The Coalition will not seek to split the Reserve Bank board in two if elected, abandoning its in-principle support for a restructure backed by governor Michele Bullock.

Last week, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the opposition would vote against a government bill to create one board to set interest rates and one for governance, citing suspicion that Treasurer Jim Chalmers would "stack" the rates board with Labor-aligned appointees.

But while Mr Taylor left open the possibility of taking his own RBA reforms to the next election, the Coalition's finance spokesperson Jane Hume told the ABC's Insiders on Sunday that was "no longer on the table."

"We feel that this is something that no longer needs to be talked about … We are comfortable with the board we have," she said.

"If [the government] wanted two boards, they needed to have stability and continuity."

Coalition walks away from RBA review

That position puts the Coalition at odds with the independent review of the RBA, which was initiated by its own former treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and released last year by Mr Chalmers.

The reviewers said a two-board structure, common in central banks around the world, could deliver more relevant expertise around the table to make interest rate decisions, arguing the existing structure was not offering enough scrutiny.

Mr Taylor spoke favourably of that element of the review when it was released, and both major parties were positive about the prospect of bipartisanship.

"It's clear that there is a case for reform," he said last year.

"At face value, the direction of this is positive … The key here is to make sure we have a group of people around the table making interest rate decisions who are very focused, who have deep expertise, where there's real intellectual diversity.

"And one way to achieve that is the separation of this monetary policy board or committee as other countries have, and we think this is well worth consideration."

'Sacking and stacking' accusation sinks bipartisanship

That bipartisanship frayed when Mr Taylor objected to two appointments Mr Chalmers made to the existing board. Earlier this year, he accused the treasurer of a strategy to "sack and stack" the current board and said the members should automatically carry over.

Last month, Mr Chalmers conceded on that point, offering all board members the opportunity to continue and emphasising his willingness to negotiate to land a bipartisan deal.

But after a burst of criticism of the Reserve Bank's decision-making from current and senior Labor figures, Mr Taylor abandoned negotiations, saying he could not "trust" the government to deliver reforms.

Mr Chalmers accused Mr Taylor of being "rolled" by his Coalition colleagues.

"I dealt with him in good faith," he said.

"I engaged extensively with him, including having three meetings with him and organising multiple briefings for him with my department.

"For the best part of two years, I put a premium on bipartisanship. But there's only so much you can do when you are dealing with someone who doesn't have the necessary authority with his own colleagues."

The Coalition's decision means the government's only option for passing the bill is getting the support of the Greens and other Senate crossbenchers.

Mr Chalmers said his preference was bipartisanship and it was "not [his] preference to accommodate the Greens", who among other demands have called for intervention to force the Reserve Bank to cut rates.

But he added the Coalition "may force our hand" and said the government would work across the parliament.

Coalition faces pressure on spending cuts

Mr Chalmers has also accused the Coalition of planning spending cuts after Senator Hume pointed to $315 billion in government expenditure the Coalition "wouldn't have committed to and didn't commit to".

Senator Hume said the Coalition was "committed to going to the next election with a credible alternative budget" and would undo "any wasteful or unnecessary or undisciplined spending that is pushing inflation further".

But she said the Coalition would not cut key social spending.

"Of course we're not going to cut back on the Age Pension, of course we're not going to cut back on essential services, of course we're not going to cut back on safety nets," she said, adding that this included child care.

She cited the government's industry support, including mining tax credits and funding for solar panel manufacturing, as examples of what would be cut.

Mr Chalmers said the $315 billion figure included the government's indexation of the Age Pension, arguing this made it "very clear they don't think the Age Pension should have been indexed".

"If they wouldn't have committed to pension indexation, what else is at risk?"

Senator Hume said the suggestion of pension cuts was "just Labor talking points and absolute nonsense".