The banking regulator will introduce its version of the Basel III reforms from 2015 in the form outlined in its September draft last year. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority made next to no concessions in its response to the most recent round of industry consultation in its latest document released on Friday.Industry grumbling over the haste of APRA to introduce the new rules has, thus, had no effect.The most prominent critic of APRA over the transition to a Basel III regime was Mike Smith, chief executive of ANZ and also chair of the Australian Bankers Association.Smith addressed the topic a number of times in late 2011. In one speech, in October, Smith said that while "a supporter of the concept of Basel III… I'm increasingly concerned that its implementation is moving ahead at a time of great economic fragility and uncertainty, without sufficient global consistency, which was its core rationale, and without enough thought [being] given to the macroeconomic implications of the reforms... [for] individual economies or what model might suit what situation." APRA's chair, John Laker, repudiated this view soon after this and the regulator's approach has not shifted since then. APRA's latest views, explained in the document released three days ago, are unyielding both on the over-arching issues and on most technical points of detail raised by banks and credit unions.In an overview to Friday's document, APRA wrote that "its traditional conservative stance… has served the Australian banking system well."APRA has interpreted the substance of the industry's objections (as represented by the views proposed by Mike Smith) as one of presentation to investors rather than one of disadvantage to banks and banks' customers, which a more perceptive student of Smith's view might perceive.So, on Friday, APRA chose to emphasise the expected availability of a "common disclosure template" that would allow banks in Australia and elsewhere to present a matrix of alternative capital ratios.Several banks and the ABA had highlighted concerns over the divergence in "headline" capital ratios between Australia and other key jurisdictions. Banks have said they are concerned that professional investors may not take the time to examine the differences more closely.APRA characterised the industry's views as favouring "international consistency of capital definition" over two other objectives of the Basel II reforms. The other two, favoured as priorities by APRA, are "raising the quality and quantity of regulatory capital" and "enhancing the risk coverage of the capital framework". APRA also noted that there was "no evidence that the current differences in headline capital ratios have created disadvantages for ADIs in Australia in accessing global capital and funding markets."There is no real engagement with the Smith claim of "macroeconomic implications". APRA merely noted that "other jurisdictions are adopting accelerated implementation timetables."One topic on which APRA did show some flexibility was the treatment of capital instruments issued by mutuals such as credit union and building societies. APRA said that securities that provided for the distribution of a capped percentage of profits, provided the board has discretion to reduce or