Talk:National Institute of Accountants

This article needs a significant rewrite. The detail on specific representation groups is superfluous, as is the detail on ethics (most professional accounting bodies have similar rules). While at the same time, information on the development of NIA's stature, the upgrades to the PNA designation, becoming a NOOSR skill assessing body in 2002, and IFAC membership are all omitted. Psnae 02:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * now done.  improvements welcome.  Psnae 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Representation
The information on the forums and committees that the NIA represents members on is not superflous as it relates to the market recognition and the standing of the NIA with the various arms of the Australian Government.


 * No problem talking about this, but an exhaustive list is not necessary.  Psnae 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reads like a promotional brochure
No third party sources either SatuSuro 00:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Market reputation?
The NIA's market reputation has improved considerably in the past 3 years as discussions between the three major accounting bodies at CEO level has increased, and services to members are enhanced. The " widely held view " referred to above, is generally a view held by some ICAA and CPA members, not the general public, who have little interest in professional jealousy amongst rival organisations. Educational requirements for membership of all three bodies are equivalent. PublicPractitioner (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)