Assignment Topic
Evaluate the pronouncements of the Australian professional accounting bodies (e.g. APES110, etc) and regulations (e.g. CLERP 9) that were implemented following the corporate collapses in the early 2000s, then search the literature and develop arguments (supported by appropriate literature), whether the auditor’s role and duties to safeguard the integrity of financial reports have improved through the extensive range of guidelines, standards and regulations. Should the auditors be made liable for accounting misstatements and to what extent should they be made liable? (Consider the business risks and threats to the auditors if they were made liable for accounting misstatements that might prevent them from providing the assurance that is needed). Finally, identify weaknesses (if any) in the current regulations and professional guidelines and make recommendations (s) that may help strengthen them in order to maintain or improve the auditor’s role and duties in safeguarding the integrity of financial reports. (Consider both the strengths and weaknesses of your recommendation(s) and the consequences they may have on the audit environment). It may help to read articles on the impact of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act on the performance of auditors as its pronouncements are more stringent on auditors compared to CLERP 9.
Evaluation of the Australian Professional Accounting Bodies and Regulations.
Introduction.
Auditors play a vital role in enhancing the accuracy and completeness of financial reporting. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the pronouncements of the Australian professional bodies and regulations with respect to auditor's role and responsibilities, as well as liabilities.
Step-by-step explanation
Discussion.
The collapse of the corporates in the early 2000s led to pronouncements of the Australian professional accounting bodies and regulations to emphasize the role and liabilities of auditors in financial reporting. For instance, APES110 was implemented to provide professional obligations and ethical requirements for all the members of professional accounting with respect to key financial principles. More precisely, professional CPAs were required to uphold objectivity, integrity, professional competence and due care, professional behaviour as well as confidentiality in their accounting practice. Additionally, the CLERP 9 was implemented to emphasize the role of audit assurance in the corporates. This act advocated for mandatory audit committees, endorsement of enhanced rules of auditor independence, and incorporation of auditors and moves for proportionate liability.
Prior to the implementation of these guidelines, standards, and regulations in the accounting profession, auditors had become under public scrutiny for failing to protect investors from accounting fraud in major corporations like Enron, Waste Management, and WorldCom. For instance, it was alleged that Arthur Andersen's auditors had colluded with the management of Enron to defraud investors' billions of shillings. Taking everything into account, the implementation of extensive guidelines standards, and regulations have improved the auditor's role and duties to safeguard the integrity of financial reports. Auditors have become more aware of their obligations to their clients, the practice as well as their brand. Moreover, auditors have enhanced quality insurance by acting in the best interest of their clients as well as society.
Typically, auditors should be made liable for accounting misstatements that occur in organizations. However, this liability should be limited to some extent to allow other parties such as the management, the board of directors, and audit committees to cover the liability too. Auditors face several business risks and threats such as familiarity threat, self-review threat, advocacy threat, and intimidation threats that undermine their independence during the provision of audit assurance. Therefore, it would be difficult to navigate such threats if they were made fully liable to audit misstatements in corporations.
Nevertheless, implementation of CLERP 9 to all listed companies fails to consider the size of companies. Audit committees are inapplicable to small companies since their transactions are less complex. Therefore, subjecting all companies to the provisions of CLERP 9 might cause confusion in small entities. I will recommend the current regulations and guidelines to device special clauses that capture guidelines for small companies. Additionally, the current guidelines should focus more on management rather than auditors to make audit practice simple.
References
https://www.theage.com.au/business/clerp-9-avoids-the-pitfalls-20020919-gdulut.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234139819_Audit_Costs_Material_Weaknesses_Under_SOX_Section_404
Answer
Introduction
The essay covers a comprehensive discussion on key pronouncements issued by Australian professional bodies as well as relevant regulations (for example, CLERP 9) enacted in the aftermath of corporate failures in early 2000s. Further, the study analyzes literature and evolves arguments about whether auditor's roles and responsibilities in ensuring integrity of business's financial reports have enhanced as a result of a wide range of guidance, norms, and regulations. The essay also highlights whether auditors should be held liable for financial reporting misstatements and the extent of liability. At last, the essay consists of recommendations that may assist in strengthening them in an attempt to sustain or enhance the auditor's roles and responsibilities in ensuring better integrity of financial reports.
Body of discussions
The APESB evolves as well as issues, in public interest, professional as well as ethics-related pronouncements that relate to Representatives of Professional Bodies, which entail APES 110 Codes-of-Ethics for Professional Accountants (such as relevant Independence Standards), professional norms, and guidelines notes. APESB has released around twenty-one pronouncements, such as APES 110 Ethics code relation Professional Accountants, that contain Australian auditing independence requirements. APES 110 is centered on International Ethics code relating to Professional Accountants released by IESBA and also has force of legislation for auditing and reviews conducted on entities subjected to Corporations Act, 2001. APES 110 has broad scope to resolve the diversified variety of professional operations offered by professional accounting professionals, such as auditing personnel. This is a principles-based standard that establishes a conceptual structure for identifying, assessing, and addressing threats to basic principles (Blackburn, Carey, and Tanewski 2010).
APES 110, on other hand, involves rules as well as prohibitions, especially regarding auditing independence requirements. APESB previously released a reorganized APES 110 Ethic Code for Professional Accountants (such as Independence Norms and Standards), which goes into effect as of 1st Jan. 2020, with initial adoption allowed. The changes ensure that APES 110 adheres to global best practices. The clear differentiation among prerequisites and guiding material is substantial transition. This difference, that is already placed in APESB's certain other pronouncements, would then aid professional financial reporting bodies and legislative regulators in tracking and enforcing APES 110. Because the shifts to the reorganized APES 110 will be implemented soon and the crucial requirements of restructured APES 110 are similar to the existing APES 110, such a proposal will pertain to restructured APES 110 (Blackburn, R., Tanewski and Carey, 2010).
The APESB's some twenty pronouncements cover firm-level benchmarks and also proclamations on a variety of professional solutions, including non-assurance facilities like taxes, appraisal, forensic accounting, illiquidity, financial management, due diligence oversight committees including outsourced services. The consistent improvement of APESB proclamations, notably APES 110, had also resulted in stringent rules governing the services which an auditor could offer to client entities, notably non-assurance services. Latest media comments indicate that certain stakeholders could be unaware of these constraints on supplying non-assurance service facilities to auditing clients, as well as the difference among offering services to any auditing client versus non - auditing client. APESB pursues a transparent as well as stringent due procedure when developing, evaluating, and issuance pronouncements, with a key focus on active participation with a variety of stakeholders, such as other standard-setting, professional accounting professionals, businesses, and regulatory agencies (Choudhury, 2015).
The APESB's procedure signifies worldwide best practitioners and is detailed in Due Process as well as Working Procedures document. Such procedures are comparable to those used by AUASB as well as Australian Accounting Standards Board. Organizations and enterprises are progressively operating worldwide with complicated prerequisites and throughout various regulatory environments, generating market demand for multiple disciplines professional services entities to service such complicated international enterprises. This environment necessitates a unified global strategy for effective professional ethics. Overall, APESB pronouncements are based on a pertinent international standard. One such approach decreases the legislative hardship for international organizations, professional accounting bodies, and companies. To strengthen the pronouncements as well as identify international and national advancements, the APESB conducts regular changes of pronouncements as well as projects pertaining to emerging concerns (Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016).
The stringent requisites in APESB proclamations on the provisions of non-services to auditing clients have restricted the potential for potential conflicts. According to the latest report, Auditing quality in Multidisciplinary Organization, the extent of non-assurance facilities offered to auditing clients isn't a substantial element of a company's total income owing to restrictions imposed by legislation and rules, as well as professional ethical norms. To ensure the efficacy and relevance of pronouncements, APESB follows a stringent and straightforward due procedure that contains counseling sessions with different stakeholders. The following are crucial aspects of procedure: APESB sessions to debate and purposive on pronouncements are accessible to the general populace; APESB meeting ideology documents and meeting outlines are reported on official website; suggested pronouncements or modifications to current pronouncements must go through a public occurrence drafting process; as well as Prior to issuing or revising a public announcement, Board considers all stakeholder feedbacks from public exposures draft process (Carnegie, and O'Connell, 2012). In Australia, regulatory initiatives enacted in the aftermath of corporate failings during early 2000s are acknowledged as CLERP 9 initiatives. Such audit-related initiatives are intended to improve auditor supervision, tracking, and autonomy. The implementation of such CLERP 9 reform proposals throughout 2004 strengthened Australia's regulatory oversight of auditor-client relationships. Corporation Act was amended by CLERP 9 reform proposals, which included a slew of adjustments and fresh regulations aimed at strengthening corporate governance as well as auditing independence throughout Australia.
The CLERP 9 proposed changes encompass general requirements for auditing independence; a precondition that auditors offer managers with annual basis independence declaration; as well as a restriction on a set of particular employment as well as financial connections among independent auditor and client entity. Following the breakdown of Enron as well as Arthur Andersen, fresh "independent" establishments were identified in various jurisdictions to monitor financial statements auditing. Throughout 2004-05, Australian Securities and Investments Commission began its auditing inspection program. Because of the risk of random checking, accountancy firms in area have over-documented their auditor files, resulting in modifications in auditors' work. Other authorities have conducted some research. The requirement for auditing partners turning in CLERP nine was a key component of Australia's audit independence reforms. The transition was primarily criticized because of the costs levied on both audit enterprises and auditing clients (CLERP 9 avoids the pitfalls. 2002).
Tucker and Lowe, (2014), evaluate the Australian encounter with mandatory auditor rotation following CLERP 9. Premised on auditing partner rotation data from 2003 to 2009 (on ordinary 1200 top listed Australian enterprises over sample period), they discovered that auditing partner tenure was at median of two to three years. An interesting finding is that mandatory auditing partner rotation had significant effect on corporate oversight practice for 15percent of overall market. Mandatory rotation has also been noted to have a bigger effect on auditing engagements encompassing non-global auditing enterprises. Such actions contributed to the discussion over costliness of the legislative reforms. In Australia, regulation reforms enacted in the aftermath of organizational failures in early 2000s are known as CLERP 9 policy changes. Such audit-related initiatives are intended to improve auditor supervision, tracking, as well as independence. Before Federal Government implemented CLERP 9 reforms, accounting profession had opportunity to examine as well as consult on such reports. Australian Federal-Treasury lately announced a report titled ‘Auditing Quality in Australia: Strategic Review' in Mar. 2010, highlighting its belief that Australia's auditing regulation structure is rigorous and reliable, is a crucial driver of auditing quality, as well as in line with global ideal exercise. Moreover, in last seven years, Australia has also seen no substantial reform efforts or evaluations of auditing regulations or procedures, while other countries have seen significant reforms that Australia has still yet to recognize (De Lange, and Watty, 2011).
The APESB's major pronouncements pertain to representatives of Australia's 3 key professional financial reporting bodies (CPA Australian (CPAA), CPAs Australia, CA ANZ, and Institute of the Public Accountants. It is a distinctive structure in the world, with a solitary National Standard Setter issuing professional as well as ethical norms for 3 professional financial reporting bodies. The independence of APESB is enshrined in its federal constitution through three main metrics. To initiate, APESB Chairman should have public interests focus as well as cannot be an independent accountant or member of professional accounting body. Other APESB executives elect the Chairman. Furthermore, whereas every professional accounting body may appoint 2 Non-Executive BOD, they aren't legislators of professional accounting bodies as well as must respond autonomously of professional accounting bodies throughout contributions to Board's negotiations (Yap, Ryan, and Yong, 2014). Accounting professionals must adhere to strict professional as well as moral standards. A potent structure of professional as well as ethical guidelines aids accountants (such as auditing) in acknowledging ethical concerns as they emerge, and when conformed to, sets up rigorous professional behaviour as well as contribute significantly to financial business confidence. Australia's skilled and ethical norms are among best in the world. Throughout its existing members in International Federation of the Accountants (IFAC) and involvement in standard-setting operations of the Global Ethics Standards Panel for Accountants, the Australian accounting practitioner is a moving force in global advancement of professional as well as ethical norms. Throughout its participation in IESBA National Standard Setters group, APESB as well performs a significant part in improving the Global Ethical code.
APESB has actively been implicated in supplying jurisdictional insight to global standard development procedures since its inception in year 2009. Furthermore, in Australia, APESB has established a set of professional ethical norms applicable to accountancy firms and multiple professional services which are recreated in only jurisdictions around the globe. Only the US has a comparable set of professional norms that discuss quality controls requirements at the company level and also a variety of professional offerings. Australian accountancy profession operates in co-regulatory environment that includes APESB, other standard fixers such as AUASB as well as AASB, three Australian professional auditing bodies, and relevant legislative authorities such as Australian Securities as well as Investments Commission (The need for Legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley for IT governance: An Australia perspective. 2007).
The APESB's involvement as independent standards settler is to establish professional as well as moral standards for professional accountants, such as auditors. The APESB's requirement excludes tracking and regulatory oversight. The three expert financial reporting bodies as well as legislative authorities are in charge of tracking and imposing adherence of accounting professionals, such as disciplinary acts for APESB standards violations. APESB collaborates with quality reviews departments of professional financial reporting bodies as well as regulatory agencies to ascertain whether APESB norms are being followed in exercise and if additional improvements are needed to confront specific problems. The APESB works with regulatory agencies such as ASIC, APRA, as well as ATO for developing solutions to regulatory issues about professional ethical behaviors of accounting professionals.
This collaborative attempt culminated in the advancement of the meaning of PIEs as in terms of auditors' independence prerequisites, the implementation of restrictions on the usages of internal auditing work through independent auditors, the clarification of the strategy for companies when interacting with key APES 110 breaches which must be disclosed to ASIC, clarification of independence concerns in regards to taxation solutions, as well as the addition of These cooperative initiatives aid regulators and oversight authorities in their surveillance and enforcement duties. When an independent auditor delivers both assurance and consulting solutions to clients at the similar time, conflicts may emerge. So, APES 110 Ethics codes for Professional Accountants (such as Independence related Standards) (APES 110) includes particular provisions to resolve circumstances in which an auditor wishes to and being sought to offer other facilities to client entity, whether consulting or some other non-assurance assistance (Guthrie, Burritt, and Evans, 2011). APES-110 act as principles-based set of guidelines with an underpinning conceptual structure that allows students to utilize professional judgment when dealing with professional/ethical concerns. APES 110 expands on the core principles as well as conceptual structure to enforce additional protections or restrictions based on the mix of services supplied or the circumstances confronting the professional accountants. APES 110 grows increasingly prescriptive when the probability of concentrations of interest increases or challenges to basic values are established. When assessing whether services could be offered to an auditing client and whether they would cause conflicting interests, auditors must evaluate the several levels of professional ethical standards that apply.
Primality the BOD, as well as management, have main responsibility for fraud control and detection, fault cannot be put simply or exclusively on the auditor. Just if deficiencies in auditor's audit culminated in the inability to discover the fraud could auditor be held responsible. In some instances, the auditor must be held responsible if fraud has been committed within the timeframe encompassed by the auditor's report on organisation's financial accounts and wasn't identified before the auditing report was signed. However, this would be unreasonable to hold the auditor absolutely responsible. It will mostly rely on whether the inability to uncover fraud was attributable to flaws in the auditor's performance. The job of the auditor is to determine if the financial account itself is material misrepresentation free, whether owing to fraud/error. The ASs offers the legislative criteria for conducting auditing, which is meant to offer fair but not definitive confidence that financial report is free of frauds and mistakes. The amplitude of any sort of fraud, if there really were collusions, as well as the sophistication of concealment will all have a substantial effect on whether or not the auditing procedures will detect that fraud (Willcoxson, Wynder and Laing, 2010).
If an individual to whom any accountant owes a responsibility of care incurred damage as a consequence of the accountant's carelessness, the accounting may be held responsible for negligence act not only in agreement but also in litigation. An accountant nearly always has a responsibility of reasonable caring to his/her client, though that obligation is almost usually coextensive with his/her contractual responsibility. In reality, the prospect of tortious liability would be significant primarily in the case of third-party claims. Liability arises when working in the question of a type where any other third party may reasonably rely upon just that person's specific objective.
If these requirements are met, 3rd party is a person who, according to the legislation, the professional should bear in mind when using his/her talents to the task at hand. Before doing specific tasks, an accountant could be notified that the outcomes would be relied on by a 3rd party. A review of the client's organization that the accounting personnel has been directed to produce for the aim of showing to a possible acquirer or lender of that enterprise is an instance probably to be experienced in practice. In such kind of scenario, an accountant should presume that he/she would be obligated to the identical obligation to the 3rd party whatsoever about the client. Even though the auditor isn't expressly told that the third party will be relying on the outcomes of his/her work, the auditor should assess whether it is probable. Where an accountant is aware of the objective of the job and the name of third party to whom such information produced/reported would be revealed, he/she may be considered liable to that 3rd party (Rahman, 2013).
Participation in the preparation of managerial accounting or forecasts for presenting to banks in favour of a credit application is an instance of this situation. According to AUS 202 which deals with Objectives and Common Principles Regulating a Financial Report's audit, the goal of a review of the financial statement is to allow the audit team to convey a comment on whether financial reports are prepared in all of the material respects in conformance with identified financial reporting structure. AUS-compliant audits are intended to offer reasonable confidence that the financial reports as a whole are clear of significant misstatement, regardless induced by frauds/errors. The premise that auditing is conducted may serve as a deterrence, however, the auditor isn't really and not be considered accountable for preventing fraud and mistakes.
Auditors are presently subject to unlimited liabilities for professional misconduct. After the mid-1980s, professions as well as Commonwealth, Regional, and Territorial authorities have been debating the subject of accountants' (as well as other professional associations') professional responsibility. In proposals to Senate Economics Reference Panel in relation with Senate Committee's investigation into Public Responsibility as well as Professional Indemnity Health coverage since May 2002, 2 significant professional financial reporting bodies in Australia, CPAA as well as ICAA, affirmed the profession's continuing concerns regarding the requirement for reforming in this area (Parker, Guthrie and Linacre, 2011).
A series of big accounting organizations have also emphasized the requirement to reform the current infinite liability framework in their contributions to Ramsay's study of auditors ' independence. That problem was brought up in the framework of increasing the auditing function's efficiency by broadening the purview of the auditing and the auditor's report. This has been proposed that expanding the independent auditors' report to remark on other important topics like governance, risk mitigation, and internal controls, as well as crucial indications of the corporation's financial sustainability, will be a substantial progression incorporate transparency, However, the accountancy firms genuinely believed that such extension in the purview of auditing would be inconceivable for independent auditors to envisage in the framework of the existing limitless liability framework. Professional indemnification insurance has long been used by auditors as well as other professional bodies to cope with their infinite liability risk for professional defaults. Insurance is quite essential in the entire Australian economy. This establishes a framework for shifting and sharing the risks of financial losses to organizations with the necessary ability to control the risks (Hossain, 2013).
Professional indemnification insurance protects against losses resulting from the covered professional's services. Auditing liability is becoming increasingly problematic, not just in respect of auditing quality as well as profession's credibility, but simply in respect of the costs to the sector as well as the impediments to competitiveness within the current marketplace. The auditors are responsible for any material misstatements in the client entity's financial statements made by their client. The danger of frauds and significant misrepresentation in accounting records is usually present. This requires auditors need to be effectively competent and also to strictly adhere to all auditing as well as accountancy rules. The auditor that executes his responsibilities insignificantly may risk legal action from the firm, its stakeholders, or even lenders who rely on the function of auditors. They may be held liable for financial losses incurred by the organization as a consequence of misleading reporting of the corporation's accounts. As a result, the auditors get professional indemnity insurance (Houghton, Kend and Jubb, 2013).
Auditors may be charged with both criminal acts/charges and civil misconduct. Criminal liabilities emerge when an entity violates a statute or regulatory provision. Conflicts between people and/or businesses, on another side, constitute civil responsibility. Auditors are liable to the rules and legislation of the jurisdiction or nations in which they practice. They too have constrained the appropriate ethics imposed by auditing bodies. Under criminal laws, auditors could be punished for activities like fraud and insider dealing. The auditing is governed by law centred on the nation's Corporations Act.
This Act covers provisions on auditor credentials, how they may be hired, and what their duties would've been. According to the basic law, auditors could be punished in criminal courts for giving an incorrect auditing opinion intentionally or carelessly. Contract law holds parties liable for the violation of contractual commitments. That means the firm may only pursue redress from accountants in accordance with the provisions of the appointment contract. As a result, the shareholders have the right to sue auditors straight under the provisions of the contract of engagement if they fail to conduct the job with appropriate care (Kuan, 2014).
Key weaknesses in the current regulations, as well as professional guidelines, involves lesser controls over providing non-auditing services to clients, auditing partners and team members move to the client or audited entity, auditors’ relation with the client, independence of the auditor, Auditors’ removal by client entity, etc. These are critical weaknesses in current regulations and auditing guidelines.
Based on the preceding debate, it has been recommended that FRC should oversee an official review of the overall effectiveness of reporting-based requirements under relevant Australian Standards for the prevention as well as identification of frauds and malfeasance, as well as assessing a corporation's economic feasibility as going concerned, stating that disagreement still persists concerning what auditors actually required to deliver under a statutory provision.
Regulatory bodies shall develop and sustain an effective internal controls structure for efficient financial reporting, with a stipulation that the enterprise's management review and reporting on the efficacy of its internal controls system on a yearly basis. Also, it is recommended that external auditors should provide a report concerning the entity's evaluation of the business's internal controls structure.
In light of the present economic constraints caused by the COVID epidemic, it has been recommended that the Committee implementation should be accompanied by transitional cost to organizations, and that government should examine a suitable timeframe for adoption, and also the introduction of benchmarks. The AASB must proceed to press the International AS Board to conduct a comprehensive review of standards governing assets impairment, as well as that whereas there're risks in instituting potentially significant adjustments throughout a global recession, the procedure should ultimately proceed with adequate implementation timelines in consideration (Clout, Chapple and Gandhi, 2013).
Furthermore, the government should conduct a study to determine and address any remaining impediments to the adoption of digitized financial statements, with the goal of having digital financial reporting standard procedure throughout Australia in coming years. Machine-readable FS enables auditing firms, authorities, financial market experts, including academics to undertake quick and reliable analyses. Moreover, the FRC should modify Australian standards as well as norms to necessitate disclosures of information about an enterprise's external auditor term, such as the span of tenure as well as the primary audit partner, asserting that this is a lower-cost and simplistic regulatory transition that will have a significant impact on stakeholders’ perceptions of the auditing procedure (Audit Costs, Material Weaknesses Under SOX Section 404. 2007).
Furthermore, it has been recommended that a mandating tendering regime should be established under the preview of corporations Act, such that enterprises needed to possess financial reports external auditors under said Act, conduct specific public tender procedure every 10 years; or if they choose not to initiate a tender procedure, must expose their causes for not conducting a tender procedure to company's shareholders. The specified timeframe is primarily a recommendation intended to find a balance among adequate stakeholders reporting as well as autonomy with commercial elements of enterprise operation, with the understanding that auditors' familiarity with an organization over the period can relate to increased efficiency within the auditing process, resulting in lesser auditing costs. Despite the fact that the Committee said those audit procedures that stay in force for several decades obviously erode stakeholder trust in the structure as a whole as well as that boards shouldn't setup and remember auditing arrangements. Given the prevailing economic environment as a direct consequence of COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee should review the preliminary guidance in relation to regime would initiate in 2022 as well as recommend the Government to take into account an adequate timeframe for implementation, including the possibility of staggering execution to let boards adequate timespan to respond to latest processes (Pan and Perera, 2012).
Conclusion
From the above discussion this has been articulated that Usually, auditors or auditing firms should be held accountable for accounting errors that arise in enterprises. This responsibility, though, should be restricted to some level so that other parties, like administration, the executive board, and auditing committees, can also cover relevant liabilities. Auditors confront a variety of corporate risks and concerns, including familiarity vulnerabilities, self-review risks, advocating risks, and intimidating threats, all of which compromise their independence while providing audit assurance. As a result, navigating such risks would be challenging if they are deemed entirely responsible for auditing misstatements in businesses. However, the application of CLERP 9 provisions to every publicly traded firm fails to take into account the scale of the corporations. Auditing committees are ineffective for small businesses because transactions are less complicated. As a result, subjecting all businesses to the rules of CLERP9 may generate uncertainty among small businesses. It has been suggested here that the present legislation and recommendations be amended to include particular sections that include instructions for small businesses. Furthermore, in order to simplify auditing practice, present rules should place a greater emphasis on managers instead of auditors.
References
Books and Journals:
Blackburn, R., Tanewski, G. and Carey, P., 2010. Advice seeking strategies: entrepreneurs' and accountants' perspectives.
Blackburn, R.A., Carey, P. and Tanewski, G., 2010, February. The role of trust, relationships and professional ethics in the supply of external business advice by accountants to SMEs. In Australian Centre for Financial Studies-Finsia Banking and Finance Conference.
Carnegie, G.D. and O'Connell, B.T., 2012. Understanding the responses of professional accounting bodies to crises: The case of the Australian profession in the 1960s. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Choudhury Lema, A., 2015. Internal audit: corporate governance issues impacting its existence in ASX listed firms and its influence on earnings management (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University).
Clout, V.J., Chapple, L. and Gandhi, N., 2013. The impact of auditor independence regulations on established and emerging firms. Accounting Research Journal.
De Lange, P. and Watty, K., 2011. Accounting education at a crossroad in 2010 and challenges facing accounting education in Australia. Accounting Education, 20(6), pp.625-630.
Guthrie, J., Burritt, R. and Evans, E., 2011. The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice. Academic Leadership Series, 2, pp.9-20.
Hossain, S., 2013. Effect of regulatory changes on auditor independence and audit quality. International Journal of Auditing, 17(3), pp.246-264.
Houghton, K.A., Kend, M. and Jubb, C., 2013. The CLERP 9 audit reforms: Benefits and costs through the eyes of regulators, standard setters and audit service suppliers. Abacus, 49(2), pp.139-160.
Kuan, K.T.C., 2014. Auditor independence: an analysis of the adequacy of selected provisions in CLERP 9 (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).
Pan, P. and Perera, H., 2012, June. Market relevance of university accounting programs: Evidence from Australia. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 91-108). No longer published by Elsevier.
Parker, L.D., Guthrie, J. and Linacre, S., 2011. The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Rahman, A., 2013. The Australian Accounting Standards Review Board (RLE Accounting): The Establishment of its Participative Review Process. Routledge.
Tucker, B.P. and Lowe, A.D., 2014. Practitioners are from Mars; academics are from Venus? An investigation of the research-practice gap in management accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Tucker, B.P. and Schaltegger, S., 2016. Comparing the research-practice gap in management accounting: A view from professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Willcoxson, L., Wynder, M. and Laing, G.K., 2010. A whole-of-program approach to the development of generic and professional skills in a university accounting program. Accounting Education: an international journal, 19(1-2), pp.65-91.
Yap, C., Ryan, S. and Yong, J., 2014. Challenges facing professional accounting education in a commercialised education sector. Accounting Education, 23(6), pp.562-581.
Online:
Audit Costs, Material Weaknesses Under SOX Section 404. 2007. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234139819_Audit_Costs_Material_Weaknesses_Under_SOX_Section_404>
CLERP 9 avoids the pitfalls. 2002. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.theage.com.au/business/clerp-9-avoids-the-pitfalls-20020919-gdulut.html>
The need for Legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley for IT governance: An Australia perspective. 2007. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230788641_The_need_for_Legislation_like_Sarbanes-Oxley_for_IT_governance_An_Australia_perspective>
