APRA members "see little reason to change" the regulator's philosophy on prudential supervision, Wayne Byres, chair of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, told a hearing of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics on Friday.Byres told the committee that "our observation is that the supervision-led approach [used by APRA] seemed to be a common feature of jurisdictions that emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis."The APRA members therefore see little reason to change that philosophy," he said."It is very consistent with the Government's recent Statement of Expectations for APRA."Byres added: "We were also pleased to see the role of proactive supervision in helping deliver a stable financial system was acknowledged in the Financial System Inquiry report.""It is often said that APRA is 'tough', because we sometimes impose requirements faster or stronger than the Basel standards," he said."Basel standards are minimum requirements and it is quite common for jurisdictions to apply more stringent standards in some shape or form; and secondly, there are peer jurisdictions that have gone further and/or faster in implementing the reforms than APRA. "We would not want to be perceived in any way as a soft regulator, but the claim that APRA is way out in front of the rest of the world is, quite frankly, incorrect."The FSI report earlier this week also rejected that assertion, noting that it was not uncommon for countries with strong financial systems to adopt the Basel framework without extended transition periods and that the weight of evidence suggests that having a more conservative approach … has not placed Australian banks at a significant competitive disadvantage."Furthermore, it found 'regulators have applied the framework in a manner and timeframe to best suit Australian market conditions'," he said.