It is "generally recognised that capital buffer [of banks] should be larger," David Murray, chair of the Financial System Inquiry, said last night at a public forum in Melbourne.A Wilsons investment analyst had hopefully asked what extra level of capital the larger banks might need, if one strand of thinking in the FSI's interim report becomes a firm preference.Picking that level is "subject to submissions" and research into international methods of bulking up bank capital, Murray said.In his introduction, as in his National Press Club speech, Murray led with lessons from 2008 crisis. "Shocks from Europe and US reach us ... we need to secure access to foreign markets and minimise taxpayer liability," he said.Asked by one audience member: "do we have any banks that are totally safe?" Murray said it "would be nice to think if we design the system well we can go for a long period without trouble and people can have confidence in the system."The "'standardised' risk weight system is clearly under review," Murray told Jonathan Hutchins, chair of mutual bank Victoria Teachers.Issues around financial planning featured arising from hard luck tales from the audience.The FSI's interim report differs from Wallis in 1997, Murray reminded people."Disclosure and financial literacy are not enough to protect consumers. You have to look at tougher qualifications and licensing," he said.A flying squad from the Citizens Electoral Council dominated questions, often airing hoary old theories, buttressed this time by a deep preference for the Glass Steagall era in US bank regulation.