In what will further disconcert some of the major actors in our financial system, the report has also offered a number of observations on the current tax system, including that negative gearing, capital gains provisions and some superannuation concessions for wealthy Australians are being used to reduce tax rather than boost savings and should be wound back. And in recognition of the frequent inadequacy of regulatory oversight in Australia, the inquiry has recommended that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission be provided with stronger regulatory tools and greater resources (through the introduction of an industry funding model).

For those consumers who long harboured reservations about the equity of our financial system (or who have experienced first-hand the power of the big players to pocket vast profits while apparently insulating themselves entirely from risk or downside) the findings of this inquiry would appear to be cause for unalloyed joy. The smaller banks will, for the first time, be able to compete on a level playing field in the $1.4 trillion home-loan market, with consumers being the main beneficiaries. Employees will be given the ability to choose the fund into which their super guarantee contributions are paid, and if they desire the services of financial advisers or planners, they will do so safe in the knowledge that such people must be appropriately qualified. And the financial regulators who were largely asleep at the wheel before and during disasters like Storm Financial and Timbercorp can be expected to be far more active and interventionist in future.

As the most powerful of the mortgage sector players (they dominate the financial advice industry too), the big four banks have already questioned the need for new capital reserve requirements and suggested these will impact on profits and shareholder returns. They can be expected to campaign hard to counter moves that threaten the profitability of their financial planning arms too. Yet, as many commentators have pointed out, the banks have been significant beneficiaries over many years of implicit federal government guarantees to bail out any failing institution. They have also consistently rated as the most profitable banks in the world.

If the proposed changes do impinge on banking profitability, Mr Murray has made abundantly clear they are they are but part of a nobler and greater cause – storm-proofing Australia against future global financial crises and protecting its Triple A credit rating. In a speech on Monday, Mr Murray pointed out that the circumstances which had shielded Australia from the worst effects of the 2007-08 financial credit crunch – a government free of debt, a mining boom, and China's massive stimulus program – no longer applied, and that preparing for the next possible crisis was essential.

Critics will doubtless try to impugn this inquiry as series of trade-offs targeting some sectors at the expense of others. But subjecting a few players to change or discomfort in short-term change is surely preferable to allowing a situation to build where widespread economic misery may result. It is to be hoped the Abbott government recognises the importance of genuine financial competition (and of directing capital flows into productive investments) and that it backs the broad thrust of Mr Murray's reforms.