NZ inflation in March quarter remains at 3.1%, continues to breach RBNZ target range

"Destroy"? No, don't be silly. "Weaken"? Yes, that's the point.

RBNZ has one mandate: inflation. Not jobs, not GDP, not lavishing big business with low rates (which is obviously what they are doing). That is very clear. If the NZ gov wanted the RBNZ to focus on metrics other than inflation then they would pass a mandate.

The US fed has 2 mandates: inflation and jobs, because the US congress said so.

If the US economy is weak (ie low jobs) then the fed cannot hike to flight inflation, but the RBNZ is instructed by law to only focus on inflation regardless of jobs. RBNZ has an incredibly simple job: keep inflation between 1% and 3%.

But they are ignoring their one job to focus on cutting rates to make banks and big business happy while citing magic "labor slack" as an excuse, and leaving the population with high prices.

So yeah, my first comment is spot on.

So you think their mandate means they simply ignore stagflation risks? NZ has massive risk coming to the entire economy due to dangerously low oil reserves and being last in the queue when things start to flow again. That will certainly take any perceived heat out of the economy. Add higher interest rates (already high) will massively compound the problems

Yes of course. If the government wanted them to consider stagflation risks then they would not have removed the dual mandate recently. Should not the representatives of the people of NZ have a say in what the RBNZ does? Do you think the RBNZ should blow off the law and do whatever they want? If so, the RBNZ agrees with you, because ignoring the law is exactly what they are doing.

How low do you want the kiwi to go? If you're worried about oil then it wouldn't help to have a weak currency.

NZ economy is totally dependent on export so low dollar is generally good. However did say it wasnt simple, of course the low dollar does add stress, its about balance and where the greatest risk is to the economy.The price of oil is one issue actual supply is a much greater issue. There is no law being broken, the primary function of the bank is to formulate and implement monetary policy directed to the economic objective of achieving and maintaining stability in the general level of prices.They have a "target" that is flexible and certainly tehy can be outside that target in certain circumstance. My point is the impact of a fuel shortage will very quickly counter inflation pressures in the general economy. The RBNZ has a duty to condier what is causing inflation and manage it ccordingly. They are certainly not breaking the law. Its an economoc view which a number of people agree with , clearly not you and thats fine, but suggesting by not raising the rates they are breaking the law is patently absurd.

The current rate is 3.1% the wording in the act is : "The law requires the RBNZ to keep inflation low and stable, specifically targeting a range of 1% to 3% on average over the medium term." Average over medium term is the key point!

Fuel shortage will not counter inflation but add to inflation.

The New Zealand government officially removed the RBNZ's dual mandate in December 2023, passing legislation to return the central bank to a single focus on price stability (inflation control). This reverses the 2018 policy that required the RBNZ to manage both inflation and maximum sustainable employment.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill was passed under urgency by the new coalition government. The government argued the dual mandate, introduced in 2018, "muddied the waters" and hindered the bank's ability to focus on fighting the cost-of-living crisis.

The primary function of the RBNZ is now focused exclusively on maintaining low inflation.

The amendment also removed requirement for the bank to consider the housing market in its policy decisions.

So, yes, they are breaking the law. They thumb their noses at the government's removal of the dual mandate and totally ignore the explicit purpose of its removal to focus singularly on inflation.

When Breman took over the first thing she said is it's time to return the focus to their mandate, which she is not doing, as if someone took her in a back room and told her how it's going to be. So, she is fully aware the bank is breaking the law.

Headline inflation has been trending higher. Core has been over 3% for 4 quarters. Food inflation has been over 3% for more than a year.

3.1% but you miss the point, its within the range and within their mandate to manage . You massively oversimplify to suit your argument and dont bother to check the actual wording of the law or understand the complexities of the situation which is not unique to nz but affects many economies in similar ways. Just to be clear is it your position that raising rates is the right economic thing to do or just needs to be done based on your understanding of NZ law and the RBNZ mandate?
Also a fuel shortage in a countrey thats whole economy is based on agriculture and tourism cannot function without diesel. Australia has 3 weeks of fuel reserves, NZ slightly more but in a much dire position beyond that due to lack of alternative supply options. Demand will dissipate and raising interest rates will achieve nothing but slow any recovery if supplies return.
No economic commentaters, that have any standing, would agree with your interpretation. Maybe you are just long NZD and so are screaming a narrative that suits you. But either way we disagree and i have nothing further to add

Headline inflation has been trending higher and is over 3%. Core has been well over 3% for 4 quarters. Food inflation has been well over 3% for more than a year. What the heck are you talking about???

Whether raising rates is the right economic thing to do is totally irrelevant because the government of NZ has voted and decided to take that decision away from them. What part of that can you not understand?

Did you see this post?

The New Zealand government officially removed the RBNZ's dual mandate in December 2023, passing legislation to return the central bank to a single focus on price stability (inflation control). This reverses the 2018 policy that required the RBNZ to manage both inflation and maximum sustainable employment.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill was passed under urgency by the new coalition government. The government argued the dual mandate, introduced in 2018, "muddied the waters" and hindered the bank's ability to focus on fighting the cost-of-living crisis.

The primary function of the RBNZ is now focused exclusively on maintaining low inflation.

The amendment also removed requirement for the bank to consider the housing market in its policy decisions.

So, yes, they are breaking the law. They thumb their noses at the government's removal of the dual mandate and totally ignore the explicit purpose of its removal to focus singularly on inflation.

When Breman took over the first thing she said is "it's time to return the focus to their mandate", which she is not doing, as if someone took her in a back room and told her how it's going to be. So, she is fully aware the bank is breaking the law.

I can see you have nothing further to add since you keep repeating the same old stubbornness. Maybe you're short NZD.