Businesses never wanted to change or to embrace new standards, which would require them lose their inhibitions and become more transparent. That would simply mean losing the game and forcefully having to declare the information that would be otherwise held to evaluate personal gains. The very reason lobbying exists now is to suppress all motivation of establishing fairness in accounting practices, as accounts speaks more than actual work (Worret 2014, p. 34). Unfortunately, this practice of valuing a company solely on the basis of accounting remains and reflection is obsolete and out of focus. It misses the actual and real reason for the progress of a business, which are the passionate management and their transparent intention to become honest and benchmark new stage of integrity. The government is not exonerated from this situation, because it was the first to promote lobbying practice as a facilitator of addressing public interest and in the process fulfil private interest together. All laws were originally made for advancing larger public interests. Social equality matters more than individual gains. When the same laws are misused, they are to be squashed immediately. The squashing of the new accounting proposals of the government is prominent; therefore, the squashing of self-interest lobbying efforts should also take place. If governance is about social equality and pushing the economy towards conditions of equality and minimising income inequality, then lobbying which is about advancing self-interest and ignoring its primary intent of a wider society influence should be abandoned.
The distribution of justice is at the core when legislations meant for provisioning humanity with a better mode of living and the same legislations are misused or abused for gains otherwise. The suggestive mode of practice put forward by SAC4 framework is the alignment of Australian accounting standards with international standards. There are, however, no signs of substantive progress owing to the strength of the lobbying group and their ability to influence policies for their own economic well-being. Although Australian accounting is legislatively supported and regulated, companies still possess a choice to recognise as assets and liability (Henderson et al. 2014, p. 168). This availability of choice kills the intent of uniformity the SAC4 seeks. When companies are given choices about their freedom and flexibility in choosing the areas of assets, liability, expenses, revenues, debt, etc., the inclination to choose what safeguards the companies’ interests would be high. Thus, the laws governing accounting standards contradict with the laws governing shareholder protection. This unfolds the flaws in the Australian legal frameworks and the constitution itself. Proper information about laws which precedes others and their applicability in cases where ethical dilemma arises is an essential part of reforms.