text:
An examination of different performance outcomes in an analytical procedures task.
To improve auditor judgments it is first necessary to understand and evaluate the judgment process (Libby 1981; Biggs et al. 1988; Bedard and Biggs 1991a, 1991b), including determining what successful auditors do differently from those who are less successful. For example, Bedard and Biggs (1991a) suggest that examining the information acquisition and evaluation process of auditors with correct and incorrect judgments for a task with a criterion variable may enable the evaluation of the components of such judgments. Our study incorporates a seeded error that allows us to examine the potential causes of different performance outcomes in an analytical procedures task through concurrent examination of four stages of the analytical procedures process (hypothesis generation, information search, hypothesis evaluation, and a final judgment).
To examine the differences in the judgment processes of auditors who make correct judgments versus those who do not, we use a computerized research instrument that records 82 experienced auditors' initial hypothesis generation and likelihood estimates, the order in which information was selected, additional hypotheses generated, resulting changes in the likelihood of hypotheses generated, and a judgment of the most likely cause of an analytical procedures fluctuation. With respect to hypothesis generation, this study provides further evidence relating to the importance of having a correct initial hypothesis set. (1) Specifically, the study identifies the extent to which correct participants either generate the correct cause initially or during information search, as well as the extent to which incorrect participants were able to self-generate the correct cause but subsequently chose a different cause. To examine differences in information search between correct and incorrect auditors, we examine the number of audit tests selected, the amount of budgetary time utilized, the breadth of testing, the depth of testing, and the focus of the tests selected. Finally, to examine information evaluation, we examine changes in the likelihoods of the correct and inherited hypotheses after evaluating specific tests.
Our study extends prior research examining performance differences in auditors' analytical procedures processes. In particular, this study extends the findings of the Bedard and Biggs (1991a) verbal protocol study through the use of a computerized research instrument that allows participants to select and evaluate additional audit tests and evidence, beyond the financial statements and other background material provided in the case. This allows us to examine in which of the various stages of analytical procedures auditors make less-than-optimal judgments. In addition, the concurrent examination of the four stages of analytical procedures extends previous research, which either has examined these stages independently or has examined less than the entire process. An exception is Asare and Wright (2003) where, for a subset of their participants, the four stages of the process were examined concurrently. (2)
Increasingly, auditors are using analytical procedures to investigate unexpected fluctuations noted in a client's financial statements (Bell et al. 1997). The analytical procedures process has been described by Koonce (1993) as a diagnostic sequential and iterative process involving hypothesis generation, information search, hypothesis evaluation, and a final judgment. That is, auditors generate or inherit explanatory hypotheses relating to the noted fluctuation (hypothesis generation), select additional tests and view the results of these tests (information search), evaluate evidence to discriminate between the competing hypotheses (hypothesis evaluation), and make a final judgment as to the most likely cause of the noted fluctuation. These stages of the analytical procedures process and their relationship to our design (discussed in detail later) are shown in Figure 1.
Hypothesis Generation
Early medical research suggested that, for diagnostic tasks, a correct hypothesis set was critical for successfully identifying the correct cause of a patient's problem. This research noted that the failure to determine the correct cause was due to not ever considering the true explanation and not due to poor evaluation processes (Elstein et al. 1978). Incorrect physicians were found to be unable to disconfirm early hypotheses and physicians who did not initially test for a given health condition were unlikely to subsequently make a correct final diagnosis (Patel and Groen 1986). However, a correct final diagnosis was always made by physicians who, at any time, had considered the correct cause. Further, the development of additional hypotheses was found to be poor, even where evidence contradictory to the initial hypotheses was examined (Joseph and Patel 1990). The importance of the hypothesis generation stage noted in the medical research has meant that a considerable amount of subsequent audit research has been based on the premise that having a correct hypothesis set will inevitably lead to selection of the correct cause (Libby 1985; Libby and Frederick 1990; Heiman 1990; Bedard and Biggs 1991a; Ismail and Trotman 1995; Bierstaker et al. 1999).
The importance of hypothesis generation in an analytical procedures setting was illustrated by Bedard and Biggs (1991a) and Bierstaker et al. (1999) using verbal protocols. This research showed that auditor performance was inhibited by hypothesis generation, with incorrect participants unable to construct the correct cause, even with extensive decision processes, due to a fixation on an initial problem representation. This finding held even where the initial or focus explanation was rejected, leading Bedard and Biggs (1991a) to conclude that audit effectiveness might be impaired when the correct cause is not included in the initial hypothesis set.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that an initial hypothesis set containing the correct cause is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for selecting the correct cause. Several researchers have suggested that the noted deficiencies in hypothesis generation might be overcome by the auditors' selection of appropriate tests (Asare et al. 1998; Bedard et al. 1998). Asare and Wright (2003) found that a correct initial hypothesis set led to superior performance by auditors in an analytical procedures task, when the auditors either received a balanced set of evidence (3) or selected a limited amount of evidence from a provided set of evidence options. They also noted that having a correct hypothesis set did not inevitably lead to a correct conclusion. Thus, contrary to medical research, not all auditors with the correct initial hypothesis set identified the correct cause, while some with an initial incorrect hypothesis set were able to identify the cause after information search and evaluation. These results suggest that inclusion of the correct cause in the initial hypothesis set is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for selection of the correct most likely cause.
The current study tests the robustness of these audit findings in a setting where the auditors' set of explanatory hypotheses is comprised of a single inherited incorrect hypothesis and an unlimited set of self-generated hypotheses and where participants are able to select and evaluate as many of the 18 provided audit tests as considered necessary. Hypothesis 1a examines whether inclusion of the correct cause in the initial hypothesis set is a necessary condition for the selection of the correct most likely cause. If some auditors (a significantly greater number than zero) can generate the correct cause during information search, then this would show that inclusion of the correct cause in the initial set was not a necessary condition for selection of that cause as the most likely cause.
H1a: Auditors who do not self-generate the correct cause in their initial hypothesis set will be able to generate the correct cause during information search.
To examine whether inclusion of the correct cause in the initial hypothesis set (or latter hypothesis set) is a sufficient condition for selecting the correct cause, we test the following hypothesis:
H1b: Generating the correct cause either initially or during information search does not necessarily lead to the selection of that cause as the most likely cause.
Information Search
Since previous auditing research has indicated that having a correct hypothesis set does not inevitably lead to the correct cause being selected (Bedard and Biggs 1991a; Asare and Wright 2003), it is likely that differences will exist in the information search processes of participants able to and not able to select the correct cause after generating it. Information search processes are also likely to vary with the type of error made by incorrect participants: selecting the inherited explanation or selecting another non-error explanation. Asare and Wright (2003) provide some evidence of the impact of different information search strategies on performance. They demonstrate that a balanced evidence set can result in improvements in performance, but it does not fully compensate for having an initial incorrect hypothesis set. Differences in information search for correct and incorrect participants are addressed in the current study through the following hypothesis:
H2: There are differences in the information search between auditors who selected the correct cause and those who selected each of the two incorrect causes.
This hypothesis is examined by considering the specific audit tests selected by the auditors including:
(1) the number of audit tests selected;
(2) the amount of budget time utilized;
(3) the number of hypothesis categories examined (breadth of testing);
(4) the number of tests per hypothesis category (depth of testing); and
(5) the focus of audit tests selected (i.e., focus of initial test selected, and focus on specified tests).
Hypothesis Evaluation
Few studies have examined the hypothesis evaluation stage of the analytical procedures process. An exception is the series of papers by Asare and Wright (1995, 1997a, 1997b), which found that auditors do not consider the full inferential implications of evidence. Although these studies do not investigate potential differences in hypothesis evaluation performance between auditors able to and not able to identify a correct explanatory cause, previous research suggests such differences exist. Bedard and Biggs (1991a) noted that in addition to hypothesis generation problems, incorrect auditors had problems with hypothesis evaluation since several of the auditors were unable to disconfirm their self-generated hypotheses even though disconfirming cues had already been acquired. It has been noted that one way to overcome this focus on initial hypotheses is to consider additional explanations, either inherited from the experimenter or self-generated (Heiman 1990) or explicitly considering why an inherited cause may not be correct (Koonce 1992). Further, both Heiman-Hoffman et al. (1995) and Asare and Wright (2003) also noted belief perseverance for an initial hypothesis, even after evidence to the contrary was received during the information search and hypothesis evaluation phases of analytical procedures. Of particular interest to this study is the finding by Asare and Wright (2003) that not all auditors inheriting the same correct hypothesis set and the same balanced set of evidence were able to select the correct cause. This finding suggests that there are differences in the evaluation of individual audit test results between correct and incorrect auditors.
In our study, we expect two specific differences in information evaluation. First, on reviewing the results of tests related to the inherited hypothesis, participants can either increase, decrease, or not change their likelihood assessment that the inherited hypothesis is correct. Correct evaluation of the test results would decrease the likelihood of the inherited hypothesis. Consequently we expect that correct participants would be more likely than incorrect inherited participants to decrease the likelihood of the inherited hypothesis after viewing each of these tests, but less likely to increase the likelihood of the inherited hypothesis. Second, after reviewing the results of the correct error tests, participants can increase, decrease, or keep constant the likelihood of the correct cause. Correct evaluation of the test results would increase the likelihood of the correct cause. It is expected that correct participants are more likely than incorrect participants to increase this likelihood of the correct cause, but less likely to decrease the likelihood of the correct cause. The above is tested with the following hypothesis:
H3a: After reviewing the results of tests related to the inherited hypothesis, correct participants are more likely (less likely) to decrease (increase) their likelihood of the inherited hypothesis compared to incorrect inherited participants.
H3b: After reviewing the results of tests related to the correct error, correct participants are more likely (less likely) to increase (decrease) their likelihood of the correct cause compared to incorrect participants.
Further Analysis
Support for H1a and H1b suggests that inclusion of the correct cause in the initial set is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for selection of the correct cause as the most likely cause. Therefore, after hypothesizing the correct cause, there must be some other differences between participants who ultimately select/do not select this hypothesis as the most likely cause. We examine the information search and hypothesis evaluation processes for those participants who, at some stage, generate the correct cause to address the following research question.
RQ1: For auditors who self-generate the correct cause, are there differences in the information search and hypothesis evaluation processes of those who select the correct cause and those who do not?
Participants were 82 auditors (4) from one Australian Big 5 firm. In terms of general experience, the mean audit experience of the participants was 3.8 years (range 2 to 8 years). All but two participants had at least three years of audit experience. Two participants had two years of experience; 41 participants had five years of experience; 19 participants had four years of experience; 17 participants had four years of experience; four participants had six years of experience; one subject had eight years of experience. The participants' self-described level in the firm was supervisor (n = 28), senior (n = 21) and staff (n = 35). All but 10 (11.9 percent) of the participants had some manufacturing audit experience (mean number of manufacturing audits 5.89, range 0-30; mean number of manufacturing clients 2.77, range 0-15).
Research Instrument
The case used in this study was adapted from Asare and Wright (1995, 1997b). After pilot testing, amendments to the original Asare and Wright (1995, 1997b) case were made to (1) suit the Australian setting; (2) assist participants in achieving the correct outcome (the changes included adding clarifying information); and (3) add controls to the computer program. (5)
The auditors were provided with an instruction booklet containing background information, including a set of financial data with a seeded error, and results of analytical procedures, which included an unexpected material fluctuation in the gross margin ratio for a hypothetical manufacturing client.
The case materials told participants to focus on the material unexpected fluctuation in gross margin. Although there were multiple plausible explanations consistent with the initial problem information, the auditors were informed that only one cause was responsible for substantially all of the fluctuation, "accounting for 90 percent or more of the fluctuation." This approach is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Koonce 1992; Libby 1985; Bedard and Biggs 1991a; Asare and Wright 1997b).
The actual cause of the unexpected fluctuation was that the company incorrectly accounted for standard cost variances relating to labor and overhead. The entire variance was posted to the COGS account rather than being allocated across COGS and finished goods inventory, resulting in an overstatement of COGS and an understatement of finished goods inventory. All participants inherited the same plausible (that is, consistent with the available problem information) but incorrect non-error explanation suggesting that increased Japanese competition had led to shrinking margins. (6)
After reading the background material, the remainder of the experiment was performed interactively using a personal computer. Participants generated hypotheses to explain the noted fluctuation, assessed the likelihood that each of the explanations accounted for substantially all of the fluctuation, then conducted a sequential and iterative information search under a realistic time budget constraint before making their judgment as to the most likely cause of the fluctuation. That is, participants selected the audit procedure they wished to conduct from a list of 18 possible audit tests (different random order for each subject), reviewed the results for the test, added hypotheses, if desired, and then assessed the likelihood for the complete set of potential explanations, as before. This process of selection and review of individual tests and adding explanations continued until the auditors opted to nominate one of the potential explanations as the most likely cause of the noted fluctuation. Only after the auditors had examined as many tests as they considered necessary did they nominate their most likely cause. Finally, all auditors were asked several debriefing questions relating to their previous work experience. These steps are shown in Figure 1. On average, the experimental task took 60 minutes to complete.
The provided list of 18 tests (see Exhibit 1) and associated test results covered six possible categories of hypotheses: sales mix or price change, inherited non-error, general related to gross margin changes, sales error, inventory error, and correct error. These categories and the related tests are described in Table 3. The categories are the same as those used by Asare and Wright (1997a, 1997b, 2003). Three of the tests (Tests 3, 16, and 17) related directly to the inherited explanation (i.e., increased Japanese competition leading to shrinking margins), while one test (Test 1.3) indirectly related to that explanation by testing for changes in sales prices. Selection and correct interpretation of Tests 3, 16, or 13 should have allowed participants to disconfirm the inherited explanation. (7)
List of Audit Tests
1. Prepare an analysis of gross margin per unit for the current year as compared to the prior year.
2. Inspect inventories or test perpetual records, making test counts and noting damaged, obsolete, and overstocked items.
3. Gather comparative financial data of clients in the same industry and determine whether their gross margins are declining.
4. Compare product sales mix by month with the previous year.
5. Test sales cut off at balance sheet date to ascertain the propriety of the corresponding entries.
6. Test raw material pricing by reference to perpetual inventory records and to vendor invoices.
7. Compare standard costs from the current year to the prior year.
8. Examine vendors' invoices and determine whether inventory in transit (FOB destination) have been improperly included in current year's inventory.
9. By product line, compare the percentage of material, labor, and overhead costs in ending inventory to that in cost of sales.
10. Determine proper cut-off by examination of transactions around inventory date, using information gathered during the physical examination.
11. Perform a review of the standard costs as compared to actual costs through price testing of raw materials and calculation of actual labor and overhead costs incurred.
12. Trace shipping documents to resultant sales invoices and entry into the sales journal to verify that sales transactions are recorded.
13. Prepare an analysis comparing the average sales price per unit by product line for two-year period.
14. Compare sales prices in selected transactions to price lists and determine the extent of sales discounts granted.
15. Prepare an analysis of gross margin by month by product line as compared to the prior year.
16. Consult with the marketing manager about the extent of Japanese pricing competition and marketing strategies to deal with the situation.
17. Examine industry trade journals and economic indicators to determine the trends and extent of Japanese competition.
18. Compare standard cost variance accounts with previous year
Coding of Data
The nominated most likely cause for each subject was coded into one of four performance outcomes: correct (i.e., the actual seeded error, including overstatement of COGS or understatement of finished goods inventory (8)), incorrect inherited (i.e., the inherited explanation), incorrect self-generated error (9) (i.e., an error other than a correct explanation), and incorrect self-generated non-error (i.e., a non-error other than the inherited non-error). In addition, consistent with the audit test categories used by Asare et al. (1998), the focus of the tests examined by the auditors was coded according to whether they related to the correct seeded explanation, the inherited explanation, or to other plausible but incorrect explanations. All classifications were performed by one of the authors and an independent coder. After performing the coding task independently, the two coders met and resolved all differences.
Twenty-four (29.3 percent) of the auditors proposed the correct seeded error cause. The remaining most likely causes were incorrect, with 28 (34.1 percent) auditors selecting the inherited explanation and 30 (36.6 percent) selecting an incorrect self-generated non-error explanation as their most likely cause.
Hypotheses 1a and lb examine whether a correct initial hypothesis set is either a necessary or sufficient condition for selection of the correct cause. Table 1 shows that a large number of participants (n = 63) generated the correct cause during the task. While most (n = 50) generated the correct cause in the initial set of hypotheses, 13 participants were able to generate the correct cause during information search (13 is significantly different from zero, binomial test, p = 0.000). That is, the correct cause can be generated after the initial hypothesis set and therefore initial generation of the correct cause is not a necessary condition for selection of the correct cause and, thus, H1a is supported. Also, including the correct cause in the hypothesis set did not ensure that it would be selected as the correct cause, as 39 (61.9 percent) of the 63 participants considering the correct cause ultimately did not select it (39 is significantly different from zero, binomial test, p = 0.000). Thus, H1b is supported. These results indicate that generation of the correct cause in the initial hypothesis set is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for selection of the correct cause. (10)
Hypothesis 2 addresses whether there are differences in the information searches of correct and incorrect participants. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the following measures of information search examined: the number of audit tests selected, the budgeted hours utilized, number of hypothesis categories tested (breadth of testing), and the number of tests per hypothesis category (depth of testing) by participants with different performance outcomes. Results of three separate one-way ANOVAs, with performance outcome as the independent variable, and number of tests selected, number of audit hours utilized, and number of hypothesis categories examined as the dependent variables indicated no significant differences in any of these three measures between the performance outcome groups (F = 0.095, p = 0.909; F = 0.269, p = 0.765; F = 0.624, p = 0.539, respectively).
One-way ANOVAs examining the depth of hypothesis testing (measured as the number of tests selected from each of the six hypothesis categories) revealed significant differences between participants with different performance outcomes (F = 0.745, p = 0.046). Participants selecting the correct cause and those selecting the incorrect self-generated non-error both selected fewer Category 2 tests (relating to the inherited explanation) than participants selecting the incorrect inherited explanation (p = 0.000; p = 0.003; means of 0.63, 1.89, and 1.23, respectively). Compared to participants selecting the inherited explanation, participants selecting either the correct cause or an incorrect self-generated non-error cause also selected more Category 6 tests (relating to the correct error) (p = 0.011; p = 0.007; means of 2.00, 1.21, and 2.00, respectively). The only difference in information search between correct participants and incorrect self-generated non-error participants is that the correct participants selected significantly more inventory tests on average (1.04 versus 0.37, p = 0.023).
Table 3 presents descriptive results for the number of times each of the 18 audit tests was selected by participants in the three performance outcome groups. Chi-square tests of proportions indicated that there are several key differences in the frequency of the selection of each test between the performance outcome groups: very few participants selecting the correct cause selected two of the tests relating to the inherited explanation (Tests 3 and 17); consistent with the findings noted for the depth of hypothesis testing, significantly more of the participants selecting the inherited explanation selected two tests directly related to the inherited explanation (Tests 3 and 17) than participants selecting either the correct or an incorrect self-generated non-error explanation; significantly fewer of the participants selecting the inherited explanation selected two tests directly examining the correct error explanation (Tests 11 and 18) compared to participants selecting the correct cause or an incorrect self-generated non-error explanation; significantly less participants selecting an incorrect self-generated non-error cause chose Test 10 compared to the other two outcome groups.
To test Hypothesis 3a we examine changes in the likelihood of the inherited explanation for both correct and incorrect inherited participants after reviewing the results of four tests related to the inherited hypothesis (Tests 3, 13, 16, and 17). After reading the results of these tests, correct participants were much more likely to interpret the results correctly (decrease the likelihood) than incorrect inherited participants. Correct participants selected 18 of these tests and the impact on the likelihood of the inherited hypothesis was: decrease: 11; no change: 4; increase: 3. In contrast, incorrect inherited participants selected 55 of these tests and the impact on the likelihood of the inherited hypothesis was: decrease: 4; no change: 15; increase: 36 (Chi-squared test comparing the correct and incorrect inherited: [chi square] = 25.31 ; p = 0.000). The results provide support for H3a and show that not only did incorrect inherited participants choose these tests more often, but they also generally incorrectly interpreted them. The incorrect inherited participants generally increased the likelihood of the inherited hypothesis after viewing these tests but few participants in the correct group did this.
To test H3b, Table 4 shows the impact of examining the results of each of the four Category 6 tests (correct tests) on the likelihood of the correct cause. Overall results for the four tests are shown at the bottom of Table 4 (Chi-squared tests comparing the correct and the combined incorrect groups: [chi square] = 56.10; p = 0.000). These results provide support for H3b. Most correct participants increased the likelihood of the correct cause, while few incorrect participants did so. In fact, in the bottom section of Table 4 where we combine Tests 7, 9, 11, and 18, we find that the likelihood of the correct cause was decreased 28 times after seeing the results of these tests. Only four of these 28 decreases were by a correct subject (three of these related to Test 7). On the other hand, the likelihood was increased 47 times and 35 of these were by correct participants. Additional insights can also be gained by considering the impact of each of the four individual tests. Table 4 shows the differences in how the correct participants evaluated each of these tests compared to the other two outcome groups. For Test 7, there is little difference between the three outcome groups. However, for Tests 9, 11, and 18, it is clear that most participants in the correct group increased the likelihood of the correct cause after reviewing these test results, whereas most participants in the other two outcome groups did not.
From some additional analysis we carried out, we note that 50 percent (that is, 15) of the incorrect self-generated non-error group actually finished with a Category 6 test. It would be expected that the results of these Category 6 tests would result in participants decreasing the likelihood of their non-error hypotheses and increasing the likelihood of the correct cause. However, of these 15 participants, 10 actually increased the likelihood of their non-error by an average 0.26, two participants added in a new non-error hypothesis, and three participants made no change. Again, these results suggest that poor hypothesis evaluation was an important reason for not identifying the correct cause.
To answer RQ1, further analysis was undertaken to investigate differences in the information search and hypothesis evaluation processes between the 24 participants (identified in Table 1) who ultimately were able to select the correct cause after self-generating it, and the 39 participants (see Table 1) who were unable to correctly identify that cause as the correct cause after self-generating it. Table 5 provides descriptive differences between these two groups. With respect to information search, no differences were noted between participants selecting the correct cause, the incorrect inherited cause or an incorrect self-generated non-error cause for the number of tests selected, the budget hours utilized, or the breadth of hypothesis testing (number of hypothesis categories tested). However, several differences were noted in the depth of testing (number of tests per hypothesis category). Participants selecting the correct cause selected significantly fewer tests relating to the inherited explanation (Category 2) than did participants selecting the incorrect inherited explanation and participants selecting an incorrect self-generated non-error cause (F = 21.900, p = 0.000; means of 0.63, 1.95, and 1.26, respectively). The correct participants also selected significantly more tests relating to the correct cause (Category 6) than incorrect inherited participants (F = 3.141, p = 0.050; means of 2.00 and 1.35, respectively).
With respect to measures of performance outcome, both the final likelihood for the inherited explanation and the likelihood for participants' selected cause differed significantly between the groups (F = 153.379, p = 0.000; F = 8.264, p = 0.001). Post hoc tests revealed that participants selecting the incorrect inherited explanation had a significantly higher final likelihood for the inherited explanation than did the correct participants (p = 0.000; 84.00, 2.88) and the incorrect self-generated non-error participants (p = 0.000; 84.00, 14.21). Participants selecting an incorrect self-generated non-error had a significantly lower likelihood for their selected cause than the correct participants (p = 0.021; 54.74, 75.04) and the incorrect inherited participants (p = 0.001; 54.74, 84.00). While in the direction expected, the number of participants selecting a Category 6 test as the last test did not differ significantly between the correct and incorrect participants. No significant differences were noted between the groups for the time taken to complete the experiment.
This study uses a realistic analytical procedures task in which participants had the opportunity to search for and obtain additional evidence. It jointly examines hypothesis generation, information search, hypothesis evaluation, and the final judgment stages of analytical procedures, and how these stages differ between auditors with different levels of performance.
The fact that 19 of out of 82 participants (23 percent) never considered the correct cause indicates that hypothesis generation deficiencies are one of the major causes for poor performance on this task, Of the 63 participants who generated the correct cause during the task, most (n = 50) generated it in the initial set, while relatively few (n = 13) generated it during testing. While the small number generating it during testing is consistent with the medical literature described earlier, it does show that subsequent generation is possible and that generation of the correct cause in the initial hypothesis set is not a necessary condition for selection of the correct cause. However, it appears that if auditors are going to generate the correct cause, it is most likely to occur in their initial hypothesis set. It was also found that including the correct cause in the initial or subsequent hypothesis set did not ensure that it would be selected as the correct cause, with only 24 (38 percent) of the 63 participants including the correct cause in their hypothesis set at some stage ultimately selecting it. These results indicate that, contrary to findings reported previously in medical (Elstein et al. 1978) and auditing (Bedard and Biggs 199 la) research, the inclusion of the correct cause in the auditors' initial hypothesis set is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for selection of the correct cause.
Incorrect participants were divided into two categories: those who incorrectly selected the inherited hypothesis and those who incorrectly selected another non-error. The results addressing information search indicate that there were several differences in the depth of testing for specific hypotheses, as well as for the frequency of selection of specific tests between the correct and the incorrect inherited participants. The former chose significantly less of the inherited non-error tests and significantly more of the correct error tests. However, there were few differences in information search between the correct participants and the incorrect self-generated non-error participants, with both choosing on average the same number of correct error tests. It therefore appears that the differences between these two groups' performance is more likely to relate to information evaluation rather than information search.
Differences were found in the hypothesis evaluation performance of the correct and incorrect participants. For the incorrect inherited group, not only did they choose more tests related to the inherited hypothesis and less correct error tests, but they also generally had difficulties evaluating these tests. These participants generally increased their likelihood of the inherited explanation rather than reducing it and they more frequently decreased the likelihood of the correct error hypothesis rather than increasing it. This was not the case for the correct participants who generally correctly interpreted the results of these tests.
While there were few differences in information search between correct participants and incorrect self-generated non-error participants, the differences in hypothesis evaluation were significant. In particular, for the evaluation of the correct error tests, most participants in the correct group increased the likelihood of the correct cause. However, the incorrect self-generated non-error group, on average, more often decreased the likelihood of the correct cause. This poor performance in hypothesis evaluation led to the final incorrect conclusion.
In summary, the results of this study indicate that although the correct and incorrect participants selected a similar number of tests, and spent a similar amount of budget and experimental time, there were significant differences in hypothesis generation, information search, and hypothesis evaluation. These findings therefore lend support to the suggestion by Asare and Wright (2003) that not only is hypothesis generation important, but information search and hypothesis evaluation are also important sources of incorrect judgments.
Our conclusions should be considered in light of the study's limitations. First, the case involved an income understatement, whereas in practice auditors may see income overstatement as a higher-risk situation. To the extent that different information search and hypothesis evaluation strategies may be used to investigate under- and overstatement errors, our results may not be generalizable. Second, while we provided extensive background data, financial data, and numerous tests, participants were told to focus on the gross margin ratio. Future research could provide less guidance, include a wider variety of patterns of accounts related to the error, and incorporate the technology that has recently been adopted by firms. Third, the study did not include all diagnostic tests and participants could limit the number of audit procedures conducted. In practice, the use of an audit program where auditors cannot cut off work without approval and where they may have had more time and incentives to follow up with additional work, overall performance on the task may be higher. Fourth, this study did not examine the effect of technology changes, in the form of computerized checklists and decision aids, in the performing of analytical procedures. This issue provides scope for future research. Finally, although this study provides considerable evidence of the ways in which information search and hypothesis evaluation differ between auditors with different performance outcomes, the research design used does not allow conclusions to be made regarding why these differences occur. Future research using alternative methods, such as protocol analysis, may provide evidence of such differences.
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Participants Generating and Not Generating the Correct Error Cause Number of Participants in Each Group and Their Performance Outcome Participants Not Generating the Correct Error Cause Selected Selected Incorrect Incorrect Total Inherited Non-Error n = 19 n = 8 n = 11 Generated in initial set of hypotheses Generated during information search Generated during the whole task Not generated 19 8 11 during the whole task Participants Generating the Correct Error Cause Selected Selected Selected Correct Incorrect Incorrect Total Cause Inherited Non-Error n = 63 n = 24 n = 20 n = 19 Generated in 50 19 17 14 initial set of hypotheses Generated 13 5 3 5 during information search Generated 63 24 20 19 during the whole task Not generated during the whole task TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Information Search Incorrect Correct (C) Inherited (I) Mean No. Mean No. (std. dev.) (std. dev.) Category (n = 24) (n = 28) Audit Tests 5.71 5.82 Selected (a) (1.30) (.94) Budget Hours 22.13 21.43 Utilized (a) (5.36) (3.94) Number of 3.96 4.14 Hypothesis (.86) (.80) Categories Tested (a) 1 Sales Mix or Price .67 .61 Change (.76) (.57) (Tests 4, 13 and 14) 2 Inherited Non-error .63 1.89 (b) (Tests 3, 16 and 17) (.58) (.74) 3 General Gross .67 .46 Margin Changes (.56) (.51) (Tests 1 and 15) 4 Sales Error .71 .71 (Tests 5 and 17) (.55) (.46) 5 Inventory Error 1.04 .93 (Tests 2, 6, 8, and 10) (1.00) (1.09) 6 Correct error 2.00 1.21 (d) (Tests 7, 9, 11, and 18) (.93) (.79) Incorrect Self-Generated Non-Error (N-E Total Mean No. Mean No. (std. dev.) (std. dev.) Category (n = 30) (n = 82) Audit Tests 5.83 5.83 Selected (a) (1.15) (1.14) Budget Hours 21.23 21.73 Utilized (a) (4.49) (4.63) Number of 3.87 4.02 Hypothesis (1.14) (.97) Categories Tested (a) 1 Sales Mix or Price .97 .79 Change (.72) (.69) (Tests 4, 13 and 14) 2 Inherited Non-error 1.23 1.29 (Tests 3, 16 and 17) (.86) (.89) 3 General Gross .80 .67 Margin Changes (.55) (.57) (Tests 1 and 15) 4 Sales Error .47 .64 (Tests 5 and 17) (.68) (.59) 5 Inventory Error .37 (c) .76 (Tests 2, 6, 8, and 10) (.56) (.93) 6 Correct error 2.00 1.71 (Tests 7, 9, 11, and 18) (1.02) (1.01) (a) No significant differences in number of categories tested between the performance outcome groups (F = 0.624, p = 0.539). (b) I significantly more than C: p = 0.000; and I significantly more than N-E: p = 0.003. (c) N-E significantly less than C: p = 0.023; and N-E significantly less than I: p = 0.059. (d) I significantly less than C: p = 0.011; and 1 significantly less than N-E: p = 0.007. TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics for Frequency of Selection for Each Audit Test by Performance Outcome Incorrect Correct Inherited Number Number (Proportion) (Proportion) Test (n = 24) (n = 28) Category 1: Sales Mix or Price Change Tests 4 7 (.29) 7 (.25) 13 4 (.17) (a)(b) 3 (.11) (a) 14 5 (.21) 7 (.25) Category 2: Inherited Non-Error Tests 3 2 (.08) (a) 20 (.75) (b) 16 12 (.50) 19 (.68) 17 0 (.00) (a) 13 (.46) (b) Category 3: General Tests for Gross Margin Changes 1 12 (.50) 9 (.32) 15 4 (.17) 4 (.14) Category 4: Sales Error Tests 5 11 (.46) 12 (.43) 12 6 (.25) 8 (.29) Category 5: Inventory Error Tests 2 7 (.29) 10 (.36) 6 4 (.17) 3 (.11) 8 5 (.21) 7 (.25) 10 9 (.37) (a) 6 (.21) (a)(b) Category 6: Correct Error Tests 7 12 (.50) 13 (.46) 9 9 (.37) 9 (.32) 11 15 (.62) (a) 8 (.29) (b) 18 13 (.50) (a) 4 (.14) (b) Total 137 164 Incorrect Self- Generated Non-Error Total Number Number (Proportion) (Proportion) Test (n = 30) (n = 82) Category 1: Sales Mix or Price Change Tests 4 8 (.27) 22 (.26) 13 11 (.37) (b) 18 (.23) 14 10 (.33) 22 (.27) Category 2: Inherited Non-Error Tests 3 11 (.37) (c) 33 (.43) 16 19 (.63) 50 (.61) 17 7 (.23) (c) 20 (.25) Category 3: General Tests for Gross Margin Changes 1 17 (.57) 38 (.48) 15 7 (.23) 15 (.19) Category 4: Sales Error Tests 5 9 (.30) 32 (.41) 12 5 (.17) 19 (.24) Category 5: Inventory Error Tests 2 3 (.10) 21 (.25) 6 2 (.07) 9 (.11) 8 4 (.13) 16 (.19) 10 2 (.07) (b) 17 (.21) Category 6: Correct Error Tests 7 15 (.50) 40 (.49) 9 9 (.30) 27 (.33) 11 18 (.57) (a) 41 (.48) 18 19 (.63) (a) 36 (.42) Total 176 477 (a)(b)(c) Entries in the same row with different letters are significantly different. For example, for test 11 the incorrect inherited is significantly different than the other two columns, but there is no difference between the correct subjects and the incorrect non-error. TABLE 4 Impact of Correct Error Tests on Likelihood of Correct Cause Performance Outcome Incorrect Self- Impact on Likelihood for Incorrect Generated Correct Cause Correct Inherited Non-Error Test 7 selected: n = 40 Decreased: n = 6 3 2 1 No change: n = 16 5 5 6 Increased: n = 8 4 2 2 Not applicable (a): n = 10 4 6 Test 9 selected: n = 27 Decreased: n = 4 0 3 1 No change: n = 8 2 4 2 Increased: n = 8 7 0 1 Not applicable: n = 7 2 5 Test 11 selected: n = 41 Decreased: n = 10 1 5 4 No change: n = 9 2 1 6 Increased: n = 15 12 1 2 Not applicable: n = 7 1 6 Test 18 selected: n = 36 Decreased: n = 8 0 2 6 No change: n = 5 1 0 4 Increased: n = 16 12 2 2 Not Applicable: n = 7 0 7 Total Tests 7, 9, 11, 18: n = 144 Decreased: n = 28 4 12 12 No change: n = 38 10 10 18 Increased: n = 47 35 5 7 Not Applicable: n = 31 7 24 Chi-Square for total tests combining incorrect groups ([chi square] = 56.10; p = 0.000). (a) Some incorrect participants never included the correct cause in their hypothesis set and therefore we could not examine the impact on the likelihood of the correct cause. TABLE 5 Participants Generating the Correct Error Cause Selected Selected Selected Correct Incorrect Incorrect Cause Inherited Non-Error n = 24 n = 20 n = 19 Number of Tests Selected 5.71 5.85 6.05 Budgeted Hours Utilized 22.13 21.50 22.42 Breadth of Hypothesis Testing 3.96 4.15 4.21 Depth of Testing Differences Category 2 Tests (1) 0.63 (a) 1.95 (b) 1.26 (c) Category 6 Tests (2) 2.00 (d) 1.35 (e) 1.95 (d)(e) Final Likelihood of Inherited Explanation (3) 2.88 (a) 84.00 (b) 14.21 (a) Final Likelihood of Selected Cause (4) 75.04 (a) 84.00 (a) 54.74 (b) Time to Complete Experiment (minute) 42.94 40.61 45.65 Number of Participants Choosing a Category 6 Test as Last Tests (5) 13 5 9 (1) F = 21.900, p = 0.000 (2) F = 3.141, p = 0.050 (3) F = 153.379, p = 0.000 (4) F = 8.264, p = 0.001 (5) [chi square] = 4.016, p = 0.134 (a)(b)(c) Entries in same row with different letters are significantly different. (d)(e) Entries in same row with different letters are marginally significantly different.
The authors thank Jean Bedard, Stan Biggs, Mario Maletta, Roger Simnett, Amie Wright, Bill Messier (editor), and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We also thank Steve Asare and Amie Wright for access to their original research instrument.
(1) A correct hypothesis set is a set of hypotheses that includes the correct cause/error.
(2) Asare and Wright (2003) randomly assigned participants to one of six cells created by crossing two levels of information search with three levels of hypothesis set. Only one of these six cells looked at all four stages of the analytical procedures process. Their analysis compared the judgments in this cell with judgments in the other cells. Our study addresses the situation where all participants are involved in the four stages and we compare the performance in these phases of correct and incorrect participants.
(3) Asare and Wright (2003) use the term "balanced information set" to indicate that evidence was provided to the auditors for each of the provided hypotheses.
(4) Originally, there were 84 participants. Two of the participants proposed an incorrect self-generated error explanation. Given the small number in this group, the remainder of the analysis does not consider these two participants, concentrating on the other three groups described in the "Results" section (i.e., 82 participants).
(5) These controls aimed to ensure: all sections of the instrument were completed; no cause could be deleted after inclusion; amount of budget time left was clearly displayed after each test; and that the cause selected was one of those included in the hypothesis set.
(6) The inherited hypothesis was manipulated using a 2 x 2 between-participants design, varying the source (either client management or audit superior) and the timing of receipt of the inherited explanation (either prior to or after self-generation of explanations). These manipulations and the results examining them are included in a related study by one of the authors. These manipulations had neither significant impact on the correctness of the final judgment nor any impact on oar hypotheses.
(7) The results for these four tests did not provide clear confirmation of the inherited explanation. Results for Test 3 confirmed that there had been some decline in gross margins through the industry due to increased Japanese competition, however the extent of the decline did not account for substantially all (defined in the research instrument as 90 percent or more) of the noted fluctuation. Results for Test 16 confirmed the existence of increased Japanese competition, however that test also noted that the clients' sales prices had been unchanged for the past three years indicating that the inherited explanation did not account for the noted fluctuation in the current period. Results for Test 17 did confirm the presence of increased Japanese competition in the market, however the test results provided no client-specific details to enable confirmation of that factor as the cause of the noted fluctuation for the client for the current time period. Finally, Test 13 disconfirmed the inherited explanation since it indicated there had been no sales price changes. Therefore, although Test 17 provided evidence generally indicative of increased Japanese competition, since no evidence relating to client-specific effects was provided by this test, it is reasonable to suggest that the auditors should have seen a need for further attention to this explanation via additional tests to determine the impact on the client's financial statements. In fact, every participant who chose Test 17 also chose at least one other test of the inherited explanation.
(8) The actual seeded error was that standard cost variances relating to labor and overhead were posted to the COGS account rather than being allocated across COGS and finished goods inventory. The result of this error was an overstatement of COGS and an understatement of finished goods inventory.
(9) As discussed in footnote 4 this latter category only included two participants who were not included in the analysis.
(10) Neither the general experience (years and level in the firm) nor the domain experience (number of manufacturing audits and number of manufacturing clients) was found to differ significantly between the participants able to and not able to generate the correct error cause. These measures also did not differ significantly between participants able to and not able to select the correct error cause after generating it.
Asare, S. K., and A. Wright. 1995. Normative and substantive expertise in multiple hypothesis evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64: 171-184.
--, and --. 1997a. Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (8): 737-755.
--, and --. 1997b. Evaluation of competing hypotheses in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 16 (Spring): 1-13.
--, --, and S. Wright. 1998. Utilizing analytical procedures as substantive evidence: The impact of a client explanation on hypothesis testing. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research: 13-31.
--, and --. 2003. A note on the interdependence of hypothesis generation and information search in conducting analytical procedures. Contemporary Accounting Research. 20 (2): 235-251.
Bedard, J. C., and S. F. Biggs. 1991a. Pattern recognition, hypothesis generation and auditor performance in an analytical task. The Accounting Review 66 (July): 622-642.
--, and --. 1991b. The effect of domain-specific experience on evaluation of management representations in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory l0 (Supplement): 77-90.
--, --, and J. DePietro. 1998. The effects of hypothesis quality, client management explanations and industry experience on audit planning decisions. Advances in Accounting 16: 49-73.
Bell, T., F. Marts, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations Through a Strategic-Systems Lens. Montvale, NJ: KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.
Bierstaker, J. L., J. C. Bedard, and S. F. Biggs. 1999. The role of problem representation shifts in auditor decision processes in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (Spring): 18-36.
Biggs, S. F., T. Mock, and P. Watkins. 1988. Auditors' use of analytical review in audit program design. The Accounting Review 63 (January): 148-161.
Elstein, A. S., L. E. Shulman, and S. A. Sprafka. 1978. Medical Problem Solving. An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heiman, V. 1990. Auditors' assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. The Accounting Review 65 (October): 875-890.
Heiman-Hoffman, V., D. V. Moser, and A. Joseph. 1995. The impact of an auditors' initial hypothesis on subsequent performance at identifying actual errors. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Spring): 763-779.
Ismail, Z., and K. T. Trotman. 1995. The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks. Accounting, Organizations and Society: 20 (5): 345-357.
Joseph, G. M., and V. L. Patel. 1990. Domain knowledge and hypothesis generation in diagnostic reasoning. Medical Decision Making 10:31-46.
Koonce, L. 1992. Explanation and counterexplanation during audit analytical review. The Accounting Review 67 (January): 59-76.
--. 1993. A cognitive characterization of audit analytical review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (Supplement): 57-76.
Libby, R. 1981. Accounting and Human Information Processing: Theory and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
--. 1985. Availability and the generation of hypotheses in analytical review. Journal of Accounting Research: 23 (2): 648-667.
--, and D. Frederick. 1990. Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Autumn): 348-367.
Patel, V., and G. Groen. 1986. Knowledge-based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cognitive Science: 91-116.
Submitted: October 2001
Accepted: March 2003
Wendy J. Green is a Senior Lecturer and Ken T. Trotman is a Professor, both at The University of New South Wales.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
|Green, Wendy J.; Trotman, Ken T.
|Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory
|Sep 1, 2003
|Previous Article:
|The impact of retention incentives and client business risks on auditors' decisions involving aggressive reporting practices.
|Next Article:
|A test of changes in auditors' fraud-related planning judgments since the issuance of SAS No. 82.


text:
49 and laterE- ExceltoCI/ BI/ IB: Getting " download of the specific resource has failed" When Using nfiguring App Transport Security Exceptions in. CFNetwork SSLHandshake failedError Domain= NSURLErrorDomain Code= - 1200 " An SSL error has occurred. How to Fix Firefox Secure Connection Failed Errors. " Secure Connection Failed" error messages show up when a Firefox user tries to load a. An error occurred. see Websites don' t load - troubleshoot and fix error. Failed error page. Failed error pages with the error code SSL_ ERROR_ RX. SQL server service won' t start after disabling TLS 1. initialization failed with error. fatal error occurred while creating an SSL. The SSL message appeared when I tried to update. " An SSL error has occurred and secure connection to server cannot be made. · Using IIS Programmatic Administration Troubleshooting Common IIS Errors.
has access to almost all. cannot load it, requests receive a 503 error. Under load, Segmentation errors occurred while retrieving. the server log reported the following error: Failed to parse the. resource manager error has occured. Troubleshooting SSL related issues ( Server Certificate). The problem is seen because the SSL handshake failed and hence the error. A fatal error occurred when. · directions search in iOS 9 fails with SSL. NSURLSession/ NSURLConnection HTTP load failed. NSUnderlyingError= 0x7fb1b23b6f90 " An SSL error has occurred and. · VMware Horizon View Client cannot connect due to SSL. when the client believes there is an error with the SSL. authentication rvice Worker Android Failed To Load Resource:. js Failed to load resource:.
An SSL certificate error occurred when fetching the script. · I tried to open the site and it didn' t load only the. Failed to load resource: net: : ERR_ INSECURE_ RESPONSE. that some errors occurred " Failed to. HTTP Error Codes ( and what they mean). HTTP Error 201 Created. A new resource has been created. This error indicates that the credentials. Apple Transport Security seems to break. Error Domain= NSURLErrorDomain Code= - 1200 " An SSL error has occurred. Some images give me the " HTTP load failed. · Hi, Failed to load resource: An SSL error has occurred and a secure connection to the server cannot be made. I am having this. · SSIS error list in tabular format. ' DTS_ E_ ODBCERROR', ' An ODBC error _ _ has occurred.
, ' Package migration module has failed to load. EDC5157I An internal error has occurred. IHS error log messages. SSL Handshake Failed, Socket has been tify the host application that an HTTP error has. The url that failed to load. Notify the host application that an SSL error occurred while loading a resource. Fix Chrome update problems & failed updates. Update failed ( Error: 4 or 10) An error occurred while. contact the person who has administrator rights to your. Here' s how to remedy an Android error that prevents SSL connections online: a step- by- step guide on how to fix SSL connection errors on Android phones. · Can' t Enroll with Gateway enabled, SSL Error has occured. MAM load balancer. Error Domain= NSURLErrorDomain Code= - 1200 An SSL error has occurred. Some https websites failed to to load. Resource request error: 6.
And i still got this error " SSL handshake failed" even with- - ssl- protocol= tlsv1,. The VMware vSphere Web Client displays the error: Failed to verify the SSL certificate for one or. Failed to verify the SSL certificate for one or more. I am working with visual studio cordova and we embeded an Iframe. On android it is working fine, but on Ios ( 9+ ) : Failed to load resource: An SSL error has occurred. · The following table summarizes the Forefront TMG predefined alert definitions. An error occurred during. failed to load the current. · This artcile contains informattion to troubleshoot when unable to launch. " An error occurred while. Load Evaluator relies on. GSSMO error codes and messages. Outlook is unable to load the correct gsync32. Login authentication failed. The error code you see signifies a configuration.
Failed to verify the SSL certificate" after upgrading to vCenter Server 5. An error has occurred during. " Failed to verify the SSL certificate" after. Error Codes list for Microsoft technologies. An extended error has occurred. The quorum resource failed to come online. · This article provides information on Citrix Client SSL Error Codes. * 3 An error occurred that cannot be. * 18 Your SSL packet has been modified. What Are SSL Errors? A failure of any part of the handshake process results in a browser SSL error message. A quick step by step guide on how to fix SSL connection errors. This page is given an overview of the SSL error along with. website owner has generated and.
· Power Management problem on an Lenovo. I have received ' an error has occurred while trying to load resource. and how it generates a " resource DLL" loading error? 500 Internal Server Error when pass data in $. The page cannot be displayed because an internal server error has occurred. Failed to load resource:. · URLDownloadToCacheFile failed with HRESULT ' < number> '. An error has occurred. ClickOnce limits the rdova whitelist iOS 10 SSL error: Failed to load resource:. iOS9 getting error " an ssl error has occurred and a secure connection to the server cannot be made.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
UPDATE: I'm back from Charleston, pictures and playlist in tow. Here's what I recommend to help you Travel Like You Mean It in Charleston, SC.
RT @LissandraVilla: Here is the walk-out song playlist for the candidates at the Iowa Democrats Hall of Fame campaign yesterday. The so… https://t.co/bJ0nB8yMdB
Twitter: the relief valve for when your friends are tired of hearing about it.
The food products don't seem to have nutrition facts yet, either. Will those be posted soon? https://t.co/9V8eChXyg9
PSA: A major zero-waste partnership just launched, putting name brands (ex @HVRanch, @Pantene) in reusable packagin… https://t.co/0AwhEarMyO


text:
A daily insight to my card designs, tutorials, videos and tips. If somebody tells you that you have enough craft supplies and you don't need anymore... stop talking to them! You don't need that kind of negativity in your life!
Sunday, 25 March 2018
Side Pocket With A Tag For The Birthday Greeting
3 comments:
Wonderful card June. I love silhouette. XxxxReplyDelete
Thank you for the video on how to make this very useful card - it would be good as a sympathy or man card as well as birthday.ReplyDelete
Also thank you June. as it has been my lucky week for winning and I am very grateful !!
This is a wonderful card June. Could be used for all sorts of occasions. Thank you. Congratulations to Sue. Enjoy!ReplyDelete
Thank you so much for visiting me today and taking the time to leave a comment.
I read every one and appreciate your thoughts.
Please note that anyone leaving a comment on my posts do so in the knowledge that your name and blog link are visible to all who visit my blog. In doing so you have published your own personal details and, therefore, consented to it being visible
Have a great day
Good morning blog friends.... I have an easel card as this week's give-away. All the elements came from the first craft box by Craft...
Good morning ladies, June here today! Thank you so much for your thoughts and get well wishes as well as the gorgeous cards you sen...
Morning crafters.... I think this is a stunning shade of pink, or would you call it fuchsia? Either way it's a beautiful colour ...
Good morning everyone and a very happy new year to you and yours. I hope you had a lovely Christmas and I would like to thank you for the ...


text:
10 Campbell Street, Donald$225,000
- Bedrooms: 3
- Bathrooms: 1
- Car Spaces: 2
- Property type: House
- Floor Area: 0 sqs
- Land size: 0 sq metres
- Listing type: For Sale
Motivated vendor and perfectly positioned this quality built brick veneer home should be strongly considered for your next home. Currently leased at $250 per week.
Set opposite the Donald Lawn Bowls and Park Land this home features 3 double bedrooms with BIR's, an office, spacious lounge with dining area and a gallery style kitchen, family friendly bathroom, separate toilet, as new drapes & blinds, recently renewed LED downlights, floor heating and split system.
Outside the exposed timber around the house has been freshly painted, double carport with drive thru access, ample rainwater storage plus pump and a workshop with access off a side lane. Enjoy the established garden and the surprising large back yard.
Contact John Hadley on 0428 560 630 for more details or to book your inspection.
- Split-System Air Conditioning
- Shed
- Built-in Wardrobes
- Dishwasher
More InfoDownload Brochure
Property Management
I am extremely happy with the service that I have received from Fiona at north west real estate and highly recommended them and I will be using them for any of my future properties.
- Norman E Clark
Hi John, just a testimonial for a seamless purchase from end to end you made me feel like my purchase was important and it went without any issues whatsoever I would greatly recommend your agency to anyone many thanks Tom Vida.
- Tom Vida
Property Management
NorthWest Real Estate and Fiona Knight managed my property at 12 Alfred St Donald in a very professional way at all times and in all different scenatios. No matter what problem occurred, Fiona was always so helpful and ready to sort them out.
- Bruce Lumsden
Property Management
I would like to express our gratitude to Fiona Knight for the way she handled our property. We found her to be very professional and efficient in the way she helped us as first time landlords. We would highly recommend her to anyone seeking property management.


text:
When you are renting a 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 yard dumpster, you want a company you can trust with prices that make you smile. Give us a call today and see the difference we can make in your next construction or clean out project.
Simply give us a call and we will help you figure out your dumpster rental needs.
Our dumpsters usually go out same-day or next-day depending on when you call.
We provide top-notch service, while going easy on your bottom line. What more could you ask for?
Our trained operators are here to give you a fast and hassle-free experience from start to finish.
Once you are done, simply give us a call and we will get your dumpster picked up right away!
Our staff is here to help whenever you need it. Simply pick up the phone and give us a call.
Most cities or municipalities do not have many regulations regarding dumpster rental as long as you keep the dumpster entirely on your own property during the rental period. If you need to place your container on the street in any way, you will likely have to obtain a permit from the appropriate building permit office in your town. You can check with your local public works department to be sure.
Most Lahoma dumpster rental companies will take care of securing this permit for you if you rent from them. Make sure that if you're planning to put the dumpster on the street, the company has made the appropriate arrangements. You should also ensure that you get the permit in a timely manner and at the correct cost. If you thought the dumpster company was getting a permit and they did not, you will be the one who will have to pay the fine that is issued by the authorities.
Are you a resident of the wonderful Atlanta city? Are you concerned about removing waste material and other filths close to your house and environs? Its not necessary to worry any longer! Atlanta Move off Dumpsters are now available at your current beck and call up. Indeed, waste material can amount to a nuisance when they are not properly taken out.
Relying on the metropolis haulers to dispose these huge a great deal of trash will never end your work. The city haulers currently have limit about the tonnage and kind with the trash got rid of. They reach the periodical durations scheduled in respect to their usefulness. So the best way to dispose the garbage in eco-friendly manner at economical cost is to go with Rent a Bin in Lahoma, OK. There are quantity of waste administration companies inside the US that can rent the particular dumpster that most closely fits in your special requirements. You may rent the dumpster with the period necessary for your project. The appropriate sized dumpster will knock you at the time per you. This delivered dumpster will sit inside your driveway without hindering the particular progress within your work and will also then possibly be carried to the particular landfill from right time(once the project is conducted) and got rid of accordingly.
An individual surely have greater things to perform like the residence decoration, preparing, inviting friends over and planning out the enjoyment activities intended for guests. Before and after you are accomplished, you can be left will tiny or large heaps of junk. Now you don't have to worry about it. There are businesses that provide you with quick and disposal can and dumpster with rent to make your task much easier.
Once you have gotten however the legal muck of an eviction and the ex- tenants have gone the property, it is time to turn the home and property around it to be inhabitable once again. Follow this process to ensure your property is prepared to be hired once again immediately after an eviction occurs.
The idea of using a significant bag to stock up and haul away weighty garbage items may sound like it would never work, however the Big Bag's style is an amazing fusion regarding form and performance that makes it an outstanding garbage removal decision. When you need to remove a lot of junk, you can speak to a junk removal that offers handbag service, buy a reusable Huge Bag, and hang it up just about anywhere on your property. Then, you can find on with whatsoever work you might have to do. You may load up the fundamental Bag along with anything you want to get rid of--construction supplies, general home trash, and even large items such as previous furniture or appliances. If your Big Case is complete, simply call up your junk hauling organization and they'll arrive and get rid of the handbag by hand in the appropriate move vehicle. You obtain to keep the handbag for long term trash removal projects, and each of the debris you obtained gets recinded without a person having to haul it to the particular dump oneself.
That doesn't mean you desire to pay a fortune to get a junk Rent a Bin in Lahoma, OK, though! This is a look at you skill to get a good selling price on your rental (devoid of to slip the particular dumpster fairy an extra 20 on the side!).
You'll need dumpsters to be shipped to the location promptly at cost-effective cost. To have the dumpster placed for your location either you need to choose high charges or wait for certain time for the dumpster to always be delivered because most of the Rent a Bin in Lahoma support companies call for a notice amount of 24 to Two days.
Are you planning on getting rid of one-off things like appliances or maybe big pieces of furniture? These items can be quite difficult to move, and they're not things that your regular trash support will acquire. Instead of lugging them to the dump yourself, why not permit a dumpster organization help you with the ? When you know you will end up getting rid of things like furniture or maybe appliances, rent some sort of dumpster. Then, all you have to worry about is getting the bad articles in the container.
Left over loyal to 1 rental company is the best decision made. It is because by being a regular customer, you're more likely to find discounts in addition to special therapies. When shopping for 1, make sure that it is a reputable organization that offers countless services. It therefore has to always be professional enough by having a brand. A brand brand is used to make a distinction between bad and good companies. It should offer timely services without having delays hence should have created a good standing. The way in which industry is treated is exactly what is used to judge the company's identify. No Rent a Bin in Lahoma organization has a correct to exploit the clients. The prices are very aggressive and should always be affordable to anyone. If you want to find the most affordable price tag, it's far better to go for a neighborhood owned rental instead of privately owned rental. Group based kinds will always provide you with the best for the society plus give back to exactly the same society. Almost always there is pride inside seeing your own fee being utilized for the advantage of your community.
Because rolloff dumpsters come in 4 dimensions, the company will allow you to to estimate how much trash in addition to recyclables you'll be building. These rentable spin off dumpsters are available in ten 25, twenty, and also the biggest kinds -- forty meters. It's a craft -- get too large of a dumpster therefore you waste money, an absence of and that means several visits and more dollars. Just right like Goldilocks and The A few Bears, means more money added back on to your allowance.
Dumpsters are workhorses in addition to aren't often considered the celebs of the development or home remodeling business. Driving every commercial business in the united states, there's usually a dumpster. These are often under 12 yards, and also the stars in the construction industry run 12, twenty, 25 or forty yards. How does one locate this type of huge and very heavy metal pack? By renting your own personal star dumpster coming from an online organization - that's how.
The task you can use is finding the best roll off of Rent a Bin in Lahoma company inside Kansas. Enhanced competition one of several Rent a Bin in Lahoma companies has a wide amount of garbage bin rental corporations online; the professional Rent a Bin in Lahoma corporations Kansas can have wide ways for the customers to reach them. it is possible to reach the organization online or maybe through telephone, web, e mail. You can enjoy placing an order at home. The agent will have friendly conversation and definately will clarify your entire doubts with regards to the trash rubbish bin rental before you place a purchase order with them.
They keep home, neighborhood or local community neat and clean. In this manner, they help save and your family or perhaps friends through harmful air and travel borne diseases.
Just a few of the reasons why people need dumpster rental fees, but sometimes find it difficult locating one particular, are: Approval of facilities around a hearth zone for protection against clean and wildfires, cement and dirt removal such as an old groundwork, just plain garbage removal (furniture and trash) such as a in foreclosure process house, and recycling. Get the right dimensions and the suitable estimate through an online roll off Rent a Bin in Lahoma, OK site and you will acquire the best value feasible, and this will abandon a little more in your budget for all those gold-plated faucets! If you are remodeling your bathrooms you will need to rent any dumpster. The large shower outer shell can be sculpted out of the rest room and chucked into the dumpster so you or your service provider can get moving on replacing the casing with ceramic flooring.
Dumpsters are also useful for short-term storage and in addition they often have gates on the end, where you can place a incline and steering wheel up your debris, or a leading "hatchway" which is really convenient for throwing 2nd floor material into, or perhaps old roof covering materials. A number of rental dumpsters are put into three areas so you can delete easily. Regular dumpsters come in 12, twenty, thirty, and fourty yard measurements. Even a 12 yard you are going to help an individual get sorted, and a big project are able to use several smaller ones to separate everything being removed from the house or making.
Now a days it truly is been noticed than some companies are also using the services of these companies. Thus next time when you notice big heap of waste after party than just calm because you understand that people through garbage provider take presctiption their way!!!!! By using a big dumpster or big dumpsters you will keep the restaurant organization area shopping neat if you are having the bathroom renovation done. This will keep your clients and neighborhood businesses pleased.
Nowadays there are quite a few competing companies offering garbage packing containers and disposal bins with rent. They are propagate across quite a few areas and cities. You can select the nearest one for your self to avoid almost any exorbitant prices the companies may ask you for going.
You and your partner or wife or husband may have been arranging to update your living room area to your very own design.
Dealing with a firm located close to your project possesses distinct strengths. One of these is they are more likely to be familiar with local laws covering needs for environmental issues, as well as logistic considerations including street fat restrictions that may result in requiring a person to use 2 ten yard containers as opposed to one 20 yard jar. This is a authentic issue, one which you would like to know about beforehand, rather than by phoning your jar supplier that's failed to appear late within the first day's your project, solely to find out which the driver returned to the yard because he cannot access your location. Another advantage of any nearby firm is that they have possibly supplied storage containers precisely where you need these people, so they will certainly anticipate these types of and other circumstances before that they become a difficulty. Finally, the local company offers less risk of delays caused by weather and traffic.
Please use the form below to contact us. We look forward to working with you and will get back to you as soon as possible. All fields are required


text:
Roscommon experience shows in Connacht ladies final
Emma Gallagher at Machale Park Sligo ladies hopes of retaining the Connacht Intermediate championship title were dashed by a stronger Roscommon in MacHale Park on Sunday afternoon.
Emma Gallagher at Machale Park Sligo ladies hopes of retaining the Connacht Intermediate championship title were dashed by a stronger Roscommon in MacHale Park on Sunday afternoon.
Gavin Cawley at Croke Park Glory finally came to Sligo hurlers in dramatic circumstances in Croke Park last Saturday as they got their hands on the Lory Meagher cup.
After losing two of the previous Lory Meagher cup finals, Sligo hurlers knew how immense winning this one on Saturday would mean to everyone involved.
Emma Gallagher at Markievicz Park Sligo's run in this year's All-Ireland Senior Football Championship came to an end at the hands of Armagh in Markievicz Park on Saturday evening.
Emma Gallagher This Saturday Sligo hurlers are in action in Croke Park in the final of the Lory Meagher Cup when Darragh Cox/Daithí Hand's men face Lancashire to see who becomes champions.
Padraic Duffy Two sides from the lower regions of the league table met in Curry on Sunday.
Brian Marren In a match featuring two teams vying for a spot in the Division 1 League final, it was the more experienced outfit that won out in a tight, yet highly entertaining affair, albeit with a considerable amount of good fortune.
St Farnan's claimed a first win of their Senior Football League Division Two campaign with a deserved three-point defeat of Enniscrone/Kilglass at Templeboy last Sunday afternoon.
Shamrock Gaels had a deserved eleven point home win over Drumcliffe/Rosses Point in the Division 1 League last Sunday. Drumcliffe will wonder what happened having being ahead by a point at half time but they failed to show up for the second half and could only manage one additional point with the last kick of the game.
Sligo senior football manager Cathal Corey had admitted that next weekend's All-Ireland Football Championship qualifier meeting with Armagh will provide his side with a tough challenge. However, the Tyrone man is happy to see his team drawn at home while also avoiding the big hitters.
David Goulden A frustrated Dave Cummins has called for accountability in the way the underage game is structured.
Frances Hanley at Adrian Freeman Park Tooreen This game had everything and was hotly contested between the two neighbouring counties.
Cormac Kearns at Markievicz park Shamrock Gaels minors proved too strong for Eastern Harps in the Division 1 League Cup final last Friday evening in Markievicz Park. Played in perfect conditions, Eastern Harps got off to a great start with an impressive long range free of the ground from Marcus Meehan which was followed up by a point from centre back Bryan Molloy.
Goals proved to be the difference as Sligo hurlers emerged victorious on their visit to Old Bedians on Saturday.
Padraic Duffy Precious league points were at stake in this Div. 1 Rd. 6 fixture in the Fr.Kevin Brehony Memorial Park, Keash on Sunday. Both sides were evenly matched on the scoreboard for much of the game. Two Harps goals in the final quarter proved decisive as the 2017 Co.finalists picked up two vital points.
Brian Marren Kilcoyne Park, Tubbercurry was the setting for a clash between two teams headed on a collision course for each other in the group stages of this year's Senior Championship, although with both teams down key players for various reasons, it may not prove to be the precursor to the championship showdown it had the potential to be.
A 39-year-old man has been found guilty of the theft of €41,892 from Bank of Ireland in Sligo over two dates in October 2017. News
Members of a Leitrim community have taken matters into their own hands, taking a stand against Coillte, who they feel have no... News
A number of farms including one in Sligo have been searched by the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation in connection with... News
Coillte has defended its tree-felling operation in Glenboy, Manorhamilton, following complaints from the local community. News
A 23-year-old man who had €10,000 worth of drugs in a coal bunker at his home has been... News
Ryan Tubridy said he is truly 'grateful' for the support he receives from fans when he goes on tour with his RTE Radio One show. News
Over fifty businesses and individuals from Sligo attended Fáilte Ireland's 'Taste the Island... News
The dignity, courage and grace of a father who lost his son in the IRA bombing in Mullaghmore almost 40 years ago was... News
A brother and sister who assaulted a man who was visiting Sligo for a stag party in 2017... News
A delegation from the Sligo Famine Commemoration Committee travelled to Montreal last week for the launch of a film... News
SLIGO Rovers boss Owen Heary is still without a win as his side slumped to a 3-1 defeat at the hands of Bray Wanderers in The Showgrounds on Friday. Soccer
SLIGO Rovers will have a keen interest in this year's UEFA U17 European Championships. Soccer
Sligo Rovers released a statement on its website and Facebook and Twitter accounts to condemn apparent online abuse directed at its players. Soccer


text:
Florida velvet bean
a tropical vine, Mucuna deeringiana, of the legume family, having showy, purple flowers in drooping clusters and black, hairy pods: grown as an ornamental.
Order Your Coffee Like A BossRead more in this article about some frequently asked questions and fun facts related to our definitions.
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2019


text:
Distance from Agate, CO to Greensboro, VT
Driving distance between Agate, CO and Greensboro, VT is 1,968.77 miles (or 3,168.42 kilometers). If you drove an average car (using about 3.6 gallons of gas per mile), the gas would cost you around $, since you would need about gallons of fuel.
Leaving from Agate, CO you would reach Greensboro, VT in about 1 day 6 hours if you keep an average speed of miles per hour, assuming you don't make any breaks or get stuck in traffic.


text:
Your list is empty.
Save musicians, entertainers, speakers, and services, and they'll appear here.
I want to hire Jazz Bands in Spokane Valley, WA
Tell us more about your event.
Receive FREE no-obligation quotes.
Ron Kieper Jazz Ensemble(4)
Jazz Band
Coeur D Alene, ID
21 miles from Spokane Valley
3 Verified Bookings
Recent review: I hired this group to do a small party. They were a hit! Everyone loved them. I will be hiring…
Cover Band / Jazz Band
Spokane, WA
8 miles from Spokane Valley
Recent review: MOJO is truly a party band. Great audience re pore. Good selection and variety of music. Easy…
Kiki Love(0)
Jazz Band
Nelson, BC
125 miles from Spokane Valley
Award winning composer/Artist Kiki love aka Catherine Sarah Manna , sings cover tunes and original compositions.…
The Apollo Trio(10)
Jazz Band
Seattle, WA
237 miles from Spokane Valley
16 Verified Bookings
Recent review: If you need a group of talented individuals who are easy to work with, and incredibly dependable…
PROOF - Jazz for Events(5)
Jazz Band
Seattle, WA
237 miles from Spokane Valley
1 Verified Booking
Recent review: Amazing musicians - they exceeded our expectaions. I would highly recommend them. Very professional,…
Aaron Walker Gypsy Jazz(11)
Swing Band / Jazz Band
Seattle, WA
237 miles from Spokane Valley
15 Verified Bookings
Recent review: All my friends loved the music!
Marina Christopher(1)
Easy Listening Band / Jazz Band
Seattle, WA
237 miles from Spokane Valley
3 Verified Bookings
Recent review: Marina Christopher did a wonderful job playing for us at our holiday events. Her instrumentals,…
Danny Welsh(7)
Saxophone Player / Jazz Band
Seattle, WA
237 miles from Spokane Valley
25 Verified Bookings
Recent review: We had Danny perform the sax and flute for our cocktail hour for our wedding reception and he…
Blue Wave Band(13)
Cover Band / Jazz Band
Seattle, WA
237 miles from Spokane Valley
Recent review: Blue Wave Band performed at a corporate holiday event for Amazon for a group of about 250. They…
You might also like:
Quick facts
Jazz Bands in Spokane Valley, WA
14,292 quotes sent
In the past year, Jazz Bands have sent 14,292 quotes to event planners
16th most popular
Jazz Bands rank #16 in popularity out of 547 categories on GigSalad
4.9 out of 5 stars
2,872 Jazz Band reviews on GigSalad with an average rating of 4.9 stars
1.7 days on average to book
From request to booking, it takes 1.7 days (on average) to hire a Jazz Band
Washington ranks #14
for Jazz Band requests in the United States
You are viewing
Jazz Bands in Spokane Valley, WA
Are you looking to add some extravagance to your event? A jazz band may be just what you need! Watch your guests groove on the dance floor to the voluptuous sounds of the sax, piano, strings, and drums. Jazz bands can be sophisticated and classy, or bluesy and sultry. Either way, they're sure to be a hit at weddings, holiday parties, or corporate events. Search for Jazz Bands in Spokane Valley, Washington above.
Please note that these Jazz Bands may also travel to Millwood, Veradale, Otis Orchards, Greenacres, Liberty Lake, Freeman, Mica, Valleyford, Newman Lake, Mead, Hauser, Colbert, Rockford, Marshall, Airway Heights, Spangle, Chattaroy, Four Lakes, Rathdrum, Fairfield, Fairchild Air Force Base, Nine Mile Falls, Worley, and Cheney.


text:
Elite – Theme for Stackposts and GramEasyby procodebr in GramEasy , Stackposts , Templates , Themes on 5 de junho de 2019
Elite is a theme developed for the Stackposts script and can also be used in the GramEasy script, a professional theme, easy to edit and install.
- Totally Responsive
- Area for F.A.Q
- Area for Feedback
- Totally Editable
Will you have a version for Nextpost?
Yes, click here to see the version for Nextpost
Will the updates be free?
Yes, all upgrades are free, whenever you have an upgrade the customer may download in your customer area.
our system detects variations of IP in the accounts of all the users, if the user provides the access of his account to third parties to make downloads of products he will have his account blocked and will not have more right to download updates of his product.
Our products also have a system of logs, that is, each product is registered to a site, if the product is installed on more than one site with the Regular license, it will have access to the blocked site and will not have any more access the updates.
version 1.0.0 – June 5, 2019
- Initial Release
Share Now!


text:
Please Tell Us Your City
Knowing your city will help us provide relevant content to you.
Or Login with
Please tell us your city
Knowing your city helps us provide relevant content for you
Write a Review
Inappropriate Review? Report Abuse
Vivek on 13 May, 2019 at 11:59 AM
Dear Friends,I have written a review on Maruti Suzuki Dzire and look forward to your comments on it.Review Link: Problem in new dzire Thanks.
MG Hector
India's First Internet Car


text:
Australia's detainees are human beings with rights, says ex-human rights chiefby Sarah Catherall
The number of New Zealanders awaiting deportation on "character" grounds has soared. And Australia's former human rights head Gillian Triggs sees little hope for change.
The Australian human-rights battler thinks it was possibly this, along with her upbringing in post-war London when she saw refugees who had flooded into the city, that made her particularly sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers and Australia's immigration crisis.
"As a child, I was very conscious of people arriving in great strife, and with no work, and I was very conscious of how concerned my parents were, too,'' the 72-year-old says.
As the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission from 2012 to 2017, the academic and international public-law specialist fought hard for the rights of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants held in Australia's detention centres.
Her role in bringing Australia's immigration policy to national and international attention got Triggs into political strife. It was thanks to her, and the work of the commission, that more than 800 children were released from detention centres.
In 2014, the mother of three exercised her powers to launch a national inquiry into the care of children in detention centres, called Forgotten Children. She found 1100 children were detained for 231 days on average. Most either arrived by boat with their parents without visas or were born in the centres. "The conditions were horrific. And 34% of those children were found to have medium to high levels of mental illness from being there.''
During the inquiry and visits to detention centres – on Christmas Island three times, Nauru, Manus and mainland Australia – Triggs also noticed the number of Māori and Pacific Island men being held. Their visas had been cancelled and they were waiting either to be deported or for an appeal.
New Zealanders are now the biggest group being held in Australian immigration detention centres. "On one of my detention monitoring visits, I saw Pacific Islanders six bunks to a small room, in cramped facilities the size of a suburban house.''
Worse than prison
On a recent visit to give the inaugural address for the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand's human-rights series, she told her Auckland audience: "Detainees have reported acts of violence, abuse by security guards and a lack of medical treatment.''
New Zealand men wait on average 434 days for their deportation to be processed or for an appeal against cancelled visas, she tells the Listener. One in five have been held against their will for more than two years. Latest reports suggest 173 New Zealand men are still being detained.
"They're often just cells within prisons. People in these places tell me they'd much prefer to be in a proper prison, where they have a supervised programme. They are in very cramped conditions, with no access to education or training, and they have no idea when they are getting out.''
She calls Australia's immigration policy "racist'', saying 1300 New Zealanders have been deported since 2015 – the biggest group kicked out of Australia.
The cancellation of Australian visas on the grounds of "character" has soared since December 2014, when the Australian Government amended its immigration law. Last year, more than half of those visas belonged to New Zealanders, whereas before the legal changes, New Zealanders were not even in the top 10.
Australia's hard-line policy of deporting non-citizens who have committed crimes that attract a jail sentence of one year or more has raised fierce political and public opposition in New Zealand, particularly in relation to the deportation of people with no connection here, such as those born in Australia or with family across the Tasman.
Justice Minister Andrew Little took former Australia Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to task over the detention and deportation of New Zealanders, and an offer by the Key Government to take 150 refugees each year off Nauru is still on the table.
On the widening gulf between the countries, Triggs says, "This is an extraordinary change in immigration policy. Only 8.6% of New Zealanders arriving in Australia since 2002 have gained citizenship. Of those that do get citizenship, Māori and Pacific Islanders comprise only 3% of successful applicants. Māori and Pacific Islanders are particularly vulnerable to deportation.''
Conservative media commentators argue that some of those kicked out of Australia have committed serious crimes – a point Triggs accepts. However, she says some visas have been cancelled when detainees have no criminal convictions or charges against them, but simply on character grounds.
"While one might not have much sympathy for some of these people, they are human beings with rights under international law: rights to family, not to be detained arbitrarily without charge or trial, freedom of movement, right to a nationality.''
As she talks, hundreds are still being detained: 140 children on Nauru, 600 men on Manus, 304 people on Christmas Island and 1400 in immigration detention in mainland prisons, including 264 in Perth's Yongah Hill.
"One of the most disturbing things that I've seen was in the Blaxland compound [the high-security facility in the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney]. That's where I saw these men held in appalling conditions, like caged animals. They wait in some cases for many years to be deported or to be heard.''
Public and private
At Melbourne University in the 1960s, Triggs was one of just 15 female students in a law class of 350. After graduating with a law degree in 1966 – she was named Miss University one year – she devoted most of her career to international public law and international commercial law.
In her job at a commercial law firm in London, she fought for oil concessions in the Gulf of Thailand and helped clients seeking bank loans in unstable countries. She fought in disputes over boundaries and fishing rights, publishing books and papers on international law.
Legal work paid the bills until she moved into the public sphere in 2005 with her appointment as director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in London. Two years later, she returned to Australia to take up the role of dean of Sydney Law School, before moving to the commission, where she oversaw 17,000 human-rights complaints a year.
Triggs doesn't prefer one type of work over the other; they've both helped shape her. She thinks there is a rising call for businesses to act ethically, as demonstrated by Australia's banking inquiry. "I'm glad I have done both,'' she says.
During her tenure at the commission, Australia's population hit 25 million. There was growing debate about migration policy, fuelled by asylum seekers arriving by boat, the perceived growing threat to national security, rising Islamophobia and Australia's expanding cities.
The Federal Government has since cut immigration numbers by 21,000 to the lowest levels seen since 2007 – a move Triggs doesn't agree with.
Dutton's argument that being too lenient to detained children and their families will open the floodgates to asylum seekers doesn't wash with her. He has said that if Australia is too sympathetic, its border security will be at risk and the country will see a return to 2013, when 50,000 asylum seekers and refugees arrived by boat, aided by people smugglers.
Triggs, who is calling for Australia to have a bill of rights, as other common-law nations do, says, "Military vessels around the seas in Australia are stopping ships coming in. This notion of backdoors and stopping boats and so on are all slogans that really create a false legal position.''
She does not believe Australia's latest political upheaval, with Scott Morrison replacing Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader and Dutton losing the immigration portfolio but retaining border protection, will lead to any significant policy changes towards asylum seekers or refugees.
As immigration minister under Tony Abbott from 2013-14, Morrison vigorously endorsed the policy of extraditing migrants convicted of serious offences.
"At the end of the day, if you're here on a visa and you've committed sexual assault, if you're a gangster, if you're a bikie gang member, if you've engaged in physical assault or murder or something like that, you've worn out your welcome in this country," Morrison said in 2015. "I don't care how long you've been here. You've worn out your welcome if you're here on a visa."
This article was first published in the September 8, 2018 issue of the New Zealand Listener.
Most Read
Three killings, no justice: 'He hadn't even started living'by Mike White
Kiwi cardiologist reveals how simple technology can change your life expectancyby Donna Chisholm
What's the deal with Jevan Goulter, the new face of Destiny Church?by Haimona Gray
Three killings, no justice: 'Afterwards, they were laughing at us'by Mike White
Three killings, no justice: 'It was an execution. It was arranged'by Mike White
The drama and the trauma behind NZ musician Shayne…by Mike White
Shayne Carter's career has been wild and acclaimed. But his just-released memoir reveals the drama and trauma going on behind the scenes.Read more
Rare photos of the Straitjacket Fits by Brian Murp…by North & South Read more
The Handmaid's Tale is so chilling, you risk hypot…by Diana Wichtel
Season three of The Handmaid's Tale packs a punch, despite some implausible scenes, writes Diana Wichtel.Read more
Christchurch mosque attacks: Accused pleads not gu…by Anneke Smith
The man accused of the Christchurch terror attacks has pleaded not guilty to all the charges laid against him.Read more
One thing is certain: Political biffo is unavoidab…by Bevan Rapson
Despite overdue efforts to improve Parliament's culture, political biffo will always be with us.Read more
The sweeping proposal to lower speed limits is on…by The Listener
Transport officials' enthusiasm for a sweeping lowering of speed limits looks set to go the way of the once-proposed ban on cats in dairies.Read more
Are New Zealand's intelligence agencies watching t…by Phil Pennington
New Zealanders who feel they've done nothing wrong have found themselves under surveillance by the state and say they've been left nervous.Read more
Never Look Away: A flawed masterpiece about life i…by James Robins
Epic drama captures an artist navigating the upheavals of Nazi and post-war Germany.Read more


text:
MDPI Contact
St. Alban-Anlage 66,
4052 Basel, Switzerland
Support contact
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
For more contact information, see here.
Order Reprints
Journal: Sustainability, 2019
Volume: 11
Number: 1463
Article: The Interplay between Job Control, SOC Strategies, and Age in Sustaining Work Ability in a Sample of Administrative Employees
Authors: Ilaria Sottimano, Gloria Guidetti, Sara Viotti and Daniela Converso
Link: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1463
MDPI provides reprints in high quality with convenient shipping to destinations worldwide. The articles are printed in on premium paper with high-resolution figures. Our covers are customized to your article and designed to be complimentary to the journal. These reprints are ideal additions to your portfolio. Copy details: 135g/m2 paper, 2x stitched, full colour and glossy finish, orderable in quantities from 10 to 1000.
If you have any questions, or special requests, please write to our support team; we are happy to provide you with the information you need.


text:
Michael digs out some nostalgic music for a Sunday evening.
2 hours
See all episodes from Michael Poulter
Save The Last Dance For Me
I've Got You Under My Skin
Be My Baby
Nature Boy
Dreaming My Dreams With You
It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time
Ticket To Ride
(Now and Then There's) A Fool Such as I
Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead
As Long As I Live
When You're Young And In Love
How About Me?
Send My Baby Back To Me
If She Walked Into My Life
Dear Hearts And Gentle People
I'll Begin Again
How I'd Love To Love You
I'm Lost
(If This Is) Our Last Dance
The Song From Moulin Rouge (Where Is Your Heart)
Ev'ry Time We Say Goodbye
I've Heard That Song Before
Danny boy
When You're Smiling
Love Is Just Around The Corner
Don'Cha Go Way Mad
You Do Something To Me
What Is This Thing Called Love
Take A Little Time To Smile
For Sentimental Reasons
That Ole Devil Called Love
View all
Sign in to the BBC, or Register