The finance services industry needs a consultation body bringing together regulators, government and industry to regularly review the impact of regulation. This recommendation featured in several submissions to the Financial System Inquiry, including those from KPMG and academic Rod Maddock.KPMG said there was no effective mechanism for regular whole-of-sector consultation between regulators, government and industry.It said: "Consultation tends to be issue-specific. Given the inter-linkages between the different spheres of regulation and the increasing inter-connectedness of financial institutions, KPMG suggests that consideration be given to facilitating more whole-of-sector consultation."This could be achieved by holding annual or six-monthly consultation between the Council of Financial Regulators and the heads of industry peak bodies."We recommend that all regulations be subject to comprehensive, industry-wide review at regular intervals. This would allow for an assessment to be made of the cumulative impact of regulation across all agencies."KPMG also recommended "strengthening the requirements for costing regulatory proposals, with more rigour around the assessment of compliance costs and efficiency costs and considering a broad range of factors, including economic growth, productivity, innovation, trade and investment."Adjunct professor of economics at Monash University, Rod Maddock, recommended that prudential regulation be subject to competition review. Maddock said: "The fundamental proposition is that regulatory decisions are expensive. The cost of complying with new regulations will be very large. It adds to the cost structure of the economy and actually reduces its efficiency. APRA has decided this is worthwhile but it is arguable."Regulatory changes that are likely to cost more than $100 million should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis by an independent party."Maddock also said the financial system needed greater transparency. "Australia has capital rules that appear to be the same as those imposed in other countries but are actually much more stringent, such as the approach to measuring capital for common equity tier one purposes. "To ostensible comply with global rules but actually be stricter without telling anybody protects APRA but serves no public purpose."