Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Public Sector Accounting: The Debate Continues

Public Sector Accounting: The Debate Continues “incentives” built into the New Zealand Government’s accounting information systems favour the privatisation of activities. The effects of applying business accounting and marketisation reforms on the financial reporting of Australian government departments are examined by Allan Barton, using the Department of Defence as an example. The department is portrayed as a highly profitable, largely self-funded enterprise which sells its services to the government and pays it a substantial dividend. Yet it sells nothing and is dependent on a budget appropriation to fund its activities. Accrual output-based budgeting is intended to promote efficiency in public-sector activities through focusing on outputs and outcomes. This is an integral part of the purchase of services from government departments. However, it requires that outputs and outcomes be measured. Tyrone Carlin has studied attempts by the Victorian government to do so, and concludes that they have failed. Don Challen and Craig Jeffrey highlight the requirement that the commonwealth government is required to report two sets of budget and outcome statements - one based on professional accounting standards and the other on the IMF General Finance Statistics. However, the two sets of reports provide significantly different results, leading to confusion and doubts about the validity of each. Finally, Bob Walker examines an issue which will become increasingly important in Australia as more public/private partnerships (PPPs) are used for major infrastructure projects. In the UK, PPP contracts have been devised to avoid treating the financing arrangements as government debt. Walker argues that this approach is defective and that there can be substantial liabilities involved in PPP contracts. Hopefully, this Forum will provoke further constructive contributions to reforms in public-sector financial management - a benefit to all citizens. Allan Barton. Forum Editor AUSTRALIAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW VOL. 13 NO. 2 2003 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian Accounting Review Wiley

Public Sector Accounting: The Debate Continues

Australian Accounting Review , Volume 13 (30) – Jul 1, 2003
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/public-sector-accounting-the-debate-continues-rTt1AC24OD
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
2003 CPA Australia
ISSN
1035-6908
eISSN
1835-2561
DOI
10.1111/j.1835-2561.2003.tb00392.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

“incentives” built into the New Zealand Government’s accounting information systems favour the privatisation of activities. The effects of applying business accounting and marketisation reforms on the financial reporting of Australian government departments are examined by Allan Barton, using the Department of Defence as an example. The department is portrayed as a highly profitable, largely self-funded enterprise which sells its services to the government and pays it a substantial dividend. Yet it sells nothing and is dependent on a budget appropriation to fund its activities. Accrual output-based budgeting is intended to promote efficiency in public-sector activities through focusing on outputs and outcomes. This is an integral part of the purchase of services from government departments. However, it requires that outputs and outcomes be measured. Tyrone Carlin has studied attempts by the Victorian government to do so, and concludes that they have failed. Don Challen and Craig Jeffrey highlight the requirement that the commonwealth government is required to report two sets of budget and outcome statements - one based on professional accounting standards and the other on the IMF General Finance Statistics. However, the two sets of reports provide significantly different results, leading to confusion and doubts about the validity of each. Finally, Bob Walker examines an issue which will become increasingly important in Australia as more public/private partnerships (PPPs) are used for major infrastructure projects. In the UK, PPP contracts have been devised to avoid treating the financing arrangements as government debt. Walker argues that this approach is defective and that there can be substantial liabilities involved in PPP contracts. Hopefully, this Forum will provoke further constructive contributions to reforms in public-sector financial management - a benefit to all citizens. Allan Barton. Forum Editor AUSTRALIAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW VOL. 13 NO. 2 2003

Journal

Australian Accounting Review – Wiley

Published: Jul 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.