Were regulatory changes in reporting "abnormal items" justified? : evidence of intra-period classificatory earnings management practices in Australia

Purpose Managers generally have discretion in determining how components of earnings are presented in financial statements in distinguishing between ‘normal’ earnings and items classified as unusual, special, significant, exceptional or abnormal. Prior research has found that such intra-period classificatory choice is used as a form of earnings management. Prior to 2001, Australian accounting standards mandated that unusually large items of revenue and expense be classified as ‘abnormal items’ for financial reporting, but this classification was removed from accounting standards from 2001. This move by the regulators was partly in response to concerns that the abnormal classification was being used opportunistically to manage reported pre-abnormal earnings. This study extends the earnings management literature by examining the reporting of abnormal items for evidence of intra-period classificatory earnings management in the unique Australian setting. Design/methodology/approach This study investigates associations between reporting of abnormal items and incentives in the form of analyst following and the earnings benchmarks of analysts’ forecasts, earnings levels, and earnings changes, for a sample of Australian top-500 firms for the seven-year period from 1994 to 2000. Findings The findings suggest there are systematic differences between firms reporting abnormal items and those with no abnormal items. Results show evidence that, on average, firms shifted expense items from pre-abnormal earnings to bottom line net income through reclassification as abnormal losses. Originality/value These findings suggest that the standard setters were justified in removing the ‘abnormal’ classification from the accounting standard. However, it cannot be assumed that all firms acted opportunistically in the classification of items as abnormal. With the removal of the standardised classification of items outside normal operations as ‘abnormal’, firms lost the opportunity to use such disclosures as a signalling device, with the consequential effect of limiting the scope of effectively communicating information about the nature of items presented in financial reports.

Offsetting greenhouse gas emissions through biological carbon sequestration in North Eastern Australia

The Kyoto Protocol recognises trees as a sink of carbon and a valid means to offset greenhouse gas emissions and meet internationally agreed emissions targets. This study details biological carbon sequestration rates for common plantation species Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop pine), Eucalyptus cloeziana, Eucalyptus argophloia, Pinus elliottii and Pinus caribaea var hondurensis and individual land areas required in north-eastern Australia to offset greenhouse gas emissions of 1000tCO 2e. The 3PG simulation model was used to predict above and below-ground estimates of biomass carbon for a range of soil productivity conditions for six representative locations in agricultural regions of north-eastern Australia. The total area required to offset 1000tCO 2e ranges from 1ha of E. cloeziana under high productivity conditions in coastal North Queensland to 45ha of hoop pine in low productivity conditions of inland Central Queensland. These areas must remain planted for a minimum of 30years to meet the offset of 1000tCO 2e.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture

The development of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture (the Statement) centred on requirements for the Master of Architecture and proceeded alongside similar developments in the building and construction discipline under the guidance and support of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design (ADBED). Through their representation of Australian architecture programs, ADBED have provided high-level leadership for the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project in Architecture (LTAS Architecture). The threshold learning outcomes (TLOs), the description of the nature and extent of the discipline, and accompanying notes were developed through wide consultation with the discipline and profession nationally. They have been considered and debated by ADBED on a number of occasions and have, in their fi nal form, been strongly endorsed by the Deans. ADBED formed the core of the Architecture Reference Group (chaired by an ADBED member) that drew together representatives of every peak organisation for the profession and discipline in Australia. The views of the architectural education community and profession have been provided both through individual submissions and the voices of a number of peak bodies. Over two hundred individuals from the practising profession, the academic workforce and the student cohort have worked together to build consensus about the capabilities expected of a graduate of an Australian Master of Architecture degree. It was critical from the outset that the Statement should embrace the wisdom of the greater ‘tribe’, should ensure that graduates of the Australian Master of Architecture were eligible for professional registration and, at the same time, should allow for scope and diversity in the shape of Australian architectural education. A consultation strategy adopted by the Discipline Scholar involved meetings and workshops in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. Stakeholders from all jurisdictions and most universities participated in the early phases of consultation through a series of workshops that concluded late in October 2010. The Draft Architecture Standards Statement was formed from these early meetings and consultation in respect of that document continued through early 2011. This publication represents the outcomes of work to establish an agreed standards statement for the Master of Architecture. Significant further work remains to ensure the alignment of professional accreditation and recognition procedures with emerging regulatory frameworks cascading from the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The Australian architecture community hopes that mechanisms can be found to integrate TEQSA’s quality assurance purpose with well-established and understood systems of professional accreditation to ensure the good standing of Australian architectural education into the future. The work to build renewed and integrated quality assurance processes and to foster the interests of this project will continue, for at least the next eighteen months, under the auspices of Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)-funded Architecture Discipline Network (ADN), led by ADBED and Queensland University of Technology. The Discipline Scholar gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions given by those in stakeholder communities to the formulation of the Statement. Professional and academic colleagues have travelled and gathered to shape the Standards Statement. Debate has been vigorous and spirited and the Statement is rich with the purpose, critical thinking and good judgement of the Australian architectural education community. The commitments made to the processes that have produced this Statement reflect a deep and abiding interest by the constituency in architectural education. This commitment bodes well for the vibrancy and productivity of the emergent Architecture Discipline Network (ADN). Endorsement, in writing, was received from the Australian Institute of Architects National Education Committee (AIA NEC): The National Education Committee (NEC) of the Australian Institute of Architects thank you for your work thus far in developing the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Architecture In particular, we acknowledge your close consultation with the NEC on the project along with a comprehensive cross-section of the professional and academic communities in architecture. The TLOs with the nuanced levels of capacities – to identify, develop, explain, demonstrate etc – are described at an appropriate level to be understood as minimum expectations for a Master of Architecture graduate. The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) has noted: There is a clear correlation between the current processes for accreditation and what may be the procedures in the future following the current review. The requirement of the outcomes as outlined in the draft paper to demonstrate capability is an appropriate way of expressing the measure of whether the learning outcomes have been achieved. The measure of capability as described in the outcome statements is enhanced with explanatory descriptions in the accompanying notes.

R&D investment in green building initiatives in Western Australia

This paper reports on a current case study of green building initiatives implemented by the Western Australian government in the past decade. The intent is to provide a qualitative understanding of past R&D investments in the Australian built environment. The case method was selected to illustrate three sector-based investments, one of which is reported on here. The conceptual framework underpinning interview design and data analysis uses dynamic capability, absorptive capacity and open innovation theories to better understand the organisational environment in which these initiatives were implemented. Data has been thematically coded to criteria identified from the literature to illustrate organisational characteristics which may have contributed to dissemination and impact. The results will be combined with two further case studies (construction safety and digital modelling), to inform this research. This industry supported project will conclude by developing policy guidelines for future R&D investment in the built environment.

Crime in Rural Australia

Contemporary rural crime is more varied and sophisticated than it once was. The new forms range from agricultural crimes, such as the theft of water designated for agricultural production, to environmental crimes such as the illegal dumping of waste. They take place side by side with “traditional” rural crimes such as cattle duffing while “urban” crimes such as drug and alcohol abuse and violent assaults are also prevalent, and on the rise. Crime in Rural Australia covers them all. It brings together leading academics who examine the major dimensions of crime and justice in rural and regional Australia including: •the extent of rural crime •farm crime •violence •juvenile crime •policing •Indigenous crime and justice •crime prevention •drugs •fear of crime, and •sentencing and punishment. It includes vignettes on rural policing and the stock squad from the perspectives of the NSW police. An ideal text for rural crime and criminology courses, Crime in Rural Australia will also be of interest to criminal justice practitioners, policy-makers, and criminology scholars. Three of the editors, Dr Elaine Barclay, Dr John Scott and Associate Professor Russell Hogg, are associated with the Centre for Rural Crime at the University of New England. Professor Joseph F. Donnermeyer is the International Research Co-ordinator for the Rural Crime Centre and is a leading US scholar on rural crime at Ohio State University.