Search results

Recently the inclusion of land under roads as an asset in financial reports by Australian local governments has led to several concerns arising from dissatisfaction with certain elements of the new accounting standards and concepts, particularly, the Australian Accounting Standard AAS 27 “Financial Reporting by Local Governments” and the Standard Accounting Concepts SAC 4 “Definition and Recognition of the Elements of Financial Statements.” These concerns have also meant that most local governments are opposing the recognition of land under roads as an asset for financial reporting purposes. With the inclusion of land under roads dominating the asset element of financial reports, the relevance and reliability of valuation of land under roads needs to be examined. Using an Australian case, this paper examines whether this information provides greater relevance and reliability to users. The paper suggests that, as lands under roads do not affect the Council’s economic position and this information has no value to the users of the information, there is no point in increasing the council’s financial reporting costs.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions: What are the theoretical and practical antecedents for recognising land under roads (LUR) as an asset in local government financial reports? Why was the process of regulating this aspect of accounting practice so protracted and so controversial?

The method used a critical analytical review and synthesis of relevant literature.

This study rejects the recognition of LUR, and suggests that the requirements to account for LUR should be withdrawn immediately. Regardless of the way that the debate has evolved as to the need or otherwise to value LUR or the methodology to be adopted, until the issue of a consistent, standards-based data set is addressed, there is unlikely to be a unified useful outcome.

The study’s findings provided opportunity to reach an overall conclusion and make policy recommendations regarding the saga of accounting for LUR by Australian local governments. However, the ability to generalise beyond Australia to other countries would need to be tested by additional research.

The study’s findings provided assessment of the impact of valuing LUR on financial reporting by local governments and suggested policy recommendations.

This study provided an understanding of Australian local governments’ accounting choices in regard to the valuation of LUR and documented the history of early adoption of valuation of LUR by local governments.

The literature on the public sector and accrual accounting is extensive and varied. However, there have been only isolated studies on the specific issue of LUR (Barton, 1999a, 1999b; Hoque, 2004; Rowles et al., 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999). This study adds to the few isolated studies on the specific issue of accounting for LUR. Originality/value – This study provided policymakers with rich information about accounting for LUR and, it should have the capacity to impact on the future policy directions and recommendations.

The paper addresses the question of whether Crown land managed by local authorities in the New South Wales (NSW) local government system should be recognised as assets on municipal balance sheets.

The paper provides a synoptic review of the literature on accounting for public goods assets followed by a critical analysis of the official requirements of the NSW government on the recognition of Crown land.

The NSW government holds that Crown land managed by local councils should be recognised as an asset on council books. However, following an assessment of the problem through the analytical prism of financial accounting, it is argued that councils do not possess control over Crown land and that such land should thus not be recognised by councils.

The paper covers the legal and accounting framework applicable to NSW local government. However, it has broader implications for other local government systems with similar institutional and legislative foundations, such as other Australian states, New Zealand and South Africa, and these implications are highlighted in the paper.

It is argued that NSW government policymakers should re-consider the requirement for Crown land to be recognised on councils' books. Local authorities would then be able to save money and time on external auditing, management of land asset registers and the mandatory valuation of land.

Although Crown land shares some of the characteristics of other public good assets, unique accounting challenges arise due to the existence of a market in which such land could be traded not by councils, but by its legal owner (the Crown). In financial accounting, legal ownership is not considered as the main criterion over assets. However, the authors argue that for Crown land vested with councils, it becomes a critical factor in decision making.

In recent years in Australia, accounting regulations have been developed that require the adoption of commercial accounting and reporting practices by public‐sector organisations, including the recognition of cultural, heritage and scientific collections as assets by non‐profit cultural organisations. The regulations inappropriately apply traditional accounting concepts of accountability and performance, notwithstanding that the primary objectives of many of the organisations affected are not financial. This study examines how this was able to occur within the ideas outlined in Douglas’s (1986) How Institutions Think. The study provides evidence to demonstrate that the development; promotion, and defense of the detailed accounting regulations were each constrained by institutional thinking and, as a result, only certain questions were asked and many problems and issues associated with the regulations were not addressed. Thus, it seeks to further our understanding of the nature and limits of change in accounting and the role of institutions in promoting and defending changes to accounting practice.

Examines a practical problem that arises in the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) valuation of specialised property assets, particularly those owned by Central Government and the National Health Service which are subject to capital charging. The DRC approach values the site on a market basis and the building on a cost basis, adjusted for obsolescence, and aggregates the two elements. The literature and most practitioners having tended to focus on the problems of the cost elements, aims to look more closely at the problems relating to the site valuation. Different approaches significantly affect the value and can also react perversely with other strands of Government policy. While the main focus here is on Central Government property assets, these throw into sharp focus issues which are of wider interest.

In recent years, accrual accounting has become increasingly popular in many governments. Yet some questions remain unresolved. Previous literature questioned whether all governmental assets should be capitalized. Whereas those studies mostly focussed separately on a limited number of assets, such as infrastructure, military assets or heritage assets, the purpose of this paper is to expand these views by taking a holistic approach to their treatment.

The paper is based on a literature review combined with archival data, being the IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting Standards).

The analysis distinguishes between the business and government sectors of the economy and argues that business accounting for assets cannot be applied to the public sector without significant modification. Secondly, within the public sector, it is argued that “businesslike assets” (such as normal buildings and equipment) should be distinguished from “specific governmental assets” (such as art galleries), where the latter should be reported off balance sheet as community assets held in trust by governments for community enjoyment.

The current paper presents a solution for recognizing capital assets in different situations.

The paper reveals some basic differences in points of view between the governmental dimension versus a businesslike dimension in considering capital assets.

Faced by increased globalization, the dissatisfaction of Australian citizens, and a curtailing of spending, the Australian Government has embarked on a major reform agenda centered on new public management ideals to achieve greater economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. A major driver of reform in all levels of government has been the introduction of the national competition policy. Describes the recent developments in Australian public sector and discusses reform implications for accounting, accountability and performance in Queensland local governments. Suggests that accounting plays a significant role in promoting accountability, efficiency and effectiveness of public sector services.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of public sector accounting in implementing neoliberal reforms.

The proposition that the adoption and development of accrual accounting in the public sector is a technical development intended to improve transparency and accountability is investigated. The paper compares the development and use of accrual accounting in public sector financial management reforms in the UK and New Zealand.

The findings in this paper suggest that in both countries, accrual accounting, as developed, also provides a means to reduce the government's role to that of procurer of services and enforcer of rules set by others, thus advancing a controversial privatisation and trade liberalisation agenda which is consistent with neo‐liberal principles.

The paper shows that in contrast to more usual claims about the need for accrual accounting to provide a “read across between the sectors” or that public interest motives assure the neutrality of accounting, seemingly technical accrual accounting developments seem to function as a political tool to aid a controversial political agenda. There is a need to look at the overall effect of public sector financial management reforms and the role of, and implications for, accounting standard‐setters.

The information in the paper applies to accounting the new political economics literature on agenda control and information based structures where control is achieved through information asymmetries.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the circumstances and implications of an episode of accounting change arising from the extended use of accrual accounting within the Australian public sector. The matter under scrutiny is the reporting of the library collections of Australia's public universities as assets in general purpose financial reports.

A survey is undertaken of the annual reports of Australia's 36 public universities for the period 2002 to 2006. The analysis of the findings is informed by new institutional sociology (NIS), with a focus on mimetic processes, and the concept of “accounting's margins”.

The survey reveals considerable diversity and subjectivity in the accounting practices adopted, as well as instances of sudden and dramatic changes in carrying values. The financial reporting of library collections is depicted as a “chaotic margin” of accounting, and the technical propriety of attempting to express and account for these non‐financial resources in financial terms is rendered problematic.

The study questions the reliability and usefulness of the information reported, with implications for the accountability of the institutions surveyed as well as the accounting profession in the comparatively neglected domain of the public sector.