A Chaotic Field of Practice: Financial Reporting of the Library Collections of Australia's Public Universities, 2007–2011

Abstract

The accounting practices adopted by Australia's 36 public universities in accounting for their library collections – including heritage and special collections – are identified and analysed. The data is collected from a survey of these institutions' annual reports over the period 2007 to 2011 and the analysis is guided by theoretical perspectives drawn from new institutional sociology (NIS). Consistent with prior research by West and Carnegie (2010), accounting for university library collections is depicted as a chaotic field of practice. Inconsistent and idiosyncratic policies that compromise the overall reliability, comparability and usefulness of university financial reports are observed, along with instances of dramatic valuation adjustments. However, the beginnings of some amelioration of the chaos are also detected, as regulatory activity and a voluntary homogenisation of accounting policies begin to take effect. In particular, a general trend towards more conservative accounting practices is evident as universities perhaps seek to guard against accounting debacles – most notably massive valuation write-downs – of the kind that have been suffered by several institutions over the last decade. Assigning financial values to the library collections and other non-financial resources of not-for-profit public institutions remains a problematic issue.

Keywords::

• public sector accounting
• chaotic accounting
• Australia
• university libraries
• collections
• new institutional sociology

Introduction

Assigning monetary valuations to library collections is generally not viewed as a core element of librarians' expertise (see, for example, Haddow 2012; Chawner and Oliver 2013). Indeed, the “value” of a library is not usually contemplated or depicted in financial terms (Oakleaf 2011). However, the extended application of conventional accrual accounting techniques throughout the public sector – and particularly in connection with the diverse range of “assets” in that sector – has created a new frontier of accounting practice that may have significant implications for the libraries of not-for-profit institutions and their librarians. Broader settings in which these accounting reforms have been studied include public heritage facilities (Barton 2000, 2005), cultural, heritage and scientific collections (Carnegie and Wolnizer 1995, 1996, 1999; Micallef and Peirson 1997; Carman, Carnegie, and Wolnizer 1999; Hooper, Kearins, and Green 2005) and the community resources provided by local governments (Falk and Neilson 1993; Barton 1999).

Accounting for the library collections of public institutions evidences the challenges that arise when techniques that were developed originally for private sector business organisations are sought to be applied without modification in the distinctive setting of not-for-profit public institutions. With specific reference to the financial reporting of the library collections of Australia's public universities, West and Carnegie (2010) provided evidence of “some bizarre results” (Gilling 2010) over the period 2002 to 2006. These results were precipitated by the requirement to account for library collections running ahead of any consensus on how to do so.

The advocates of these new forms of accounting – or the imposition of conventional accounting technique in contexts from which it was previously absent – essentially believed that the challenge of developing and adopting a suitable measurement technique for financial reporting purposes could be readily overcome and that distinct benefits would follow from such a resolution. Cram (1997, 377), for example, argued that “Current and realistic collection valuations allow library managers to calculate the rate of return on the assets represented by the collection employed in providing the library service”. The Australian public university sector continues to provide an opportunity to observe and analyse the consequences of this presumption remaining largely unfulfilled. This study focuses on the accounting practices applied to the library collections of Australia's public universities over the period 2007 to 2011. In conjunction with West and Carnegie's (2010) earlier study, this provides a decade-long time horizon from 2002 to 2011 for evaluation and reflection. The prior study's exclusive focus on general library collections is also now supplemented by a consideration of the accounting practices applied to heritage and other special holdings within university libraries.

The next section provides the background to this research and outlines the theoretical foundations that guide it, being ideas drawn from new institutional sociology (NIS). Based on a survey of financial reports, the third section then identifies salient issues and events associated with how Australia's public universities accounted for their library collections – including heritage and special collections – over the period 2007 to 2011. This is followed by a more detailed discussion of the accounting practices observed and their implications. The final section provides summarising and concluding comments.

Background and theoretical foundations

The monetary valuation of the library and contiguous collections of not-for profit public universities in Australia for financial reporting purposes has been driven by the “New Public Management” (NPM) philosophy. This has involved an array of reforms that have sought to engender greater efficiency within the public sector, often by trying to replicate private sector managerial structures and business practices (Ferlie et al. 1996). The mandatory application of full accrual accounting to public sector entities is a compelling example of NPM in practice (see, for example, Humphrey, Miller, and Scapens 1993; Hood 1995; Potter 2002; Christensen 2002, 2003, 2009; Carnegie and West 2003, 2005; Buhr 2012; Humphrey and Miller 2012). This system of accounting was initially designed for, and adopted by, private sector business organisations that have commercial objectives and, therefore, a particular concern with profit measurement.

The essence of accrual accounting involves recording revenues generated and deducting the resources consumed as expenses in order to calculate increases (profits) or decreases (losses) in the wealth controlled by an organisation. Revenues and expenses do not necessarily coincide with cash payments and receipts. For example, the cash inflow associated with a revenue transaction may be received before or after a service has been provided to a customer. Similarly, the cash payment arising from an expense transaction may be made before or after resources are consumed. Accrual accounting recognises revenues when they have been earned and expenses when they have been incurred – rather than when a cash flow takes place. Needless to say, accrual accounting calculations are often subjective and this is particularly the case with depreciation expense. According to the accounting definition, assets are characterised by “future economic benefits”. For many assets these benefits are gradually consumed over time due to the effects of wear and tear and/or obsolescence. An annual depreciation charge purports to quantify the portion of an asset's future economic benefits consumed during the year. Therefore, a depreciation policy requires not only an estimate of the expected useful life of an asset, but also a prediction of the pattern by which the future economic benefits will be consumed. If most benefits will be consumed in the early years of an asset's useful life a “diminishing balance” approach may be adopted. This involves applying a percentage depreciation rate to the carrying value of the asset (that is, the value after prior depreciation charges are subtracted), meaning that depreciation charges are higher in the early years and then decrease over time as the carrying value of the asset decreases. Where an asset's benefits will be spread evenly over its useful life, the “straight line” method is favoured. Under this approach a percentage rate is applied to the asset's recorded value without subtracting prior depreciation charges, meaning that the depreciation charge will be the same each year.

Perhaps inevitably, the imposition of accrual accounting within public sector institutions has not been seamless (see, for example, Carnegie and West 2003, 2005; Irvine 2011). Underpinning this discord are the distinctive and diverse objectives of these institutions, which generally emphasise the provision of particular services rather than profit maximisation. Similarly, the resources under the control of such institutions are typically held for the purpose of pursuing their multi-faceted objectives, rather than for commercial gain. Public universities, for example, typically nominate their reason for being as the discovery and dissemination of knowledge, with library collections being integral to this purpose. This context is distinct from that of profit-seeking business organisations: the resources (assets) of these entities are held primarily for their contribution to profit-making, either through their use or through exchange.

The asset valuation practices used by commercial organisations align generally with their profit-making interests and are typically based on acquisition cost, replacement cost, market value or predictions of the cash flows that a resource is expected to generate. These may assist in providing insights to a business's debt paying capacity, commercial viability and ability to raise finance. However, such valuation practices are often problematic within the setting of public sector institutions. In the case of the library collection of a public university – accumulated over decades and supplemented by donations – the historical cost is likely to be unknown and unknowable. Similarly, many items in such a collection may be irreplaceable, making replacement cost a dubious proposition. While individual items may have a market value, they will generally not be available for sale (except for any deaccessioned items). As the users of university libraries do not usually pay any direct fee for accessing and using the collection, valuations based on predicted cash flows cannot be determined. Moreover, regardless of how a dollar value is determined for a library collection, it is difficult to envisage how such information might be informative or even of any interest to financial report users. Similarly, and as will be shown, trying to make non-financial judgements about a library collection – such as the size or quality of the collection – based on reported financial values would seem to be fraught with risk. Even the most basic conspectus data, such as number of volumes, would be likely to serve better such assessments.

Given these uncertainties about how to place a monetary value on the library collection of a public university for inclusion in its financial report, and the lack of obvious purposes that such a valuation might serve, it is perhaps not surprising that West and Carnegie (2010) found the financial reporting of library collections by Australia's public universities over the period 2002–2006 to be “chaotic”. (West and Carnegie 2010, 221) concluded:

Trying to express non-financial resources in financial terms is a “border-crossing” activity that is inevitably accompanied by uncertainty, subjectivity and ambiguity. Applying conventional accrual accounting techniques to library collections involves assigning money values to represent the “future economic benefits” presumed to inhere in such collections and then devising depreciation policies to recognise the gradual consumption of those benefits. This process is so fraught with subjectivity that the accounting policies adopted by the institutions surveyed appear to be characterised primarily by arbitrariness. Needless to say, the resultant data lacks reliability.

As will be shown in the subsequent sections, this chaos has persisted over the new survey period of 2007–2011. However, incremental changes are observed that evidence some coalescence in accounting policies and a general move towards more conservative accounting practices. Ideas drawn from NIS are used to help explain these observations.

NIS posits organisations as being deeply immersed in wider institutional environments in which they interact and strive to survive. According to Scott (2001, 58), organisations “need social acceptability and credibility” in order to continue to gain access to scarce resources for operational purposes. Organisations seek to adopt practices and procedures that are institutionalised in society, thereby enhancing their legitimacy and, in the process, improving organisational survival prospects. This pressure can be particularly acute in the case of institutions such as public universities. Rather than being beholden to a single imperative such as wealth maximisation – as is usually the case for business organisations – public universities are engaged in a constant struggle to enhance their reputation across multiple contexts. Most obviously these include teaching and research, but public universities are also employers, recipients of public money and, through their staff, participants in public debate and policy setting. Having sound financial strategies and outcomes is also essential to achieving elevated reputational standing. As such, accounting practices – particularly those which underpin public financial disclosures – become an important part of the repertoire of technical practices which, as stated by Meyer and Rowan (1991, 45), “become taken-for-granted means to accomplish organizational ends”.

Under NIS much attention is placed on the homogenisation emerging from processes of “isomorphism” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). The three key forms of institutional isomorphism – identified as coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism – intermingle in empirical settings (1983, 150). Like other phenomena, accounting practices, both within contemporary and historical contexts, are affected by these major forms of institutional pressures (see, for example, Carmona and Macias 2001; Carpenter and Feroz 2001; Gomes, Carnegie, and Rodrigues 2008). Paraphrasing DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and an array of subsequent authors who have applied this framework, West and Carnegie (2010, 204) outlined the nature of each of the three forms of institutional isomorphism as follows:

Coercive isomorphism results from formal and informal pressures exerted on organisations by other organisations, such as governments, upon which they are dependent and from pressures caused by cultural expectations in the society in which organisations operate. Mimetic isomorphism emerges under conditions of uncertainty as a powerful force that encourages imitation among organisations. Organisations will model themselves on similar organisations in their field whose practices are recognised as legitimate. Normative isomorphism is derived from two key aspects of professionalisation: formal education and professional networks that cross organisations and between which new models and practices are diffused.

Coercive pressures in this setting, therefore, presume an immediate and obvious significance. Under NIS, organisations are expected to comply with any applicable rules in order to achieve or maintain legitimacy. However, rules are subject to interpretation and may also be modified or withdrawn in particular jurisdictions – as will be shown to be the case in the setting under examination. This study also permits a focus on the role of mimetic processes in accounting policy setting for the library collections of Australia's public universities. Normative processes will also be discerned and analysed to the extent possible.

In seeking to identify and analyse instances of institutional isomorphism, regard is given to the Lounsbury (2008) critique that users of NIS have too often accepted a presumption of “a-rational mimicry” and adopted “the popular, ‘reader's digest’ understanding of institutional theory as a theory of imitative dopiness” (Lounsbury 2008, 353). Instead, it is contended that “institutional approaches should be able to provide robust explanations of the sources and consequences of heterogeneous, not just homogenous, behaviours and forms” (Lounsbury 2008, 353). In order to address this issue, Lounsbury (2008, 357) has called for more field-based studies, noting that “it is typically helpful to study several organizations within a field, or even better, an entire population”. By focussing on all 36 of Australia's public universities, this study is responsive to these insights. In addition, while efforts are made to identify commonalities in the accounting policies adopted, the explanations sought for such outcomes extend beyond a presumption of mere mimicry. That is, an attempt is made to explain why some accounting policies are selected and favoured for replication rather than others. Further, where heterogeneous accounting policies are evident, this is posited as being a circumstance likely to have an underlying cause that should be identified and explained; atypical policies should not just be categorised as outliers that are waiting to be abandoned in favour of a relentless pursuit of conformity.

More chaotic accounting

Analysis of the financial reports for the years from 2007 to 2011 continues to reveal a chaotic field of practice in respect of university library collections, and this is evident in a number of ways. First, analysis of the accounting treatment of general library collections reveals continued diversity in valuation methods and the estimated useful lives used for depreciation purposes (see Appendix 1). Second, the University of Melbourne and the University of Queensland each undertook massive write-downs of their library assets. Third, the four universities within Western Australia all persisted with their common and consensually adopted policy for valuing and depreciating their general library collections until 2010, with Edith Cowan University “breaking ranks” in 2011. Fourth, the Australian National University (ANU) – the only university that did not recognise its main library collection as an asset as recently as 2005 – has now been joined in this practice by six of the seven universities based in Queensland. Finally, investigation of how heritage collections are accounted for within the sector also uncovers significant diversity in classification and valuation techniques. Each of these matters will now be considered in more detail.

Carrying values and estimated useful lives

Appendix 1 summarises pertinent data for each of Australia's 36 public universities, including the carrying value of the general library collection in each of 2007 and 2011, the basis upon which the carrying value was determined, and the estimated useful lives adopted for depreciation purposes. The University of Sydney has retained its status as having the highest reported dollar value for an Australian university library collection, at $472 million. The University of Sydney was once accompanied by the University of Melbourne (2007: $252 million) and the University of Queensland (2007: $385 million) as recording library collections in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars. However, after significant write downs by Melbourne and Queensland in 2010 and 2011 respectively, the reported value of the University of Sydney collection now exceeds the second highest reported value – Monash University at just $90 million – by a factor of five!

An important cause of this extraordinary gap would appear to be a quirk of accounting policy. Prior to 2011, almost all of the Sydney collection was classified as a “research collection” that was not subject to depreciation. Only the “undergraduate collection”, which was valued at just $2 million in 2010, was depreciated. However, commencing from 2011 a depreciation policy based on a useful life of 10 years has been adopted for the whole collection – a much more typical policy for Australian universities and consistent with its main competitor in NSW, the University of NSW. In also adopting a 10 year useful life from 2011 the University of NSW doubled the very conservative five year useful life it had assumed previously. The change in policy adopted by Sydney will inevitably see the gap between the value accorded to its collection and those of other universities diminish over time: the depreciation charge for 2011 exceeded $47 million, compared to less than $1 million in the prior year. This change had a profound effect on Sydney's financial results, reducing the operating result of $88.5 million by around one-third. While the 2011 annual report failed to provide a detailed explanation for this radical change in accounting policy, the massive write-downs of the universities of Melbourne and Queensland (discussed below) may have prompted the adoption of the more conservative approach.

Monash's second ranking also appears to be partly a consequence of a relatively generous estimate of useful lives – 30 years for serials and 20 years for monographs. Such long estimates of useful lives are in stark contrast to many other universities. For example, Macquarie, Southern Cross and the University of Western Sydney assume useful lives of just five years for their library collections. The University of Newcastle reports a depreciation policy based on estimated useful lives of just two to five years.

Taken at face value, a reader of the annual reports of Australia's public universities would presumably have concerns about the on-going quality of their library collections. Of the 36 universities studied, almost two thirds reported that the carrying value of their library collection diminished from 2007 to 2011. The reductions are often significant: for example, Deakin's more than halved ($28.1 million to $13.2 million), the University of Canberra's more than halved ($8.3 million to $3.3 million), while Newcastle's was reduced by almost two thirds ($13.7 million to just $4.9 million – including artworks). Even more dramatic was the net $176 million written off the value attributed to the University of Melbourne collection in 2010 and the net $278 million cleared from the value of the University of Queensland collection in 2011 – each to be discussed in more detail below.

Whether these changes reflect any substantive change in the underlying library resources is a moot point. It is the general nature of libraries that have an acquisitions budget to improve over time, as more items are added to the collection than deleted. However, it is acknowledged that the nature of these acquisitions is affected by technology (Anderson and Pham 2013) and a trend towards some library resources being acquired under “fee-for-service” arrangements. That is, rather than a subscription payment giving rise to the acquisition of hard copies that can be held indefinitely, a time restricted right of electronic access may be purchased. Some universities (for example, the University of Melbourne and University of Western Australia) even classify such resources as “intangible assets” rather than including them as part of the library collection. Accordingly, rather than reflecting a crisis in the quality of library collections, the more likely substantive explanations for the widespread diminution in reported carrying values relate to technological change and the move by many universities toward relatively more conservative policies for valuing and depreciating collections – or the reversal of values that have subsequently been viewed as being overly optimistic. This latter explanation is especially pertinent in the cases of the University of Melbourne and the University of Queensland.

Write-downs at the universities of Melbourne and Queensland

During 2010 the University of Melbourne engaged the Australian Valuation Office to undertake an independent valuation of its general library collection. This identified a need to make a significant valuation adjustment, due to both an overstatement of the physical library collection as well as an understatement of the depreciation rate applied to it. As a result, and inclusive of other accounting policy changes and adjustments pertaining to the university's library, the reported value of the collection fell from $243 million at 31 December 2009 to just $77 million one year later. The main component of this diminution was a $148 million write-down to correct the overstatement of physical assets and the understatement of prior deprecation charges.

The University of Melbourne was once a serious contender for having the country's highest reported dollar value for a university library collection – in 2006 it was second only to the University of Sydney. However, the $77 million carrying value it reported in 2010 was less than a sixth of that reported by Sydney ($472 million) and was also exceeded by that of Monash ($90 million), its main rival in the state of Victoria. Accompanying the write-down of the Melbourne general collection has been a radical revision to depreciation rates. From 2009 the estimated useful life for monographs was halved from 40 to 20 years and the useful lives for periodicals cut from 50 years to 30 years.

Of even greater magnitude is the write-down of library assets undertaken by the University of Queensland in 2011. In this case, a review was conducted of the treatment of print subscriptions which were previously being recorded as assets as part of the University's library collection. As a result of these subscriptions being used primarily in their first year of acquisition, the University resolved to charge the costs incurred as an expense and applied this change in accounting policy on a retrospective basis. This policy appears to be a latent attempt to align with the Queensland Treasury (2010, first introduced in 2007) policy which mandates that “common-use collections” not be recognised as assets for financial reporting purposes.

As a consequence, and encompassing other accounting policy changes and adjustments pertaining to the depreciation of the university's library, the value attributed to the collection shrunk from $330 million at 31 December 2010 to just $52 million at 31 December 2011. In addition, the University also undertook a review of the estimated useful lives of items in the library collection and determined that the standard life be reduced from 75 years to 10 years. This dramatic revision of the depreciation policy resulted in an increase in the library depreciation charge from approximately $1 million in 2010 to more than $7 million in 2011.

No single institution better evidences the chaotic accounting for library collections than the University of Queensland. In 2002 this institution reported a carrying value for its library collection of $482 million, which comprised nearly one-quarter of the institution's total reported assets. The collection was not subject to any depreciation charge, on the grounds that “the nature of the collection is such that its value does not diminish over time and with use” (University of Queensland 2002 Annual Report, Appendix, 10). However, by 2011 the reported value of library collections at this institution was just $52 million – little more than one-tenth of the 2002 value and just 1.6% of total reported assets – and the presumption of an indefinite useful life had given way to a 10 year depreciation policy.

Depreciation in Western Australia

Through to 2010, all four universities in Western Australia persisted with an idiosyncratic approach to depreciation which appears to have been adopted consensually rather than in response to any regulatory directive. It is a seemingly novel method that might best be characterised as “sudden death depreciation”. That is, library items are depreciated at 100% in a single year, a specified number of years after acquisition. While there has been an apparent intention to achieve consistency between the various universities within the state, a review of the annual reports over the period 2007 to 2011 reveals ongoing difficulty – if not confusion – in articulating the policy. Edith Cowan University was certainly diligent in trying to resolve any lack of clarity, altering their description of the method in each of 2007 and 2008, before arriving at the following wording in 2010:

Library Collections are carried at a value equivalent to the cost of the last three years' acquisitions of library books. In this regard, the current period's acquisitions are capitalised to the carrying value whilst the cost of books acquired during the financial year that ended three years prior to the current financial year end are expensed to the statement of comprehensive income. (Edith Cowan University 2010)

In spite of ostensibly having the same policy, each of the other three universities had its own wording to describe it over the period 2007 to 2011:

The total cost of the last three years' acquisition of library books and journals is considered to represent an acceptable carrying value of the library collection. In each year, that year's cost of acquisition is added onto the carrying value and the earliest year's cost of acquisition within the carrying value is written-off as an acceptable estimate of the depreciation of the library collection for the current year. (Curtin University)

The net book value of library books is based on the cost of acquisitions for three years to the end of the current financial year. The University has adopted a “rolling depreciation” methodology for library books, whereby acquisitions in the fourth year preceding the reporting year are charged to depreciation. (Murdoch University)

Depreciated 100% in fourth year after acquisition. (University of Western Australia)

In 2011 Edith Cowan University broke ranks and abandoned the policy it had adopted in concert with the other three Western Australian universities for at least the prior decade. Instead, it chose to apply a standard straight line depreciation method with an assumed useful life of 10 years. No explanation or justification was given for this change in accounting policy other than that the estimates of the useful life of the library collection had been changed.

None of the Western Australian universities has sought to justify the approach to valuation and depreciation that has predominated in that state. Indeed, the policy adopted by the Western Australian universities would appear to have convenience as its primary or sole justification. For financial reporting purposes, a book purchased by one of the Western Australian universities applying this policy retains its full acquisition value for three years and then suddenly becomes worthless in the fourth year. This would seem unlikely to accord with the actual pattern of use that is typically offered as the justification for the selection of a particular depreciation method. It is also a particularly conservative policy, implying a useful life of just three to four years – one of the shortest useful life assumptions observed. Moreover, using just three years of acquisitions as a proxy for the value of the whole collection would also appear to be rather cautious – although still less so than those universities that assign no monetary value to their library collections.

Non-recognition: the ANU and six Queensland universities

From 2002 to 2005 (West and Carnegie 2010) the ANU was alone among Australia's public universities in not recognising its general library collection as an asset for financial reporting purposes. However, in 2006 the ANU was joined in its non-recognition policy by four universities based in Queensland: Central Queensland University, Queensland University of Technology, University of Southern Queensland and the University of the Sunshine Coast. In 2007, James Cook University and Griffith University joined this group, each derecognising the $43 million that they had both, coincidentally, previously recognised as library collection assets.

The impetus for this change was the policy issued by the Queensland Treasury (2010) in relation to the accounting treatment of library collections. By classifying their library collections as “common use” under this policy, these institutions were relieved of the need to recognise the collections as assets for financial reporting purposes. However, while also seeking to comply with this policy from 2007, the University of Queensland – the state's oldest and most prestigious university and a member of Australia's “Group of Eight” research intensive universities – adopted a quite different strategy and only in 2011 revised its accounting policy to align with the provisions of the applicable Treasury policy. Under the Treasury policy, a library collection (or parts thereof) must be classified as “common use”, “reference” or “heritage” for financial reporting purposes. Subject to threshold requirements, reference collections ($1 million threshold) and heritage collections ($5000 threshold) qualify for recognition as assets for financial reporting purposes; “common use” collections do not. Needless to state, distinguishing the different classifications must be fraught with subjectivity. For example, while a dictionary is the epitome of a “reference” book, it may also be among the most commonly used items in a library. In 2010 the University of the Sunshine Coast used the term “Library Reference Collection” to describe its library resources while also disclosing in a note to the financial report that the minimum recognition threshold for the reference collection was not met and, as such, the reference collection was written-off.

The Queensland Treasury (2010) policy has overseen a dramatic reduction in the recognition and reporting of library collections as assets by Queensland's seven public universities. Three do not recognise any library collection (Central Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and University of Southern Queensland) and a further three recognise only a heritage or special collection (Griffith, James Cook, and the Sunshine Coast). Perhaps somewhat embarrassingly – given the presumed nexus between universities and serious scholarship – no Queensland university apart from the University of Queensland evidently has a “reference collection”. Alternatively, their reference collections are so limited as to be unable to satisfy the relatively modest $1 million threshold for recognition as prescribed by the Queensland Treasury (2010) policy. This might be understandable for a relatively new university such as the University of the Sunshine Coast. However, the same outcome at Griffith and James Cook universities seems more problematic. As recently as 2006 each of these institutions recognised a $43 million library collection. However, just one year later neither apparently had a sufficient “reference collection” to reach the $1 million threshold for recognition. While the University of Queensland implies in the notes to their financial statements that a reference collection exists, their decision not to separate their library collection into “reference” and “heritage” components means that the monetary value assigned to each is unable to be determined from the annual report.

In summary, the State of Queensland evidences some of the greatest dissonance in accounting for general library collections: in 2010 the University of Queensland reported the country's second highest library collection value of $330 million while the remaining six universities in the state all reported a zero value. However, in 2011 this gap dramatically reduced as the University of Queensland wrote its collection down to just $52 million. These circumstances have arisen in spite of a Treasury policy which was intended to standardise accounting for library collections. Leaving aside the University of Queensland, the standardisation that has been achieved – in the form of non-recognition – appears to derive largely from institutions making an essentially expedient decision to classify their collections as being primarily of a “common use” character.

Accounting for heritage collections

A heritage collection is defined in the Queensland Treasury (2010, 3) policy as:

a permanently retained collection which has heritage, cultural or historic value that is worth preserving indefinitely and to which sufficient resources are committed to preserve and protect the collection and its service potential. The collection is generally held for public exhibition, education, or to provide a service to the community. Heritage collections are not usually available for sale, for redeployment or for an alternative use.

The annual reports surveyed reveal that 15 of the 36 universities disclose a “heritage”, “special” or “rare” library collection, with the first of these terms being the one most widely used.

Apart from differences in terminology, the categorisation of heritage library collections also varies between universities. While the most common approach is to list the heritage library collection as a separate item in the notes to the financial reports, a number of alternative approaches are in use. For example, Southern Cross University and the University of Queensland each consolidate their heritage library collection with the entire library collection rather than disclosing it as a separate item. Central Queensland University and the University of Newcastle each include their heritage library collections with artworks and the University of Melbourne discloses their heritage library collection under “other collections”, which from 2009 to 2011 also included works of art amongst other items.

Of the 15 universities reporting a heritage library collection, all but one appear to value the collection at fair value and do not depreciate it. The exception is Southern Cross University which values its collection at cost. While this suggests some consistency across the majority of universities, considerable diversity may persist in the way in which fair value is determined. The most common approach, which has been adopted by nine of the universities, is to engage an independent, external valuer to undertake a valuation of the collection. Of course, the valuation methodology and techniques adopted by these external valuers may well vary to some degree. Of the five remaining universities adopting fair value as the basis for valuing heritage collections, two use internal experts employed by the university, one uses a combination of an internal and external valuation, while two do not specify in their annual report whether internal or external valuations are used to determine fair value.

Along with the inconsistencies which arise from the variance in valuation approaches, the frequency of valuations to determine fair value also differs between universities, with stated time-frames ranging from annual (Monash University, University of NSW, University of New England, University of Sydney) to every five years (Griffith University, Macquarie University, University of the Sunshine Coast). Two universities determine fair value on a triennial basis (Central Queensland University, Deakin University) and the remaining six of the 15 universities either do not provide a timeframe, specify only the year of their most recent valuation, or provide just a generic statement referring to periodic or cyclical revaluations without elaboration (Australian National University, James Cook University, University of Melbourne, University of Newcastle, University of Queensland).

Considering the diverse nature of the universities themselves in terms of age, size and academic profile – as well as the different approaches used to determine the fair value – it is unsurprising that the reported values of heritage collections vary substantially. They range from just $25,000 for the University of the Sunshine Coast up to $79,713,000 (representing 1.7% of total assets) for the University of Sydney, where the collection is valued by the University's curators at fair value each year. For those universities that recognise a heritage collection, the size of the collection in 2011 relative to the entire capitalised library collection ranges from 100% for those universities that do not capitalise their general collection (ANU, Griffith University, James Cook University and the University of the Sunshine Coast) to just 9.2% for the University of New England.

Further compliance issues are evident in relation to the disclosure requirements of the policy issued by the Queensland Treasury (2010). With regard to the valuation of heritage collections, the policy states (2010, 6):

To ensure fair, “arm's length” valuations of heritage collections, it is preferred that revaluations be undertaken by independent, professionally qualified experts. However, there may be few independent valuers with the expertise to value certain collections. In these instances, employees with relevant expertise/knowledge may undertake an in-house review.

In addition to the normal disclosures for non-current physical assets, universities must also disclose in their financial reports how the fair value of capitalised collections has been determined (Queensland Treasury 2010). However, in spite of this requirement both James Cook University and the University of Queensland – each of which report heritage collections – fail to disclose this information in their annual reports.

It is apparent that accounting for library collections by Australia's public universities remains a chaotic field of practice that has serious implications for the reliability, usefulness and comparability of the financial reports issued by these institutions. The conjunction of the five year period covered in this research (2007 to 2011) with the previous five year period (2002 to 2006) examined by West and Carnegie (2010) provides a decade long period for reflection and discussion, particularly in terms of accretive changes in accounting practice that may be intended to ameliorate the chaos. Attention is given to these matters in the following section.

Discussion and analysis

The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (hereafter “the Framework”) of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) prescribes that an asset must be included in an entity's balance sheet if it meets both the definition and the recognition criteria specified for an asset. The essential feature of the definition is an expectation of “future economic benefits”. However, in the case of not-for-profit entities, “the fact that they do not charge, or do not charge fully, their beneficiaries or customers for the goods and services they provide” (Australian Accounting Standards Board 2009, 22) is not taken to imply an absence of such benefits. Rather, the Framework takes the broader view that future economic benefits may inhere in resources that allow organisational objectives to be achieved, for example by enabling the provision of services to beneficiaries.

Although under this interpretation library collections may be construed as meeting the definition of an asset, before being recognised in the financial reports the recognition criteria must also be satisfied. This includes a requirement that the item has a cost or value that can be measured with reliability. According to the Framework, although the cost or value must be estimated in many cases, “the use of reasonable estimates is an essential part of the preparation of financial reports and does not undermine their reliability” (Australian Accounting Standards Board 2009, 29). It is only when a reasonable estimate cannot be determined that the item is not recognised in the financial reports. Whether the cost or value of a library collection can be reasonably estimated remains a matter of some controversy. However, inconsistencies in the approaches adopted by Australian public universities to derive “reasonable estimates” of their library collections, dramatic revisions made to some carrying values, and the fact that the ANU has persistently declined to recognise its general library collection, render the question of reliable valuation at least problematic.

The findings of the present and the prior study (West and Carnegie 2010) reveal that the application of conventional accrual accounting techniques to university library collections has had an adverse effect on the dependability and comparability of university financial reports. This is largely a consequence of the inevitable arbitrariness associated with attempting to assign financial values to resources that are primarily held for non-financial scholarly purposes including education and research. The level of subjectivity involved in this process is evidenced by the diverse array of accounting policies used across institutions and the frequent changes made to those policies. Exactly what aspect of university library collections is purported to be represented when they are included in a statement of financial position remains either unspecified or fraught with ambiguity. Further, there are vast inconsistencies in the measurement and display of library assets between various universities and, in many cases, within single universities over time.

While accounting for library collections by Australia's public universities remains a chaotic field of practice, there is evidence across the consecutive survey periods of 2002 to 2006 (West and Carnegie 2010) and 2007 to 2011 of the emergence of some general and incremental changes that may contribute to partly ameliorating the chaos. Several Australian universities have now had “their fingers burned” in connection with accounting for their library resources. In 2003 the University of Queensland recorded a $235 million reduction in the carrying value of its library collection – almost halving the reported value of that resource and wiping out some 14% of the institution's total assets. In 2011, this institution wrote-down its library collection by a further $278 million – 84% of the value attributed to the collection just the prior year. Although smaller in dollar terms, Flinders University's 2004 write-down was equally dramatic in its financial statement impact. The $68 million attributed to the university's library collection in 2003 constituted more than a fifth of the entity's total assets. However, the following year the carrying value was reduced to just $18.7 million. Moreover, the major part of this write-down was reported as a “depreciation adjustment” that caused Flinders to report a significant negative operating result for 2004. In 2005 the University of New England wrote off two-thirds of the reported value of its library collection – reducing it from $75 million to just $25 million in a single stroke. More recently, and as discussed above, in 2010 the University of Melbourne reduced the carrying value of its library collection from $243 million to just $77 million.

These are clearly “accounting debacles” that universities and their senior managers must prefer to avoid. Indeed, if asset write-downs of such magnitude occurred in connection with for-profit business organisations there is little doubt they would attract regulatory investigation and significant media coverage. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that a move to more conservative accounting practices is becoming evident. In 2002, at the commencement of the survey period, the three highest reported values for university library collections were $494 million (University of Sydney), $482 million (University of Queensland) and $237 million (University of Melbourne) – a total in excess of $1.2 billion. However, by 2011 the sum of the “top three” had halved to be just $593 million: $427 million (University of Sydney), $90 million (Monash) and $76 million (University of Melbourne). As already mentioned above, almost two thirds of the universities reduced the reported carrying value of their library collection over the 2007 to 2011 survey period. Across the full survey period of 2002 to 2011, 30 of the 36 universities reported lower carrying values in 2011 than in 2002. As already alluded to, rather than reflecting a diminution in the quality of library collections, these reduced carrying values are more likely reflective of the vagaries of accounting policies and the apparent intention of some universities to either minimise or overcome the “problem” of accounting for their library collections. A key benefit of so doing is to avoid the risk of exposure to accounting debacles of the kind depicted above.

The ANU is clearly the leader in this presumed strategy, having never recognised its general library collection as an asset – an approach that the university's auditor appears to accept. However, the ANU has now been joined by six Queensland universities. The regulatory intervention of the Queensland Treasury (2010) policy clearly represents a coercive influence under the NIS framework. However, significant judgement (or perhaps significant discretion) underpins the application of the policy, particularly in regard to the distinction between “reference” and “common use” collections. As mentioned above, four of the seven universities based in the state classified the bulk of their general library collections as “common use” in 2006, relieving them of the need to recognise them as assets for financial reporting purposes. In 2007 they were joined by two more universities, leaving the University of Queensland as the only university in the state reporting its general library collection as an asset. However, in 2011 the University of Queensland undertook a very significant write-down to align their accounting policy more closely with the Queensland Treasury (2010) policy. This is suggestive of a strong mimetic force operating as the state's seven universities have over time largely “done away” with the problem of accounting for their library collections by adopting reasonably consistent interpretations of the applicable policy. As enunciated by DiMaggio and Powell (1983, 151), “Uncertainty is a powerful force that encourages imitation”. Only the University of Queensland – with its “Group of Eight” status and research intensive profile – continues to recognise a library collection, but at only a fraction of the value that was once reported. It appears to have found a “middle-ground” between the generally significant values reported by the majority of its “Group of Eight” companions and the zero values reported by all of its state-based counterparts.

A strong mimetic force can also be seen to have operated in Western Australia, where until 2011 all the public universities consensually adopted a policy of recognising the previous three years' acquisitions as the carrying value, with the acquisitions of four years ago constituting the depreciation charge. Although the technical propriety of this approach seems problematic, from the institutions' perspectives it represented a particularly “safe” policy – both in terms of its cautious accounting treatment and the fact that it was adopted by all four public universities in the state. None of the Western Australian universities surveyed has been involved in any major accounting debacle regarding its library collection. Where the cost of just the previous three years of acquisitions constitutes the library collection, significant fluctuations in carrying value are likely to be avoided and – in the absence of any significant physical loss – it is difficult to envisage the need for any write-down ever occurring aside from re-classification of assets (for example, digital libraries being reclassified as intangible assets).

Why Edith Cowan University “broke ranks” with its Western Australian counterparts in 2011 is unclear, but its new policy of depreciating over 10 years represents a middle-ground approach in the context of Australian universities. Possibly it decided to favour a national rather than state-based reference group in formulating its revised policy. Edith Cowan University aside, the remaining three public universities in Western Australia have persisted with their two-pronged “play it safe strategy”: (1) acting in concert; and, (2) ensuring that the common policy adopted is conservative and easy to apply. The state-based mimetic isomorphism evident in this outcome is not matched at the national level, thus affirming the need for studies beyond a small or narrow sample of entities within an organisational field (Lounsbury 2008). Moreover, a strong normative force is also evident in the Western Australian data. Unlike Queensland, where a state government policy provided the impetus for the coalescence in accounting policy, the Western Australian universities appear to have derived their common approach from an informal consensus among university librarians and/or chief financial officers. This is indicative of normative isomorphism derived from organisational managers' participation in professional networks and the consensual creation of professional norms (DiMaggio and Powell 1983).

Outside of Queensland, coercive pressures are discernible only to a limited extent, but include the general requirement that Australian public universities adopt (full) accrual accounting. This may extend to placing monetary values on their library collections for financial reporting purposes, although the ANU is notable for persistently refusing to yield to such pressure.

Given that reporting entities – including universities – generally have an incentive to avoid qualified audit opinions, audit might generally be expected to exert a strong coercive influence in the financial reporting domain. However, no single Auditor-General operates across the public university sector in Australia. Rather, each of the six Australian states and the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory has its own Auditor-General and it seems that their coercive authority is diminished by the limited range of their jurisdiction. Given the diversity in accounting policies adopted for university library collections throughout Australia, any challenge to a particular policy is likely to be defended on the basis that another university is adopting at least a broadly similar approach. Indeed, in spite of the general diversity observed, non-recognition by the ANU was for some time the only policy that was distinctively idiosyncratic.

This study has thereby shown that strong coercive processes across the Australian states and territories in respect to the comprehensive standardisation of financial reporting practices for University library collections are yet to materialise. There are no specific accounting standards in Australia on accounting by public universities or on accounting for the collections of not-for-profit public institutions such as universities, museums and art galleries. Further layers of regulatory edict would appear to be a means for reducing diversity of practice across the country.

The only broad normative pressure discernible is the general favouring of more cautious approaches to recognising and valuing library collections. During the initial phase of recognising and valuing library collections it seems that a “big is better” approach was adopted by some institutions, perhaps in pursuit of “boasting rights”. However, the dramatic write-downs that ensued for several institutions appear to have now inculcated a more conservative mood across the sector. This is also evident in the more conservative depreciation polices that were adopted by several institutions during the survey period (for example, University of Sydney, University of Melbourne, University of Queensland). As these policies take effect, differences in the reported values of various library collections will diminish further over time.

In summary, the dominant institutional response that has been observed is one of “creeping conservatism” – that is, adopting more cautious accounting policies that will help guard against sudden and dramatic accounting debacles. The most extreme of these responses has been simply to decline to recognise the general library collection as an asset (ANU) or to avoid doing so by exploiting the permissive nature of state-based regulations (the universities in Queensland). Mimetic isomorphism emerges as a primary explanation for the changes observed, especially within specific Australian states (as shown in Western Australia and Queensland) but not, at this stage, on a cross-national basis. In the case of other Australian universities, a generally more cautious approach to collection valuation and the adoption of more conservative depreciation policies appear to be the main strategies adopted to guard against accounting debacles.

Summary and conclusion

Financial reporting of the library collections of Australia's public universities continues to be characterised by diversity in policy and a lack of reliability, comparability and usefulness. Perhaps no single disparity evidences this more clearly than the approaches of the University of Sydney and the ANU. At the close of 2011 Sydney reported its library collection at a value of $427 million. In stark contrast, the ANU – another research intensive university and member of the “Group of Eight” – is still yet to recognise any part of its general library collection as an asset for financial reporting purposes. Between these extremes lie a broad range of other carrying values and depreciation policies that are often surprising. For example, Monash University reports a $90 million asset, which is more than 20 times that of the University of NSW. The broad similarities in the size and profile of these institutions render this highly problematic: that is, it is more likely to be reflective of different accounting policies and their application rather than differences in the library collections per se. Disparities in accounting for heritage and other special collections were also noted, although the smaller dollar value generally attributed to such collections means that they have less overall impact on university financial reports.

The chaotic field of practice depicted has obvious implications for any attempt to use financial statement data to make an assessment of the relative quality of university library resources. Indeed, trying to undertake any such analysis would seem completely foolhardy. The disparities in accounting policies are such that they are also often likely to have implications for more general decision-making processes and accountability evaluations based on university financial reports. Of particular concern would be any attempt by university managers to use data from financial reports as the basis for library policy decisions, such as basing acquisition budgets on the immediate past depreciation charges.

That said, some evidence has been uncovered of a move towards more “conservative” approaches to accounting for library collections. A series of accounting debacles over the course of the last decade – typified by sudden and massive write-downs in carrying values – has no doubt served as a warning of the possible consequences of letting chaotic accounting go unchecked. The most extreme form of response has involved not recognising library collections as assets, with the majority of universities in Queensland now joining the ANU in pursuing this strategy. In the case of all but one of the Western Australian universities, caution is evident in the consensual adoption of an accounting policy which, while perfunctory in nature, has the attraction of being “low risk”.

At the heart of this field of chaotic practice is the nature of the resource being accounted for: a diverse range of books, periodicals and other resources typically accumulated in different ways (purchases, donations and bequests) over decades, and sometimes over more than a century. In addition, the value of such resources is typically seen as being of a non-financial nature and inhering instead in aiding research and education (Oakleaf 2011). Monetary valuation is, therefore, inevitably subjective and prone to misstatement, and this is compounded by the processes of assigning such values still being at a nascent stage of development and largely unregulated. In addition, it is posited that there was, on occasions, an apparent lack of awareness of the full implications of the accounting policies adopted. Given their time again, there seems little doubt that some universities would have adopted different approaches to accounting for their library collections, particularly so as to avoid the large write-downs and/or depreciation charges that followed from imprudent initial valuations.

As advanced by Lounsbury (2008), institutional searches for legitimacy are often more nuanced than a simple rush towards homogeneity. This may be particularly the case in connection with not-for-profit public sector institutions such as universities which are diverse in nature and characterised by multi-faceted objectives and accountability relationships. It may be speculated, for example, that several Australian universities – at least initially – sought to enhance their institutional legitimacy by assigning and reporting very optimistic financial values to their library collections, with the expectation that a valuable library collection in monetary terms would be interpreted as a marker of an academically serious and well-endowed institution. While also a matter of speculation, it might be hypothesised that the ANU favoured a different path to improving its reputation, opting for integrity in its financial reporting. Given the massive library write-downs that some of the former institutions have had to endure – which could not have improved public confidence in the institutions and their managers – it might also be speculated that the ANU's ultra-conservative strategy has been less troublesome and without adverse impact.

To take these matters beyond speculation will require detailed case studies at the level of individual institutions and which focus on “the broader cultural frameworks that are created and changed by field level actors, as well as at the lower level of organizations and other actors that articulate with those frameworks” (Lounsbury 2008, 356). Such inquiries may include interviews with university librarians and others involved in the management, financial reporting and auditing of university library collections. Research of this kind is thereby encouraged as well as the exploration of more nuanced and potentially more effective forms of accountability in not-for-profit public institutions.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Leona Campitelli, and the constructive comments received from each of the following: attendees at a meeting of the Council of Australian University Librarians, Fremantle, March 2012; participants at the annual conference of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, July 2012; Michael J. Jones and the two anonymous referees.

Notes

This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Allan Barton, who firmly believed that accounting information ought to be meaningful in the settings for which it is prepared.

Appendix 1. Carrying values, valuation bases and useful lives of general library collections of Australia's public universities, 2007 and 2011

Institution (Total assets per 2011 annual report)	Carrying value of general library collection 2007	Carrying value of general library collection 2011	Basis of carrying value	Estimated useful lives as used for depreciation purposes
Australian National University ($2971 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
Central Queensland University ($358 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
Charles Darwin University ($532 million)	$10,939,000	$9,382,000	2007 and 2010: external valuation based on fair value; 2008, 2009 and 2011: additions recognised at cost	10 years
Charles Sturt University ($1059 million)	$6,391,000	$6,976,000	Cost	Periodicals 10 years, monographs and audio-visual materials five year, 50% of rate is used in year of acquisition
Curtin University of Technology ($1221 million)	$12,510,000	$18,189,000	Cost of items acquired in the previous three years	Depreciated at 100% in the fourth year after acquisition
Deakin University ($1589 million)	$28,078,000	$13,240,000	Cost	Five to 10 years
Edith Cowan University ($1022 million)	$8,703,000	$6,116,000	2007 to 2010: cost of items acquired in the previous three years; 2011: cost	2007 to 2010: depreciated at 100% in the fourth year after acquisition; 2011: 10 years
Flinders University ($676 million)	$21,130,000	$17,906,000	Revalued at council's valuation triennially in 2007 and 2010 to reflect fair value	10 years
Griffith University ($2127 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
James Cook University ($850 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
La Trobe University ($1316 million)	$20,520,000	$20,803,000	Cost	10 years
Macquarie University ($2196 million)	$13,279,000	$16,998,000	Fair value on the basis of depreciated replacement value	Five years
Monash University ($2771 million)	$84,429,000	$89,889,000	Cost	Serials 30 years, monographs 20 years
Murdoch University ($913 million)	$10,689,000	$2,307,000	Cost of items acquired in the previous three years	Depreciated at 100% in the fourth year after acquisition
Queensland University of Technology ($1339 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
RMIT University ($2203 million)	$21,681,000	$30,958,000	Cost	10 years
Southern Cross University ($302 million)	$1,369,000 (includes heritage collection)	$1,098,000 (includes heritage collection)	Cost	Five years
Swinburne University of Technology ($1065 million)	$13,768,000	$12,590,000	2007 to 2009: cost; 2010 to 2011: depreciated cost and deemed fair value in accordance with the Victorian government directives	2007 to 2009: 15 years; 2010 to 2011: depreciated on the opening written down value each year (useful life not given)
University of Adelaide ($1446 million)	$34,744,000	$25,513,000	2007 and 2010: internal valuation based on the annual price movement of books; 2008, 2009 and 2011: additions recognised at cost	10 years
University of Ballarat ($533 million)	$3,264,000	$3,209,000	2007 to 2009: council valuation in 1993, with subsequent acquisitions at cost; 2010 to 2011: fair value	2007: three to eight years; 2008 to 2011: five to eight years
University of Canberra ($409 million)	$8,305,000	$3,266,000	2007: cost; 2008 to 2011: fair value	2007: not depreciated; 2008 to 2011: 10 years
University of Melbourne ($4671 million)	$252,190,000	$76,029,000	Cost	2007: monographs 40 years, periodicals 50 years; 2008 to 2009: monographs 40 years, periodicals 50 years, audio-visual three years; 2010 to 2011: monographs 20 years, periodicals 30 years, audio-visual five years
University of Newcastle ($1390 million)	$13,767,000 (comprising artworks and libraries)	$4,911,000 (comprising artworks, rare books and general libraries)	2007: revaluation in 2000 at depreciated replacement cost; 2008 to 2011: cost	Two to five years
University of New England ($582 million)	$23,660,000	$17,314,000	2007: fair value; 2008 to 2011: cost	10 years
University of NSW ($3270 million)	$7,232,000	$4,082,000	Cost	2007 to 2010: five years; 2011: 10 years
University of Queensland ($3241 million)	$384,809,000 (reference + heritage collection)	$51,785,000 (reference + heritage collection)	Common use collection: not recognised as an asset, reference collection: average replacement cost based on average cost of purchases over a five year rolling period (theses at replacement value)	2007 to 2010: Common use collection: not applicable, reference collection: depreciated at 2.0% (75 years) diminishing value; 2011: common use collection: not applicable, reference collection: depreciated at 15.0% (10 years) diminishing value
University of South Australia ($1504 million)	$17,728,000	$15,779,000	Fair value (approximated by written down current cost based on an internal annual valuation)	Books and electronic materials 10 years, journals 15 years
University of Southern Queensland ($463 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
University of the Sunshine Coast ($224 million)	Nil	Nil	General library collection not recognised as an asset	Not applicable
University of Sydney ($4787 million)	$467,359,000 (comprising undergraduate collection $2,245,000 and research collection $465,114,000)	$427,037,000	Internal valuation at 31 December 1998 with subsequent additions at cost	2007 to 2010: undergraduate collection: five years, research collection: not depreciated; 2011: 10 years
University of Tasmania ($894 million)	$38,593,000	$34,395,000	Cost	20 years
University of Technology Sydney ($1859 million)	$19,297,000	$16,245,000	Depreciated replacement value	Eight years (5% residual)
University of Western Australia ($1699 million)	$19,678,000	$3,156,000	Cost of items acquired in the previous three years	Depreciated at 100% in the fourth year after acquisition
University of Western Sydney ($1647 million)	$12,895,000	$11,868,000	Written down replacement cost at 31 December 1993, with subsequent additions at cost	Five years
University of Wollongong ($1163 million)	$10,638,000	$7,636,000	Independent valuation effective 1 January 1999 based on deprival value, with subsequent acquisitions at cost	One to 10 years
Victoria University ($973 million)	$11,222,000	$9,192,000	Cost	Books 10 years, serials five years, audio-visual and software four years