Carrington Clark

Not those who don't earn a salary, exactly.

And of course, the question becomes who is doing that?

Would people prefer that than seeing their mortgage repayments go up?

There's a fairness question there.

And who would be the ones making that setting?

He also points out there's a legal question about whether or not

those powers can be given away by the parliament effectively to some sort of outside agency.

Another suggestion would be that you increase superannuation payments during a period of high inflation.

So the mandatory amount that goes from your pay packet

to your superannuation account, you increase that.

So that means instead of the money just going into general revenue for tax, that you would have more money in your superannuation account for when you retire.

He also points out that perhaps that money could be used actually to stimulate the economy, which actually might run opposite its aim because those superannuation funds would be using the money and putting them into investments might be forcing up the value of assets, etc.,

No, and Michelle Bullock, the Reserve Bank governor, did get asked about whether or not it was better in the olden days where perhaps the government was expected to take up more of the slack when it came to fighting inflation.

And she didn't seem to think necessarily that was the case.

And then the ones who have been doing it.

And there is a reason I understand why people want there to be another answer.

People want there to be a kind of pain-free way of bringing down inflation without people feeling the pain.

But unfortunately, that mechanism, the pain is part of the solution at the moment.

And that's when perhaps the government has a role in trying to make sure that the damage isn't being felt by just certain groups and not others.

But that is a political question.