Possibly the most pressing question that will emerge out of Reserve Bank review is who gets to sit at the decision-making table when it comes to setting interest rates.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The federal government is expected to accept in-principle all 51 recommendations made by the review panel, including a proposal to split the functions of the existing RBA Board in two, with one board to focus on setting monetary policy and the other to oversee the central bank's operations.
Many have been advocating such a change for some time.
One of the concerns has been that under current arrangements the views of the Reserve Bank and Treasury have had too much sway when it comes to assessing the economy and setting interest rates, with not enough independent economists on hand with the necessary expertise to challenge their analysis.
Equally, many regard the RBA board as out of touch with the lives of most Australians and see the creation of a specific monetary policy board as a chance to inject much-needed 'real life' experience into decision-making.
The creation of a board whose only job is to set interest rates is seen as a way to correct the shortcomings.
But much will hang on who gets to decide who sits on the board and how these people are selected - both inherently highly political decisions.
Currently, board membership is in the gift of the treasurer, and Jim Chalmers is expected to exercise his prerogative on Thursday when he announces two replacements for retiring members Wendy Craik and Mark Barnaba.
There is likely to be a lot of attention paid to the RBA review's proposals for how board members will be selected in future.
But there should be much more to ponder in the report, which was nine months in the making.
The review panel members, eminent economists Carolyn Watkins and Renee Fry-McKibbin and the Secretary for Public Sector Reform Gordon de Brouwer, sifted through hundreds of submissions and consulted with dozens of local and international experts.
Among the suggestions were proposals to scrap or modify the inflation target and transform the way the central bank communicates with markets and the public.
There may be little appetite for some of the more radical ideas, and the government is expected to back the current price stability framework and the central bank's independence.
These commitments should help it in its quest to secure bipartisan support for RBA reform.
But it may find acceptance of even modest changes around the way the central bank operates and communicates is qualified. The treasurer could be in for some tricky negotiations ahead.
