round effects if elevated fuel prices begin to influence inflation expectations or wage bargaining, particularly if price increases are large or sustained. Assessing whether that is occurring is an important part of the Monetary Policy Board’s current deliberations.
Inflation expectations are better when anchored. Policy credibility is stronger. Wage setting arrangements are more decentralised and flexible. Australia’s floating exchange rate now acts as a buffer, absorbing part of the impact of global shocks rather than transmitting them directly into domestic inflation or activity.
We need to hold onto those structural gains. None of this means shocks no longer matter, or that adjustment is painless. But it does mean we are not confronting uncertainty without some guardrails. The framework within which monetary policy operates today provides greater resilience and a clearer basis for judgement.
Taken together, these experiences and structural changes shape how I assess current economic conditions and risks. They reinforce the importance of judgement, of curiosity paired with humility, and of drawing on diverse perspectives. In an environment of elevated global uncertainty, those qualities are not optional.
They are essential to deliver on the RBA’s mandate and to support the long-term economic welfare of Australians.
An enduring obligation to the public good
As I end, it feels especially fitting that my journey in economics began here at the University of Adelaide in the mid-1970s during years that proved formative in shaping both my intellectual interests and my professional direction.
Those studies sparked a lifelong engagement with financial systems, market structures and public policy, and with a central question that has run through my career ever since: how can scarce resources be allocated in ways that support prosperity, resilience and the public good?
Returning here tonight is for me an opportunity to say thank you. Thank you to an institution and to academic staff who instilled a respect for evidence, history and public purpose, and who demonstrated that economics – when practised with rigour, curiosity and humility – can make a genuine contribution to society.
Equally important were the people. I was fortunate to learn from a remarkable group of academics whose influence extended well beyond the lecture theatre. Geoff Harcourt, Eric Russell, Kevin Davis, Mervyn Lewis, my honours supervisor Bob Lindner, John Hatch, David Round and Ian McLean may not be familiar to everyone here this evening, but their contribution to Australian and global economic thinking has been substantial and enduring. What united them was not one view or unanimity, but a shared commitment to rigorous thinking in the public interest.
Some were shaped by a globally recognised Cambridge-influenced tradition of macroeconomic thought. Others went on to make lasting contributions to money and banking, competition policy and regulation. Together they fostered intellectual curiosity, disciplined reasoning and a deep respect for constructive disagreement.
It was Geoff Harcourt who encouraged me to continue my postgraduate studies at Cambridge, and in doing so profoundly shaped my path. If there is one message I would leave with the academics and lecturers here tonight it is this, your inspiration matters. It can change lives in ways you may never fully appreciate. This faculty through its commitment to rigorous and public-minded economics changed mine.
Joseph Fisher understood that truth deeply.
His legacy reminds us that ideas matter, institutions matter and education matters.
Not for prestige or abstraction, but because they shape the decisions made on behalf of the community.
In an uncertain world, that responsibility endures.
It is a responsibility I am grateful to have learned here, and one I continue to carry with me today. In carrying it forward, we honour both Joseph Fisher’s legacy and the enduring public purpose of economics itself.