My question is to the Treasurer. The coalition is taking real and immediate action to increase competition in the banking sector with our nine-point plan, the private member’s bill on anti-competitive price signalling I introduced today and, as announced by the shadow Treasurer today, terms of reference for a new inquiry into the banking sector. When will the Treasurer stop talking and start taking real action to achieve a better deal for homebuyers and small businesses?

I am wondering why I did not get that question from Joe-come-lately, Mr Speaker.

Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their title and he will not debate the question.

The shadow Treasurer has had a lot to say about this, and I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This government has a proud record of reform in the banking system and most particularly a proud record of reform in making that system more competitive. Those opposite do have a very selective memory. We put in place the financial claims scheme, and those opposite had not had the wit to do that over 12 long years. A financial claims scheme, now the deposits guarantee, was the very foundation of our surviving the global recession. Of course that was of greatest benefit to people who were involved with smaller financial institutions, the smaller banks and the credit unions.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Practice at page 552 says that under the last paradigm ministers could answer in almost any way they liked, as long as they did not use unparliamentary language. But with our new standing orders requiring a direct answer, would you direct the minister to answer just when he will introduce reform for competition and not answer under the old paradigm? Otherwise the change was pointless.

With a long preamble the question went to asking when the Treasurer will stop talking and take real action. The Treasurer is directly relevant in going to those two points about whether or not action has already been taken.

On six occasions over 12 years those opposite were advised to introduce a financial claims scheme by our regulators and they refused. Why did they do that? Because the big banks would not let them do it. It fell to our government to put a financial claims scheme in place to protect the Australian banking system and the deposits of 16 million people. We did that. We have put in place a raft of competition reforms, and most importantly we have put in place the investment in residential mortgage-backed securities that has been absolutely essential for those smaller lenders who have been so badly affected by the global financial crisis. And we have taken action on unfair mortgage exit fees. This is the background, and now we get to the here and now.

Those opposite pretend to be interested in the banks because they see a political opportunity. They took to the last election not one policy on banking—not one. That is how interested they were then. And they were not talking about price signalling. The shadow Treasurer went to the Press Club in May and talked about reform of the Trade Practices Act, and he did not mention price signalling. The first we heard about price signalling was that they had read about it in the paper because the government had been talking to the ACCC about it. So they came up with a thought bubble, pretending they had a plan for competition in the banking system. Of course that had its conclusion in the House today when they presented a bill on price signalling, but it is a bill which will create great uncertainty. They have not been working with the regulators to get it right.

Have you read it?

Yes, I have looked at it and there is a real problem with it. It demonstrates what happens when those opposite have a thought bubble and decide they want to play with the Australian banking system. Nothing could be more precious, nothing could be more valuable, than stability in the Australian financial system.

Mr Hockey interjecting

The member for North Sydney!

But those opposite came into the House today with a bill that has not been thoroughly tested, has not been run by our regulators and simply will create uncertainty.

Mr Hockey interjecting

The member for North Sydney is warned.

For our part, we will behave in a professional manner. We will work methodically with our regulators, as we should do and as we have done for three years, to enhance competition in the Australian banking system and to protect the deposits of Australians who have their money in the bank.