Mr HAWKER (3:48 PM) —In listening to the member for Greenway, I must admit that I do share the concerns he has for the residents of Lalor Park. I know that when a bank branch is closed it always causes great concerns in the local community. But, as I continued to listen to his speech, it did strike me as rather strange that he was talking about the Commonwealth Bank. I thought about it a bit further and thought, `Hang on a minute. The Commonwealth Bank used to be owned by the government.' And, when he made reference to community service obligations such as with Australia Post or with Telstra, which are owned, or majority owned, by the government, I thought, `Who sold the Commonwealth Bank?' I could not help but think there was something missing here. He really should have been making those views known some time ago when the Labor Party was in power, because it was the Labor Party, of course, that made the decision to sell down the Commonwealth Bank. I listened to his solution when he was talking about levies and I could not help thinking, `Is this some new form of services tax that he is proposing to solve the problems as he sees them?'

I do want to talk about a couple of issues, one of which the member did allude to at the end of his speech: what is happening in country areas. In the last parliament I was chair of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, which was looking at the whole question of banking services and alternatives to banking services in rural and regional Australia. While that report has not yet been tabled, I can assure all honourable members that there was a considerable amount of very constructive work done, in a bipartisan way, looking at the whole issue of banking services in regional and rural Australia and in remote areas as well. I anticipate that when the report is tabled in the parliament there will be some quite positive recommendations to be put to the government.

I also want to talk a little about the third part of the motion of the member for Greenway regarding the increasing number of service reductions. I could not help thinking, when I was looking at that, about my own experience yesterday—which I remind honourable members was a Sunday—when I paid my Bankcard bill. I did not have to walk down to the local branch. I did not have to go in there while the branch was open, which is only limited hours, and I did not have to walk through the rain or anything else. I was sitting at my desk. I picked up my telephone and I rang the bank and paid the bill on a Sunday afternoon. I thought, `This is actually an improved service. It is not a reduction, it is actually an improving service.'

When we come to debate these issues in the chamber, we should recognise that change is here and in many cases there are a lot of changes for the better. When we look at some of the changes in availability of services and the growing use of service centres for all sorts of services for which in the past it was necessary to have a face-to-face interaction, we find that through service centres—those run by government agencies and also those run by businesses—we have better services. We have access generally over longer hours, and we certainly have much quicker access. While there may have been some teething problems in some areas, mostly they are being worked out.

This means that people, whether they are busy people or the elderly, can often get access to a greater range of services at very low cost and certainly, in most cases, much more quickly. For example, it is now possible, as I mentioned, to pay bills 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We can use a telephone to do business with most of the major banks. Most major banks now have customer service officers available via the telephone for at least 12 hours a day, which is far more than if you had to go into the bank itself.

Other agencies, insurance companies, utilities and other government services with call centres are often available now where there was none in the past—so nothing has been lost because there was never anything there. We ought to put this motion into perspective and try to keep some balance. It concerns me that this motion concentrates very much on the negative aspects and overlooks some of the positive aspects of the changes that are occurring in the community, many of which are for the better.

We have seen a lot of changes in banking services, many for the better but not all, I admit. For example, by the end of 1997 there were 7,800 automatic teller machines throughout Australia. These provide access to a service with extended hours which is often in places where there was limited service access. I know that some people have difficulty with ATMs, but we have also seen a massive growth in the use of EFTPOS. There is no doubt that this has made basic withdrawal services very easy for many bank customers. At the end of 1997, there were 75,000 EFTPOS terminals throughout Australia—far more than there are bank branches. Again, for most people an EFTPOS system is quicker when it comes to getting hold of cash. It is also much more accessible and is available for extended hours. A bank branch does not have that.

Members who were on the Financial Institutions and Public Administration References Committee know that a number of alternative ways of providing banking are becoming more prevalent. The member for Greenway mentioned community banks. In my state, the Bank of Bendigo has started community bank branches in the Wimmera and is looking to set up at least one in suburban Melbourne. There is no doubt that, where communities choose to go down this path, it offers some very exciting alternatives to a traditional bank branch. The odds are that they are going to get a greater range of services than they probably had in the past, and they are certainly going to get some other community benefits from going down that path.

There are others, too. For example, Bank SA has set up an agency system—initially throughout South Australia, but it is now moving into Victoria. There are now at least two such agencies in my electorate: at Penshurst—and I jumped when you mentioned Penshurst, because Penshurst is in my electorate—and also Macarthur. These agencies allow a local business to put in a basic transaction service for people, generally in a local store.

Bank SA has nearly 200 of those in place. Again, they allow people face-to-face basic transaction services, almost always with much greater accessibility from the point of view of hours of the day during which they can access it than they have with an ordinary bank branch. Again, that is a positive development. It is something that also overcomes the problem of the face-to-face service that some of the pensioners and elderly people have difficulty with because it means that they are probably dealing with a person they have great confidence in and have known for many years.

The major banks are also realising—to quite a large extent as a result of the work the standing committee has done—that this policy of continuing to close bank branches is not good business and is not helping their image in the community. The ANZ has announced a freeze on bank closures. Westpac is putting agencies into places where there is no longer a bank branch. Likewise, a number of the other banks are exploring the question of setting up bank agencies and expanding that process. This shows that, while there are changes, nonetheless a lot of these changes are providing an equivalent service and, in some cases, a better service.

The credit care process has been put in place, whereby credit unions are set up where there is no bank branch. Australia Post has expanded giroPost, and we hope to see more happening there. This often means that people have an alternative. Just last weekend, pharmacists announced that 3,000 pharmacists are likely to be used as agents for one of the banks. That is an extended service by people whom the community generally have a high regard for. As the honourable member mentioned, local government is also looking to do something. While I understand the sentiments behind this motion, I think it is a bit narrow and overlooks some of the positive developments that are occurring throughout our community.