IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/abacus/v37y2001i3p267-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics, Processes and the Future of Australian Accounting Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Brown
  • Ann Tarca

Abstract

The perspective of public interest and interest group theories of regulation is adopted to consider the future of Australian accounting standards following major reforms proposed by the Australian Commonwealth government as part of its 1997 Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (CLERP). Interest groups in the Australian environment are identified. Their lobbying had influenced the initial proposals; and their reactions when the CLERP proposals were published resulted in substantial modifications to the CLERP proposals, which had initially recommendedthat International Accounting Standards (IASs) be adopted as national standards from 1 January 1999. The role of accounting standards and the structure of standard setting are explored. The political nature of standard setting is illustrated through a review of the CLERP proposals, submissions of various interest groups and the government’s responses to them. The central arguments are that key assumptions underlying the CLERP proposals are flawed, and that the CLERP proposals could not achieve the outcomes desired of them. It seems inevitable, however, that international standards eventually will supplant domestic standards. In the longer term, Australian standard setters seem destined to have a diminished role in the international standard setting arena.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Brown & Ann Tarca, 2001. "Politics, Processes and the Future of Australian Accounting Standards," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 37(3), pages 267-296, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:37:y:2001:i:3:p:267-296
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6281.00088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6281.00088
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6281.00088?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saeed Askary & Marc Olynyk, 2006. "Public Interest, Ethics, and the Balanced Scorecard: Implications for the Accounting Profession," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 16(38), pages 51-58, March.
    2. Stewart Jones & Peter W. Wolnizer, 2003. "Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 39(3), pages 375-387, October.
    3. Philip D. Palmer, 2013. "Exploring attitudes to financial reporting in the Australian not-for-profit sector," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 53(1), pages 217-241, March.
    4. Muhammad Shahin Miah & Haiyan Jiang & Asheq Rahman & Warwick Stent, 2023. "The impact of IFRS complexity on analyst forecast properties: The moderating role of high quality audit," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 902-928, January.
    5. Renata Stenka & Peter Taylor, 2010. "Setting UK standards on the concept of control: An analysis of lobbying behaviour," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 109-130.
    6. Stewart Jones & Alison D. Higgins, 2006. "Australia's switch to international financial reporting standards: a perspective from account preparers," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(4), pages 629-652, December.
    7. Parmod Chand & Lorne Cummings, 2008. "The Political and Unstable Nature of the IASB's ‘Stable Platform’: Post-Convergence Australian Experience," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 18(3), pages 175-184, September.
    8. Angela Hecimovic & Nonna Martinov-Bennie & Peter Roebuck, 2009. "The Force of Law: Australian Auditing Standards and Their Impact on the Auditing Profession," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, March.
    9. Stewart Jones & Sheikh F. Rahman & Peter W. Wolnizer, 2004. "Accounting Reform in Australia: Contrasting Cases of Agenda Building," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 40(3), pages 379-404, October.
    10. Steven Dellaportas & P.W. Senarath Yapa & Sivakaran Sivanantham, 2008. "Internationalising auditing standards: stakeholder views on Australia's strategic directions," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(7), pages 663-684, July.
    11. Michael Bradbury & Tony Zijl, 2006. "Due Process and the Adoption of IFRS IN New Zealand," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 16(39), pages 86-94, July.
    12. Philip Brown & Ann Tarca, 2005. "2005 — It's Here, Ready or Not: A Review of the Australian Financial Reporting Framework," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 15(36), pages 68-78, July.
    13. Moy, Melissa & Heaney, Richard & Tarca, Ann & van Zyl, Warrick, 2020. "Conditional accounting conservatism: Exploring the impact of changes in institutional frameworks in four countries," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    14. Millicent Chang & Andrew B. Jackson & Marvin Wee, 2018. "A review of research on regulation changes in the Asia‐Pacific region," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(3), pages 635-667, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:37:y:2001:i:3:p:267-296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0001-3072 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.