Treasurer Jim Chalmers has confirmed he'd like to see sweeping changes made to the structure of the Reserve Bank before the next election.

The most significant changes to the RBA in three decades were among a flurry of bills to pass parliament in the final sitting week.

The bank's board will be split in two, with one dedicated to running the bank, and another setting interest rates.

After months of negotiations with the Coalition fell over, the government worked with the Greens and crossbench to pass the bill.

Now Jim Chalmers wants to act fast — with the new two-board structure in place, and making decisions on interest rates, in the first few months of next year.

"Our expectation, what we're anticipating, is that the new board would be constituted after the February meeting," he said.

Why the change?

The move to split the board in two came after a long-running review of the Reserve Bank, which recommended making the change to get more expertise onto the board setting rates.

Currently there is just one board running almost all arms of the bank — from monetary policy (setting interest rates), to more practical tasks like managing Australia's banknotes.

This change would create two boards, with one running the bank, and another focused on the task of setting rates.

The bank's governor, and some others, would sit across both.

Initially the moves were broadly popular, with shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor arguing it was "clear there is a case for reform".

But earlier this year the opposition started sounding concerns the government would pursue a "sack and stack" strategy, using the change to make partisan appointments to the bank's boards.

Chalmers pushing ahead

Jim Chalmers was furious at the Coalition abandoning support for the change, and opted to do away with pursuing a bipartisan strategy.

This morning the treasurer maintained that the government worked hard to try and accommodate any concerns from the Coalition.

"Our strong preference was for these reforms to be bipartisan because we believe that the independent Reserve Bank should be above party politics," he said.

"We did everything that we could."

That includes committing to inviting all current members of the RBA board to move over to the monetary board, once the split takes place.

Mr Chalmers was asked if making a bunch of appointments to the new board would look bad, given it would likely come only weeks or months out from an election.

He indicated the election wasn't a factor in pushing ahead the changes.

"We will appoint first class, first rate people to both of the new boards of the Reserve Bank," he said.

"We have put a lot of thought into it already.

"We will consult with the opposition in good faith, as we're obligated to do, to make sure that the people that we appoint to the new Governance Board and the new Monetary Policy Board are first class and first rate."

That's unlikely to satisfy the Coalition, who are keeping up their 'sack and stack' concerns.

"Jim Chalmers has demonstrated there is no institution he won't forsake for his own ambition to be a revolutionary, not a responsible economic manager," said shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor.

Will it mean anything for interest rates?

The changes to the Reserve Bank are also partly born out of concerns expressed in the Reserve Bank review about how the board was running.

There was a particular concern that the single board isn't properly equipped to push back on the views of the bank itself, if it disagreed on the direction of monetary policy.

"On some occasions, the board has not requested or been given information relevant to its decisions, or has not been fully involved in significant policy decisions," it found.

But there is no expectation that the split will lead to a radical new approach to setting interest rates.

One concession the government was forced to make to get the Greens on board was retaining a power for the treasurer to overrule the RBA on monetary policy.

Jim Chalmers had wanted to take the RBA review's recommendation to dump the power, arguing it's archaic.

But the Greens argued to keep it, and will keep pushing the treasurer to use it, which is extremely unlikely to happen.