Mr HARDGRAVE (5:04 PM) —I rise to associate myself once again with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 as amended ever so slightly. It is interesting that the Senate was able to find one word which it wanted to strike out and replace. But this is democracy in action. Constituents in my electorate would be delighted by the prowess of those in the other place in finding that the word `powers' should be substituted with the word `functions'.

Nevertheless, the bill as it stood and now stands, as supported by both the opposition and the government, really highlights the fact that we have in place in this country a national government prepared to look at some of the practical and futuristic reforms which need to be undertaken. We have the wonderful situation where we are going to put more pressure on some of the key institutions in our community that are not responding as well as we would like to consumers' aspirations. The Wallis report, the Treasurer (Mr Costello), who I note is in the chamber right now, and the executive have been determined to put into the hands of everyday bank consumers, superannuation fund consumers and insurance consumers in this country competition which will bring about some real responsiveness to their needs and concerns.

The legislation is practical and straightforward. It provides some very landmark reforms to Australia's financial institutions sector. It involves a large package of bills which have been before this House once before. The legislation nevertheless recognises the fact that Australian companies are able to participate openly on the world stage. They can contribute something to world's best practice and participate in the world without fear of being intimidated and without any form of economic or cultural cringe being imposed upon the nation. Our financial institutions can proudly stand on the world stage as a player in international affairs.

For the everyday person, this sort of talk may not seem like bells and whistles. However, when any of my constituents go into a bank and find that they are disappointed by the level of service or they find that a fee or charge has suddenly been imposed or when they go into, for that matter, a private health insurance provider and find that their cheques are now no longer good enough to get a discount, they should bear in mind that greater competition will introduce companies into the equation that may be able to provide them with the sort of service they want. Consumers have the right to choose between various providers. Obviously people facing these sorts of major decisions in their lives are often reluctant to move from one particular institution to another.

While government is playing its role in making the reforms in a legislative sense and while the government is playing its role in providing financial incentives to people to participate in private health insurance, to take out superannuation and to save money for their future, I think it is also important for government to provide a clear signal to those institutions which govern those particular areas of our community that we expect them to respond to consumers' needs and demands. Competition is always the best mechanism to bring in those sorts of responses.

The member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) quite rightly said that if we do not see the responsiveness we want and need from our major financial institutions in their various forms we could well be back in the parliament to look at other ways, means and measures. Until that day, I think what we have before us, as amended, is an excellent bill. I commend the Treasurer on his personal efforts in making sure that these matters are driven, and driven well. They will set in place yet another part of the rock solid foundation the Howard government has established so people can realise their personal ambitions and individuals can go out and achieve. For those sorts of reasons, I commend the bill to the House.