Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 3
Bodies established under Part 12 of the ASIC Act
3.1
This chapter considers the 2012–13 annual reports of the:
- Financial Reporting Council (FRC);
-
Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB); and
-
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB).
Financial reporting framework
3.2
Part 12 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act
2001 (the ASIC Act) establishes Australia's financial reporting system. As
outlined in section 224 of the ASIC Act, the objectives of the financial
reporting system include:
- facilitating the Australian economy;
-
maintaining investor confidence in the Australian economy;
-
developing accounting standards that require the provision of
information that is relevant, reliable, easy to understand, allows investors to
make and evaluate financial decisions, and assists directors to fulfil their
statutory financial reporting obligations; and
-
developing auditing and assurance standards that provide
Australian auditors relevant and comprehensive guidance in determining whether
financial reports comply with statutory requirements, and require auditors'
reports to be reliable and capable of being readily understood by investors.[1]
3.3
Three agencies are established under Part 12 of the ASIC Act as the
administrative arms of the financial reporting system; namely, the FRC, the
AASB and the AUASB. All three bodies are required to advance and promote the
object of Part 12 of the ASIC Act.[2]
The FRC annual report is required to include an analysis of its achievements against
the objects of the financial reporting system.[3]
The Chairs of AASB and AUASB must, as soon as practicable after the end of each
financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the
Parliament, reports of the operations of the AASB, the AUASB and their
respective offices.[4]
3.4
ASIC is also involved in the administration of the financial reporting system.
ASIC's role in oversighting auditor independence has been significantly increased
with the new division 5A in the ASIC Act, which covers 'Audit deficiency
notifications and reports'.[5]
During the 2012–13 financial year, ASIC inspected one Australian audit firm
jointly with the United States Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.[6]
The committee examines the annual reports prepared by ASIC as part of the
committee's ongoing oversight of ASIC. Therefore, the ASIC annual report is not
examined further in this report.
Coordination between the FRC, the
AASB and the AUASB
3.5
The ASIC Act requires interaction between the FRC, the AASB and the
AUASB. Accordingly, FRC's specific accounting standards functions and specific
auditing standards functions also include oversight of certain activities of
the AASB and the AUASB. The FRC is required to:
- appoint members of the AASB and the AUASB, other than the Chair;
-
determine the broad strategic direction of the AASB and AUASB;
-
advise the AASB and the AUASB on the Boards' priorities, business
plans and procedures;
-
monitor the effectiveness of the Boards' consultative
arrangements; and
-
advise the Office of the AASB and the Office of the AUASB on the
Offices' budgets and staffing arrangements.[7]
3.6
The FRC held a number of meetings and provided feedback on the strategic
plans developed by the AASB and the AUASB. The FRC indicated that it was very pleased
with the finalised plans, suggesting that the AASB and the AUASB had regard to
the FRC's advice as required under Part 12 of the ASIC Act.[8]
The ASIC Act also sets out restrictions on the FRC's oversight of the AASB and
the AUASB:
The FRC does not have power to direct the AASB in relation to
the development, or making, of a particular standard.
The FRC does not have power to veto a standard made,
formulated or recommended by the AASB.
The FRC
does not have power to direct the AUASB in relation to the development, or
making, of a particular auditing standard.
The FRC
does not have power to veto a standard made, formulated or
recommended by the AUASB.[9]
3.7
In addition to the oversight provided by the FRC, the interaction
between the AASB and AUASB occurs through administrative arrangements. The AASB
and AUASB operate according to a shared service agreement under which seven of
the AASB's eight administrative staff work concurrently for the AUASB.[10] The Financial Reporting Council
Changes to the FRC's role
3.8
The FRC was established in 1989 and operates pursuant to Part 12
of the ASIC Act 2001.[11]
On 27 June 2012 the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Audit Enhancement)
Act 2012 repealed the FRC's auditor independence functions and related
reporting requirements. Instead, the FRC now has a strategic policy role of
advising the Minister while ASIC assumes the responsibility of monitoring
auditor independence as noted above.[12]
The changes are intended to streamline the monitoring of auditor independence
and clarify the FRC's role to provide strategic policy advice.[13]
Therefore, as part of the financial reporting system, the FRC's role in the
operation of Australia's corporations law includes:
- providing broad oversight of the processes for setting accounting
standards and auditing standards in Australia; and
-
advising the Minister on these matters.[14]
3.9
The ASIC Act also confers on the FRC 'specific accounting standards
functions' and 'specific auditing standards functions'. The Corporations
Legislation Amendment (Audit Enhancement) Act 2012 added provisions
conferring 'specific auditor quality functions' on the FRC.[15]
As part of its new strategic role on audit quality the FRC Audit Quality
Taskforce has been reconstituted as the Audit Quality Committee:
The Audit Quality Committee is tasked with assisting the FRC
through facilitating engagement with stakeholder bodies, reviewing
international developments related to audit quality and providing input on the
strategic advice provided to the Minister.[16]
3.10
The FRC's specific auditor quality functions direct the FRC to give the
Minister strategic policy advice and reports on the quality of audits conducted
by Australian auditors. In undertaking this function, the FRC is to advise the
Minister on:
- systems and processes used by Australian auditors and
professional accounting bodies in oversighting auditors;
-
the procedures and outcomes of reviews;
-
investigations and disciplinary procedures applied to Australian
auditors;
-
the adequacy of audit legislation;
-
standard and codes of conduct; and
-
the teaching of professional and business ethics.[17]
3.11
The FRC noted in its annual report that the report for the year ending
30 June 2013 is the first opportunity for the FRC to provide
strategic advice on audit quality.[18]
The annual report includes a chapter on audit quality, which covers stakeholder
engagement, international developments and several audit quality review
programs.[19]
The FRC developed a working definition of the term ‘audit quality’ for
consideration by international standard bodies. This definition is set out
below:
...the likelihood of the audit achieving the fundamental
objective of the audit which is to obtain reasonable assurance that material
misstatements in the overall financial report are detected, and addressed or
communicated to relevant stakeholders.[20]
3.12
The FRC's annual report notes ASIC's disappointment with the results of
the ASIC Audit Inspection Program Report 2011–12.[21]
The key findings of the inspection included the following:
We have identified three broad areas requiring improvement by
audit firms:
- the sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence
obtained by the auditor;
- the level of professional scepticism exercised by auditors;
and
- the extent of reliance that can be placed on the work of
other auditors and experts.
We found that, in 18% of the 602 key audit areas reviewed by
us across 117 audit files over firms of all sizes, auditors did not obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence, exercise sufficient professional
scepticism, or otherwise comply with auditing standards in at least one
significant audit area.
While the financial reports audited may not have been materially
misstated, in these instances, the auditor had not obtained reasonable
assurance that the financial report as a whole was free of material
misstatement.[22]
3.13
The committee considered the audit quality results in some detail in its
May 2012 ASIC oversight report.[23]
Therefore, the committee will not cover the matter further in this report but
will continue to monitor developments on audit quality.
3.14
The FRC's specific accounting standards functions and the specific
auditing standards functions recognise the position of Australia's financial
system within the international economy.[24]
The functions also reflect the object in section 224 of the ASIC Act which
is 'facilitating the Australian economy by enabling Australian entities to
compete effectively overseas'.[25]
Accordingly, the FRC is required to:
- monitor developments in international accounting standards and
auditing standards;
-
further the development of a single set of accounting standards
and auditing standards for world-wide use; and
-
promote the continued adoption of international best practice
accounting standards and auditing standards if doing so would be in the best
interests of the private and public sectors of the Australian economy.[26]
3.15
As detailed in the 2012–13 annual report, the FRC's view of its purpose
and functions reflects its statutory responsibilities:
Under Part 12 of the ASIC Act one of the FRC’s functions is
to provide broad oversight of the processes for setting accounting and auditing
standards in Australia and to give the Minister reports and advice about these
processes. Specific accounting and auditing standard setting functions for
which the FRC was responsible in 2012–13 are contained in subsections 225(2)
and (2A) of the ASIC Act. The activities of the FRC in executing these
functions and responsibilities can be grouped as follows:
- activities
in relation to the standard setting boards in Australia;
- activities
in relation to developments in Australia; and
- activities
in relation to international developments.[27]
Annual report of the FRC
3.16
This section covers the FRC's annual report, including the strategic
plan, and FRC work on managing complexity in financial reporting and financial
literacy of directors.
FRC Strategic plan
3.17
The FRC reviewed its 2011–2014 Strategic Plan in light of the changes to
its role. The new FRC Strategic Plan indicates that:
In summary, its functions are to provide broad oversight of
the processes for setting accounting and auditing standards for the public and
private sectors, to provide strategic advice on the quality of audits conducted
by Australian auditors, and to advise the Minister, and in some areas the
professional accounting bodies, on these and related matters to the extent that
they affect the financial reporting system in Australia.[28]
3.18
The Strategic Plan includes a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats (SWOT) analysis of Australia's financial reporting framework. Identified
weakness in, and threats to, Australia's financial reporting system shown in
Table 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Extract from FRC's analysis of the financial
reporting framework
SWOT analysis – Financial Reporting Framework
|
Weaknesses
|
Threats
|
Complexity
and length of financial reports, due to a variety of reasons including extensive
disclosure requirements.
|
The
momentum made towards having a single set of international standards may be
reduced if the US decides not to join the international movement.
|
The
level of financial literacy among many company directors and investors may
not be sufficient to understand the complexity of current financial reports.
|
Concerns
arising from perceived audit failures during the GFC (especially in the EU)
and the trend towards uniform regulation internationally could lead to
inappropriate regulation of the audit profession globally.
|
The
outcome of the financial reporting system may not be appropriately serving
the diverse needs of investors and other stakeholders.
|
As
financial reporting develops further around the world, Australia’s influence could
be diluted.
|
Australia
and New Zealand have often needed to develop public sector and not-for-profit
reporting without much international context as few countries have devoted
the resources to these areas.
|
Additional
reporting requirements being advocated that could increase the complexity of
financial reports and decrease their perceived usability by stakeholders
generally.
|
Source: FRC Annual report:
2012–13, pp 41–42.
3.19
The committee considers the SWOT analysis to be a useful tool and notes
that the list of weaknesses and threats has changed significantly since the
previous annual report. The committee sought additional information from the
FRC on why the weaknesses and threats have changed. The FRC responded with the
following information:
1. Weaknesses
Three of the four weaknesses in the 2011-2012 are repeated in
2012-2013, albeit with some slight differences in wording reflecting more
specific observations and/or the work of the FRC in 2012-2013 in surveying the
financial literacy of directors and investors.
The weakness not repeated from 2011 -2012 is “exclusive focus
on financial reporting, neglecting to some extent the wider context in which
economic entities operate”. This omission reflects considerations by the FRC
during 2012-2013, most specifically its contribution to the work of the
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the increased focus that
the work of the IIRC received during the year.
The new weakness identified in 2012-2013 – “the outcome of
the financial reporting system may not be appropriately serving the diverse
needs of investors and other stakeholders” – again reflects the work of the FRC
during 2011-2013, most specifically the work it did on managing complexity in
financial reports.
2. Threats
Three threats have been repeated from 2011-2012, albeit with
some slight word changes to be more specific about the threat.
The other two threats in 2011-2012 – “failure of a big 4
accounting firm, potentially leading to a lack of competition in the audit market”
and “complexity caused by...financial reporting for not-for-profit entities” –
have been replaced with a new threat “as financial reporting develops further
around the world, Australia’s influence could be diluted.” This change reflects
a re-prioritisation of the threats, and in particular in relation to the risk
of Big 4 failure the steadily reducing impact of the events around the GFC; the
functions of the FRC; and the increase in the number of jurisdictions that have
now adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).[29]
Committee view
3.20
The committee suggests that such analysis and commentary is entirely
consistent with FRC's role in providing strategic advice and should be included
in future annual reports.
FRC outputs during the year
3.21
The Chairman's report in the annual report identified the main outputs
of the FRC during the financial year, including:
- a number of significant submissions to international financial
reporting organisations;
-
a report on Managing Complexity in Financial Reporting;
-
a report on Board Education; and
-
a report on audit quality by the FRC Audit Quality Committee,
which has been discussed earlier in this chapter.[30]
3.22
The FRC taskforce report on Managing Complexity in Financial
Reporting made a number of recommendations aimed at simplifying reporting.
The recommendations addressed further deregulation, coordination of reporting
requirements across government, material disclosures, and supporting a proposal
to simplify remuneration reporting.[31]
The annual report indicates that the FRC is assiduously following the
implementation of the recommendations'.[32]
A further taskforce on financial reports was established in February 2013 to
provide policy advice on:
...examining how the current financial reporting regimes for
the various types of reporting entities in Australia can best be understood
and, if needed, make recommendations regarding rationalisation of the regimes.[33]
3.23
The FRC's Board Education Taskforce and the Australian Stock Exchange
conducted a survey of board education. The survey was designed to identify
whether there were any issues in terms of the financial literacy of directors
in Australia and, if so, how to address them. The survey results indicated
that:
Directors generally rated their personal level of financial
literacy marginally higher than the financial literacy of their fellow
directors. The financial professionals who deal with directors rated their
financial literacy at notably lower levels than the directors
themselves.
Financial professionals who regularly deal with directors on
average rated the general financial literacy of the directors of the top 200
ASX listed entities (good to very good) higher than that of other ASX listed
entities (fair to good) and substantially higher than non-listed entities (poor
to fair).[34]
3.24
The survey showed that while relevant accounting courses exist to
educate directors; awareness, access and use of the courses may need to be
improved. Respondents to the survey also drew attention to a recent finding by
the Federal Court that:
...it is the duty of every director to read the financial
statements carefully and to consider whether what they disclose is consistent
with the director’s own knowledge of the company’s affairs.[35]
Committee view
3.25
The committee notes that FRC's response to the survey identifies a
number of efforts to mitigate the deficiencies in the financial literacy of
directors. The committee considers that it would be appropriate to regularly
repeat the survey and publish the results to monitor the effectiveness of the
efforts to improve the financial literacy of directors. The committee will
continue to monitor these issues.
Recommendation 5
3.26
The committee recommends that the Financial Reporting Council implement regular
surveys of the financial literacy of directors and publish the results.
3.27
The committee is satisfied with the FRC's annual report. The committee
will continue to monitor the effects of the repealed auditor independence
functions of the FRC. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
3.28
The AUASB is established under Subdivision C, Division 1, Part 12 of the
ASIC Act. The AUASB's responsibilities include facilitating an Australian
financial reporting system that provides guidance to auditors about auditing
standards and requirements.[36]
The AUASB formulates auditing standards, in the form of legislative
instruments, which operate under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations
Act).[37]
Consistent with the object in section 224 to 'enable Australian entities
to compete effectively overseas', the AUASB is required to contribute to the
'development of a single set of auditing standards for world-wide use.'[38]
The ASIC Act also establishes the Office of the AUASB, which provides technical
services and administrative support to the AUASB.[39]
3.29
The AUASB's statutory responsibilities are reflected in the Board's
mission statement as contained in the 2012–13 annual report:
The mission of the AUASB is to develop, in the public
interest, high–quality auditing and assurance standards and related guidance,
as a means to enhance the relevance, reliability and timeliness of information
provided to users of audit and assurance services.
Sound public–interest oriented auditing and assurance
standards are necessary to reinforce the credibility of the auditing process
for those who use audited financial and other related information.
The AUASB contributes to public confidence in the financial
reporting and corporate governance frameworks by issuing auditing standards,
which are legally enforceable for audits and reviews of financial reports
required under the Corporations Act 2001, other auditing and assurance
pronouncements and related guidance.
The role of the AUASB also extends to liaison with other
national standard setters and participating in standard setting initiatives of
the IAASB to develop a single set of auditing standards for worldwide use. Such
involvement seeks to contribute ultimately to the quality of AUASB
pronouncements.[40]
Annual report of the AUASB
3.30
The annual report indicates the main efforts of the AUASB during 2012–13
included promoting audit quality and enhanced auditor reporting, as well as
other initiatives to promote high quality independent audit and assurance
services.[41]
The committee welcomes this effort given the problems with audit quality that were
previously identified by the committee and ASIC.[42]
The committee notes that the following outputs generated by AUASB that are intended
to address audit quality:
- a submission to the International Auditing and Assurance
Standards Board on a framework for audit quality;
-
a bulletin titled, Professional Scepticism in an Audit of a
Financial Report, intended to alert practitioners to the continuing need to
operate with a challenging mindset;
-
a revision of its bulletin – Auditing Considerations in a
Prolonged Uncertain Economic Environment, aimed at reminding auditors to
remain alert to issues associated with prolonged economic uncertainty that may
affect auditing;
-
an exposure draft of the proposed revised standard, Using the
Work of Internal Auditors, which included provisions to prohibit the use of
internal auditors to provide direct assistance in an audit or review, conducted
in accordance with the Australian Auditing Standards; and
-
the release of eight standards and guidance compilations.[43]
3.31
The 2009–10 financial year marked the introduction of the Clarity standards,
discussed below. Forty-three revised auditing standards were amended as part of
a three-year review process:[44]
In line with the strategic direction provided
by the Financial Reporting Council, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
(AUASB) has revised and redrafted the Australian Auditing Standards. The
revised and redrafted standards use the equivalent International Standard on
Auditing (ISA) as the underlying standard and therefore conform with the
equivalent ISAs, issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Board
(IAASB).
Clarity is the title given to the IAASB project, initiated in 2004, to
improve the consistent application of International Auditing Standards
worldwide.
The IAASB has redrafted, in Clarity
format, the entire suite of ISAs. In a number of cases, the ISAs have also been
substantively revised in addition to being redrafted in Clarity format.[45]
3.32
The AUASB continued to monitor and facilitate the implementation of the Clarity
standards during the 2012–13 financial year.[46]
Committee view
3.33
The committee specifically requested that an assessment of the impact of
the Clarity standards be included in the 2012–13 and future annual
reports.[47]
The committee is disappointed that this has not been provided. The committee
subsequently requested an assessment of the Clarity standards in December 2013
and the AUASB responded informing the committee that:
The AUASB believes that relevant and reliable auditor reports
are a function of both high quality standards and effective implementation and
use of the standards by auditors, overseen by regulator inspections and
reinforced by audit committees. In its ongoing consideration of the
achievements of the clarity versions of the Standards, the AUASB has
adopted a number of direct and indirect methods to provide a basis for
conclusion. The approach taken is preferred to a point-in-time assessment
exercise as it provides a far broader, and therefore valuable, basis to gauge
the results of implementing the Standards. This broader approach
facilitates a practical and efficient methodology that utilises the AUASB’s day
to day activities and is favoured over a more costly, and time-consuming,
single assessment exercise. This approach also considers both the standards
themselves and their implementation.
...
In view of the above, we have not, in Australia, undertaken a
formal assessment, per se, of the achievements of the Standards.
Nonetheless, please refer to the attachment to this letter, and pages 25 to 29
of the 2012-13 AUASB Annual Report that detail the AUASB’s targets and
outputs, in relation to the development and maintenance of high quality
auditing standards. From our considerations and the information contained in
the AUASB Annual Report, I conclude that the Standards contribute
positively to promoting relevant and reliable auditor reports.[48]
3.34
The committee also drew the AUASB's attention to reports prepared by this
committee and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and requested that
such reports be referred to in the annual report.[49]
The annual report states that:
During the financial year, there were no judicial decisions
or decisions of administrative tribunals or reports by the Auditor–General, a
Parliamentary Committee or the Commonwealth Ombudsman concerning the
performance of the AUASB.[50]
3.35
The committee is not satisfied with the above statement. As noted above,
the committee previously recommended changes to the annual report. In addition,
the Senate Economics Legislation Committee put forward a whole page of
recommendations in its examination of the AUASB's 2011–12 annual report.[51]
Recommendation 6
3.36
The committee recommends that the AUASB examine relevant Parliamentary
committee reports and include appropriate discussion in the section on external
scrutiny of the AUASB annual reports.
3.37
The committee remains concerned about audit quality and will continue to
monitor the AUASB's contribution to improving audit quality. Aside from the
issues raised above, the committee is generally satisfied with the annual
report of the AUASB. The Australian Accounting Standards Board
3.38
The AASB was first established in 1989 and is currently established by
Subdivision B, Division 1, Part 12 of the ASIC Act 2001.[52]
The AASB's role is to develop and evaluate accounting standards based on a
conceptual framework. The AASB contributes to the development of 'a single set
of accounting standards for world-wide use'.[53]
The ASIC Act also establishes the Office of the AASB, to provide the AASB
administrative and technical support.[54]
3.39
As detailed in the 2012–13 annual report, the AASB's mission statement
captures the Board's statutory responsibilities and role in Australia's
financial reporting framework:
The mission of the AASB is to:
- develop and maintain a high quality conceptual framework
for all sectors of the Australian economy;
- develop and maintain high quality accounting (i.e.
financial reporting) standards for reporting entities in those sectors; and
- contribute, through thought leadership and participation,
in the development of global financial reporting standards and standard-setting.[55]
Annual report of the AASB
3.40
The annual report indicates that 2012–13 was a mixed year for the AASB:
The projects on financial instruments, revenue, insurance and
leasing, which the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the AASB
have considered to be core, were not completed as hoped, and yet hard won
progress has been achieved on each.[56]
3.41
During 2012–13, the AASB has encouraged rationalisation of requirements
in standards, avoidance of exceptions and anti-abuse provisions, as well as
having accentuated the importance of developing and consistently applying
concepts and principles.[57]
The implications of the global financial crisis for accounting standards continued
to be a significant focus for the AASB and its projects during 2012–13:
In relation to the outputs, most of the Standards issued
during the year were to maintain conformity with International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRSs) issued by the International Accounting Standards
Board (IASB). Many of these can be attributed to the IASB's ongoing response to
the global financial crisis. Similarly, most of the AASB Exposure Drafts issued
incorporated IASB proposals. During the year, the Board made submissions to
proposals of both the IASB and the International Public Sector Accounting
Standards Board (IPSASB).[58]
3.42
Significant outcomes for the AASB discussed in the annual report
include:
- progress on public sector and not-for-profit projects;[59]
-
the issue or re-issue of ten standards, one interpretation and 19
exposure drafts;[60]
-
progress on accounting by superannuation entities, accounting for
carbon, and accounting by government for concession arrangements;[61]
and
-
several contributions to international projects:
- the revision of the International Accounting Standards Board's Conceptual
Framework for Financial Reporting;[62]
- chair of the Asian-Oceanian Standards-Setters Group;[63]
- selection as a founding member of the Accounting Standards
Advisory Forum;[64]
and
- completion of work to harmonise cross-Tasman reporting
requirements for for-profit entities.[65]
3.43
The annual report indicates that during 2012–13 the AASB had 64 active
projects.[66]
While the annual report suggests that a number of projects are nearing
completion,[67]
there appears to be a large increase in the number of projects relative to
previous years. Significantly, 27 of the 64 projects were not in the 2012–13
work program, but were additional projects initiated during the year.[68]
The work program for 2013–14 provided in the annual report has 54 projects. The
AASB subsequently informed the committee that:
There are various reasons behind the addition of projects to
the work program.
One major source of new AASB projects is change emanating
from the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) work program, because
we adopt the IASB’s International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The AASB also considers the work of the International Public
Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) when it looks at issues of specific
interest in the not-for-profit and public sectors.[69]
Committee view
3.44
The committee is generally satisfied with AASB's annual report. However,
the committee previously drew the Board's attention to reports prepared by this
committee and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and requested that
such reports be referred to in the annual report.[70]
The annual report states that:
During the financial year, there were no judicial decisions
or decisions of administrative tribunals or reports by the Auditor–General, a
Parliamentary Committee or the Commonwealth Ombudsman concerning the
performance of the AASB.[71]
3.45
The committee is not satisfied with the above statement. The committee previously
recommended changes to the annual report. In addition, the Senate Economics
Legislation Committee put forward a whole page of requirements in its
examination of the AASB's 2011–12 annual report.[72]
Recommendation 7
3.46
The committee recommends that the AASB examine Parliamentary committee
reports and include appropriate discussion in the section on external scrutiny
of the AASB annual reports.
Senator
David Fawcett
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|