Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 2
Concerns with the quality of auditing
Auditing standards
2.1
Auditing standards in Australia are governed by the Corporations Act
2001. Audits must be conducted in accordance with legally enforceable
auditing standards that were introduced for financial reporting periods from 1
July 2006 following the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform
and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004.
2.2
Australia's financial reporting system is established by Part 12 of the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (the ASIC Act). One of the
main objects of section 224 of the ASIC Act is to develop auditing and
assurance standards that:
-
provide Australian auditors with
relevant and comprehensive guidance in forming an opinion about, and reporting
on, whether financial reports comply with the requirements of the Corporations
Act; and
- require the preparation of
auditors’ reports that are reliable and readily understandable by the users of
the financial reports to which they relate.[1]
2.3
Two of the key bodies in Australia's financial reporting system are the Auditing
and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).
The AUASB, established by section 227 of the ASIC Act,[2]
is responsible for developing auditing standards in Australia.[3]
2.4
The FRC, established by section 225 of the Australian Securities
Commission Act 1989, was re-established in 2001 by Part 12 of the ASIC Act.[4]
The FRC has responsibility for overseeing the financial reporting framework,
and its role is to:
- provide broad oversight of the processes for setting accounting
standards and auditing standards in Australia;
- advise the Minister on these matters; and
- determine the AUASB's broad strategic direction.[5]
2.5
The passage of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Audit
Enhancement) Act 2012 (Audit Enhancement Act) on 27 June 2012 repealed the
requirement for the FRC to monitor auditor independence, and added
responsibilities in the area of audit quality. The FRC is now required to give
'strategic policy advice and reports, to the Minister and professional
accounting bodies, in relation to the quality of audits conducted by Australian
auditors'.[6]
2.6
In developing Australian Auditing Standards (ASAs), the FRC has directed
AUASB to use the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB)
International Standards on Auditing, and to make any necessary amendments such
that the ASAs are 'legally enforceable under the requirements of the Corporations
Act 2001'.[7]
2.7
The current ASAs that were issued in October 2009 'conform with the
equivalent International Standards on Auditing (ISAs)' and are 'operative for
financial reporting periods that commenced on or after 1 January 2010'.[8]
The 2011–12 financial year was also the 'second full year of adoption of the
ASAs in Clarity format',[9]
intended to be clear, comprehensive, and easier to understand and apply.
2.8
Auditor independence is a fundamental principle of the external auditing
system.[10]
The AUASB has developed a set of requirements to which independent auditors are
required to adhere, including ethical requirements, professional scepticism and
judgement, and obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence:
Ethical Requirements Relating to an Audit of a Financial
Report
14. The auditor shall comply with relevant ethical
requirements, including those pertaining to independence, relating to a
financial report audit engagement.
Professional Scepticism
15. The auditor shall plan and perform an audit with
professional scepticism recognising that circumstances may exist that cause the
financial report to be materially misstated.
Professional Judgement
16. The auditor shall exercise professional judgement in
planning and performing an audit of a financial report.
Sufficient Appropriate Audit Evidence and Audit Risk
17. To obtain reasonable assurance, the auditor shall obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low
level and thereby enable the auditor to draw reasonable conclusions on which to
base the auditor’s opinion.[11]
Recent changes to the audit
supervision framework
2.9
In March 2010, Treasury released the consultation paper Audit Quality
in Australia: A Strategic Review. The paper found that Australia's 'audit
regulation framework is robust and stable' and 'in line with international best
practice'.
2.10
Although Treasury agreed with the findings of the United Kingdom Financial
Reporting Council (UKFRC) on the drivers of audit quality,[12]
Treasury emphasised two crucial and unique attributes applicable to Australia:
- Australia’s audit regulation
framework; and
- the audit review processes, and in
particular, ASIC’s audit inspection program.
In particular, Treasury noted that the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission (ASIC) is a statutory body under federal legislation
and that accounting and auditing standards and auditor independence are all
legally enforceable under the Corporations Act.[13]
These two factors contributed significantly to the robustness of the audit
regulation framework.
2.11
While Treasury found that the overall legislative framework did not
require 'fundamental reform',[14]
it did identify some areas for policy reform. The Audit Enhancement Act made a
number of amendments aimed at improving audit quality. The measures include:
- auditor partner rotation: the existing requirement that, for
audits of listed companies, the audit partner must be rotated every five years
was retained but listed companies are now able to extend the period by up to
two years subject to auditor independence and audit quality safeguards;
- annual transparency reports: audit firms that conduct 10 or more
audits of large entities are now required to publish an annual transparency
report;
- audit deficiency reports: ASIC is now able to publish a report on
the auditing deficiencies identified in an individual audit firm if the firm
has not taken appropriate action to remedy the deficiencies within six months;
and
- communication by ASIC: ASIC is now able to communicate directly
with an audit client in relation to significant matters, such as the conduct of
an audit by an audit firm (the confidentiality requirements of the ASIC Act
previously prevented this).[15]
Audits of self-managed superannuation
funds
2.12
The Superannuation Laws Amendment (Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other
Efficiency Measures) Act 2012 introduced a requirement for auditors of self-managed
superannuation funds (SMSF) to register with ASIC to conduct SMSF audits from 1 July
2013.[16]
2.13
As at 15 March 2013, ASIC's online registration system for SMSF auditors
had received about 2000 applications, of which ASIC had registered about 400.
ASIC expects about 6000 applications to be made.[17]
2.14
Mr Greg Tanzer, ASIC Commissioner, stressed that the registration system
raises standards by administering a competency exam designed to test critical
judgement in relation to superannuation requirements and tax compliance. He
noted that 'some exemptions' from the test would be granted to 'existing
auditors with substantial experience'.[18]
ASIC's concerns with auditing quality
2.15
In his opening statement at the public hearing on 3 December 2012, ASIC
Chairman Mr Greg Medcraft raised concerns about the quality of auditing in
Australia.[19]
These concerns foreshadowed the findings contained in the ASIC audit inspection
report which was due for release on 4 December 2012.[20]
2.16
The ASIC audit inspection report for 2011–12 found that:
...in 18% of the 602 key audit areas that we reviewed across
117 audit files over firms of all sizes, auditors did not obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence, exercise sufficient scepticism, or otherwise comply
with auditing standards in a significant audit area.[21]
2.17
At the December hearing, Mr Medcraft expressed his disappointment with
the results and noted that they represented a further decline in auditing
standards from those that ASIC had previously reported on:
...last year I indicated that a level of 15 per cent was
already far too high in terms of having problems where it really was inadequate
evidence to support an audit opinion. I think clearly we expect as a country
that that number should be substantially less than 10 per cent and, in terms of
audit quality, significantly less. These results, I find, being a former
auditor and chartered accountant, very disappointing and frustrating. I
consider what we are seeing now as [a] second strike for the audit sector and
it is clearly one I think the profession should consider itself on notice: it
needs to lift its game.[22]
2.18
In the report, ASIC identified three areas of deficiency that required
improvement:
- the sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence obtained by
the auditor;
- the level of professional scepticism exercised by auditors; and
- the extent of reliance that can be placed on the work of other
auditors and experts.[23]
2.19
At the December hearing, Mr Medcraft identified a lack of professional scepticism
as the key failing:
...clearly, it is a lack of scepticism ... You are there as an
auditor and you are meant to be sceptical about seeing what is presented to
you.[24]
2.20
The ASIC oversight hearings in March 2013 provided the committee with an
opportunity to explore these issues further with some of the bodies involved in
the auditing process, including the AUASB, the FRC, the Institute of Chartered
Accountants Australia (ICAA), CPA Australia, Treasury, and ASIC.
2.21
In his opening comment, Mr Jim Murphy, Executive Director of the Markets
Group at Treasury, stated that from Treasury's perspective, the need for an increase
in standards had not been conclusively determined:
In terms of policy it is an open question as to the standard
of audit quality in Australia...I think ASIC is very cognisant of that view and
their program of checking on audit quality is very important. That said, there
are international issues abroad where questions about audit quality are being
asked...I think we have to keep a very close watch on how audit quality is
happening in Australia and whether there is really a need for an uplift in the
standards.[25]
2.22
The committee asked the industry bodies for their comments on the ASIC
findings. There was agreement between the ICAA, CPA Australia, the AUASB and
the FRC that professional scepticism and critical judgement are crucial in the
audit process.[26]
2.23
Ms Liz Stamford, Head of Audit Policy at the ICAA, pointed out that in
their 2012 survey of 1700 partners, managers, newly qualified accountants and
graduates, 97 per cent 'rated professional scepticism as one of the top three
most important skills in their role'.[27]
2.24
Mr Amir Ghandar, Policy Adviser on Audit and Assurance for CPA Australia,
explained that professional scepticism is relevant to the entire audit process
and includes applying critical judgement to risks, asset valuation and asset
existence:
It is an attitude. It is a question in mind. You could say,
if I could use a vulgar analogy, there is an art and a science in auditing, and
professional scepticism is something that falls squarely within the art of
auditing. It is the approach and that manifests itself in decisions that auditors
make and in the behaviours based on those decisions, including things like
identifying where there is a conflict between something they have seen in
evidence and what is actually presented in the financial statements. It
includes suspending judgement until there is enough evidence available to make
a decision or a conclusion in a particular matter. When it comes to obtaining
audit evidence as to the existence of assets that are stated on the balance
sheet, auditors under the audit standards apply a risk based approach to
determine what level of risk is involved in the existence of those assets. In
fact, that assets exist is an auditing term. They then perform procedures based
on that assessment of risk that allow the auditor to obtain reasonable assurance
as to the existence of the asset.[28]
2.25
The committee draws attention to the role of auditors in the collapse of
Trio Capital. In its report into the collapse, the committee expressed concern
that auditors' approval of financial statements does not necessarily mean that
the actual assets underlying the financial statements exist. Further, an
auditor's assessment of a compliance plan and the work of the compliance committee
as 'effective' essentially only means that they exist. The committee noted
then, as now, that in the case of Trio, the requirement for the auditors to
demonstrate 'professional scepticism' about the information given to them was
insufficient to prevent the loss of investors' funds.[29]
2.26
Ms Lynette Wood, Chair of the FRC, stated that in the wake of the new
requirements regarding FRC responsibility for audit quality under the Audit
Enhancement Act, the FRC had 'established an Audit Quality Committee in late
2012'.[30]
The committee includes members from the FRC, AUASB, APRA, ASIC, the Australian
Institute of Company Directors, CPA Australia, ICAA, and the G100, a group of
Australia's senior finance executives.[31]
The FRC was 'very concerned' about the ASIC findings and they have been a topic
of discussion among stakeholders on the Audit Quality Committee.[32]
The FRC also pointed out that it now tests for professional scepticism when it
interviews candidates for AUASB board positions.[33]
2.27
Ms Merran Kelsall, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the AUASB,
noted that the AUASB auditing standards 'adopt and conform with the full suite
of international standards on auditing' issued by the IAASB.[34]
She pointed out that her role as a standard setter did not qualify her to
express a view on the accuracy of the ASIC findings.[35]
However, she did observe that there has been a significant raising of the bar
in terms of auditing standards since the end of 2011, and that rather than
conveying a sense of despair, it was important to clearly articulate to
auditing firms those areas that ASIC has identified for improvement.[36]
2.28
The ICAA also remarked on the 'significant changes to the actual
standards, the expectations of the work and the documentation of that work'
that have eventuated as a result of the new standards, and that this may have
influenced the ASIC findings to some extent.[37]
2.29
Both the ICAA and CPA Australia stated that they took the ASIC feedback 'very
seriously'.[38]
In a letter to the committee, CPA Australia Chief Executive Alex Malley stated
that CPA Australia 'considers audit quality of paramount importance and is
absolutely committed to constant improvement'.[39]
2.30
Both the ICAA and CPA Australia stated that the ASIC inspection report
provided valuable feedback for the profession. Ms Stamford and Mr Ghandar both
emphasised that their organisations actively incorporate the ASIC insights and
focus areas into their training programs, professional reviews, communications,
events and guidance. ICAA now has a focus on behavioural training and is
emphasising to its members the role of coaching and mentoring in demonstrating
to junior staff the application of professional scepticism.[40]
Similarly, CPA Australia is:
...active in promoting the focus areas and building the focus
areas into training, our professional program, quality review and other key
audit quality infrastructure. We, in fact, host podcasts with representatives
from ASIC about the focus areas on our website.[41]
2.31
There was, however, criticism of ASIC's conclusion about the overall
level of audit quality, and also the way that ASIC had publicised those
findings. CPA Australia took issue with the conclusions drawn by ASIC based on
the methodology that ASIC used to conduct its audit inspection review. Mr Malley
stated that the risk-based sample used by ASIC was unrepresentative of the
total population and therefore unsuitable as the basis for drawing generalised
conclusions. Mr Malley also criticised the approach taken by ASIC in its
dealings with the profession:
...ASIC has persistently demonstrated a propensity to make
statements in a range of public forums that are sensationalised and driven by a
media grab mentality rather than seeking constructive outcomes and working
collaboratively with the profession.[42]
2.32
These sentiments and the potential for public confusion were reiterated
by Mr Ghandar at the public hearing:
As an auditor, I am very aware of the importance of the
nature of a sample, and the types of conclusions that can be drawn from it,
including how the sample was selected and whether it is representative of the
underlying population. The ASIC audit inspection program is not a
representative sample of audits in Australia, hence CPA Australia questions the
persistent statements on audit quality in Australia from ASIC's communications
that have been widely reported in the media.
The mantra of one in six audits being deficient, of
frustration, of disappointment and failure are just not backed up by the
science and logic you would expect, given the ramifications of such statements.
A risk-based sample is, in fact, intended to select audit files that are more
likely to contain issues. Further, the basis of reporting, sample selection and
the inspection work may vary from one period to the next, also putting ASIC's
statement of a decline in audit quality under question. This is tough language.
A reasonable person would conclude that this is for public consumption, not for
the profession. It is tough talk giving an impression of action, of activity by
the regulator. We are concerned that this could be confusing to the community...In
our view, it is of utmost importance to the public interest to provide
confidence and clarity to the community. It is clear that the impact of ASIC's
language around its most recent inspection report is unhelpful to the objective
of the program—to promote high-quality financial statement audits—as it
distracts from the real value of the program: identifying focus areas and
fostering a constructive dialogue with the profession.[43]
2.33
While recognising that '[m]any audit matters are matters of judgement',
ASIC has expressed confidence in the processes that they undertake for their
audit inspection program and noted that their findings appear to be in line
with other reviews of audit quality, both within Australia and globally:
...we are confident in our processes. Our senior executive
reviews all the reviews to ensure consistency before they go out. We have a
staff member at the moment who is a secondee from the Canadian regulator. In
particular instances he has provided feedback that how we see the issues would
be consistent with how the Canadian regulator would see the issues. In addition
to that, the trend that we are seeing is consistent with a number of other
trends, which include the ICAA's audit quality report, various international
regulators' reviews of audit quality. It is also consistent, as I understand
it, with the firm's own internal quality reviews.[44]
Committee view
2.34
The committee is reassured, at least to some degree, that there is a
commitment to improving the audit process among the key stakeholders. However,
it draws attention to high profile cases, such as Trio Capital and Banksia
Securities, where auditors failed to undertake an adequate inspection of
financial statements. To the committee's mind, there remains a need for ASIC to
continue to carefully scrutinise the quality of auditing in Australia and the
framework and standards within which the audit profession operates.
Structure of the auditing industry
2.35
The structure of the audit industry is of particular interest given that
four large audit firms dominate the global and Australian audit market:
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, and KPMG. This has raised
concerns both internationally and within Australia about the extent of
competition within the audit market and its potential impacts on audit quality.
2.36
In February 2013, the United Kingdom (UK) Competition Commission issued the
provisional findings of its market investigation into the supply of statutory
audit services to large companies in the UK. It concluded that competition in
the audit market 'is restricted by factors which inhibit companies from
switching auditors and by the tendency for auditors to focus on satisfying
management rather than shareholder needs'.[45]
2.37
Ms Laura Carstensen, chair of the UK Audit Investigation Group, found
that existing safeguards, such as audit committees, appeared insufficient to
prevent misaligned auditor incentives or to facilitate a dynamic and
independent auditing market:
Shareholders play very little role in appointing auditors
compared to executive management—and despite the presence of audit committees
and other safeguards—audit firms naturally focus more on meeting management
interests. The result is a rather static market in which too often audits don’t
fulfil their intended purpose and thus fail to meet the needs of shareholders.
It is clear that there is significant dissatisfaction amongst
some institutional investors with the relevance and extent of reporting in
audited financial reports. This needs to change so that external audit becomes
a more genuinely independent and challenging exercise where auditors are less
like corporate advisors and more like examining inspectors.[46]
2.38
The consideration of mandatory audit firm rotation (covered in the next
section) is one of the possible remedies that the UK Competition Commission is
considering in the wake of these findings.[47]
2.39
Given developments overseas, changes in the structure of the Australian
audit market are of interest. CPA Australia provided the committee with the
preliminary results of a study into competition in the ASX-listed company audit
market.[48]
2.40
The significance of the changes in the audit market between 2000 and
2011 depends on the measure chosen. The size of the market captured by the big
four audit firms has decreased markedly in terms of the volume of financial audits,
but there has been only a very slight reduction in market dominance by the big
four in terms of the share of audit fees:
- market share by number of ASX
listed company financial statement audits of the largest audit firms decreased
from 63 per cent to 44 per cent; and
- market share by audit fees of the
largest audit firms decreased from 91 per cent to 87 per cent.[49]
2.41
The gains in market share have accrued to the large medium- and
medium-sized audit firms. The market share of small audit firms is very small
and decreased marginally over the study period.[50]
2.42
The study attributed the 'lesser decrease in market share by audit fees compared
to number of ASX listed company financial statement audits' to the following
factors:
- the larger audit firms are
focusing on larger company financial statement audits, while small and medium audit
firms have focused on medium and smaller listed company financial statement
audits, and taken on many of the newly listed company financial statement
audits over the period of analysis;
- the impact of an increase in the
scale of [the] largest listed companies due to global and national
acquisition/merger activity and growth; and
- significant step up in scale of
listed entities at the top tier of the market (S&P/ASX 200) as
compared to the scale of medium and smaller sized listed companies.[51]
2.43
The headline conclusion from the CPA Australia and the Accounting and
Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ) study is that their
findings 'indicate a competitive and complex market' for audit services.[52]
Mandatory rotation of audit firms
2.44
ASIC noted that the issue of mandatory auditor rotation was being
discussed within the European Union and recommended that it should be
considered in Australia with a view to ensuring that Australia remained mindful
of what was occurring in overseas jurisdictions.[53]
2.45
Mr John Price, ASIC Commissioner, laid forth some of the key arguments
for and against audit firm rotation. Arguments for audit firm rotation include:
- concerns about auditor objectivity given that fees are paid by
the audited entity;
- concerns about audit quality, including professional scepticism;
- concerns about independence issues between auditor and client;
and
- bringing a fresh mind to the audit and challenging long-standing
accounting treatments.
Arguments against audit firm rotation include:
-
the loss of a long-standing client might result in reduced
remuneration and loss of standing for the audit firm;
- additional costs to the client in a new auditor coming up to
speed;
- lack of familiarity might cause the new auditor to miss things
that an auditor more familiar with the business would spot;
-
the cost to a client firm of the audit tendering process;
- a long-term relationship with the audited entity's management actually
facilitates a good relationship, discussion and understanding of the business;
and
- the fact that audit partner rotation in Australia may deal to
some extent with the issue of a new set of eyes coming in.[54]
2.46
Mr Medcraft expressed the view that, given the seriousness of the audit
quality results, a 10-year rotation would mitigate some of the up-front costs
and 'is probably not unreasonable to consider'.[55]
2.47
Mr Ghandar agreed that all options to improve audit quality should be
considered, but noted that the evidence on the mandatory rotation of audit
firms was 'very mixed' and the benefits were uncertain. By contrast, Mr Ghandar
said that research on the system of audit partner rotation was positive:
In Australia we already have a regime of partner rotation which
has been shown to provide clear benefits in terms of independence through
independent research.[56]
Auditing quality in rural and
regional Australia
2.48
Auditing quality in rural and regional Australia was identified as an
area of concern by the committee. Ms Stamford said that senior experienced
practitioners go to regional areas with the ICAA quality review program, and
also attend regional conferences. Ms Kelsall added that in 2005 the AUASB
identified a lack of awareness and understanding in small firms about the
legally enforceable standards introduced. Since that time, the accounting
bodies and larger firms have devoted significant resources to this issue, 'which
is why there is such a robust engagement program now with smaller and regional
firms'.[57]
2.49
In response to questions about a difference in audit quality between
cities and the regions, Mr Ghandar did not accept that there was necessarily better
audit quality in the cities. His view is that the audit profession faces
similar challenges to other professions in attracting professionals to work in
a regional setting:
...there is, of course, a challenge in attracting registered
company auditors to regional settings, as there is in many different fields. We
see the same thing with doctors, lawyers, teachers and just about any field. I
think it is fantastic to draw attention to that and, CPA Australia certainly
does everything that we can to promote the attractiveness of the profession to
those working in a regional setting, and also provide those with all the
resources that we can—whether those are conferences, training or a direct
interface with them.[58]
Dealing with areas of greatest risk
in an audit
2.50
The committee questioned industry bodies about the areas that might
cause the greatest risk in terms of auditing. Areas of concern included:
- determining the depreciation periods for assets;
- judgements as to whether particular expenditure can be regarded
as capital investment and therefore not expensed;[59]
- complex valuations, particularly in difficult markets or where
there is little market at all because no transactions have taken place; and
- group audits of global entities across multiple jurisdictions.[60]
2.51
Ms Stamford observed that the new Clarity standards require an
auditor to focus on the area of greatest risk at the outset and therefore to
design the audit process around that risk.[61]
Potential conflicts of interest
2.52
The committee also wanted to understand what industry procedures are in
place to deal with the conflicts that may arise between auditors and client
firms when an auditing firm may have other lucrative contracts with the client
firm.
2.53
The ICAA identified a range of elements to deal with inherent conflicts
such as training; coaching; the application of the relevant standards,
including 'a team planning meeting at the beginning where the objectives of the
audit are discussed, the risks are discussed, the risks of fraud are discussed';
review by a more senior person; and prioritisation of scepticism. Ms Stamford
noted that retention of the client is not part of what the audit firm is trying
to achieve.[62]
Proposals for audit-only firms
2.54
ASIC noted that there is discussion in Europe about restricting the
non-audit services that audit firms can provide to clients. Mr Price laid out
some of the arguments for and against such provisions, and also noted that the
United States of America (USA) already has certain provisions in this area:
What you are really talking about there is the provision of
non-audit services to audit clients. There are some restrictions already in
Australia in terms of how that can be dealt with—although they are on a
principles basis. There has been some discussion in overseas jurisdictions,
particularly Europe, about prohibiting audit firms from providing non-audit
services to their audit clients—so things like tax services, bookkeeping,
valuations, actuarial services, and legal services. Arguments for that sort of
approach include that it enhances actual and perceived objectivity of auditors,
I think. Independent specialists could be sought to provide those other
services. It could provide greater certainty as to what non-audit services
are and are not acceptable, if you have a hard line of what is allowed and what
is not allowed. As far as international jurisdictions go, it is important to
note that the US already takes a more prescriptive type approach to prohibited
non-audit services by audit firms. As with everything there are arguments
against as well. On the other side there are possible efficiencies in firm
specialists providing non-audit services, and greater effectiveness when you
have all of that in-house. Specialist areas might also end up having to reduce
resources if effectively they are carved out of audit firms, so you might not
get the same quality of those non-audit specialist services. Also, there might
be less attractiveness in going to work for some of the larger firms if you
have either got to be on the audit side or on the non-audit side. They are some
of the arguments for and against.
...We are analysing the merits for and against. It is very
important for us to understand what is happening in overseas jurisdictions. The
consultation processes that are underway in some of these jurisdictions are
very significant, both in the EU and the UK, and they are largely able to be
translated to the Australian environment. It is simply recognising that
Australia, as with all things in business, operates in a globalised environment
and where we do have rules that are materially out of line with those
environments there is a risk that it either diminishes confidence in Australia
as a place to make investments, and that increases our cost of capital, or
alternatively it increases the cost of doing business in Australia if someone
is also doing business overseas because you are meeting two different
requirements.[63]
2.55
CPA Australia expressed concern about the notion of audit-only firms.
Mr Malley disputed the idea that conditions in the USA and Europe
correspond to Australia.[64]
Mr Ghandar pointed out that restrictions exist to prevent an audit firm providing
conflicting audit and non-audit services to a client. He drew a distinction
between those restrictions and the idea of preventing an audit firm providing
non-audit services to a different client:
There are already quite stringent requirements that were put
in place last decade, and did exist before that but were strengthened
significantly last decade in the aftermath of Enron et cetera. Those prevent
auditors from providing consulting or conflicting services to clients whose
financial statements they are auditing. It is a completely different matter to
extend that to auditors or audit firms being able to provide consulting
services anywhere. In an environment where business is becoming more and more
complex and these other areas are so much more important, it seems to me that
you would want to be bringing more expertise within the audit firm so that that
is on tap in those complex audits, rather than trying to create a sort of
siloed audit-only firm.[65]
ASIC efforts to improve audit
quality
2.56
ASIC indicated to the committee that it is keen to be proactive in
improving audit quality in Australia. Mr Price outlined five key areas that ASIC
is targeting, including:
-
meeting with the six largest audit firms in Australia to help
them prepare an internal action plan to improve audit quality;
- working with other audit oversight regulators and security
regulators internationally on strategies to improve audit firm quality;
- suggesting improvements to auditing standards both in Australia
and internationally to provide better guidance to auditors;
- speaking to audit committee chairs within companies and encouraging
them to ask audit firms about whether there were any ASIC findings in respect
of the audit performed for their company; and
- taking enforcement action where required.[66]
Industry suggestions to improve
audit quality
2.57
CPA Australia drew attention to other initiatives that may have the
potential to improve audit quality as well as 'the information that investors
are receiving', such as integrated reporting and auditor commentary:
[I]integrated reporting ... seeks to
provide a more holistic view into company business models and risks, therefore
allowing investors and their advisers to anticipate more readily what may
happen in the future. There is also auditor commentary and improving auditor
reporting. While they are a challenge to work through, those initiatives have
the possibility of setting up an environment where auditors would compete on
the clarity and the usefulness of the information they are providing in the
audit report.[67]
Committee view
2.58
The committee acknowledges the recognition by the accounting and
auditing professions of the importance of professional scepticism. However,
based on the findings of ASIC, there appears to be a gap between an articulated
acknowledgement of the importance of professional scepticism and its consistent
application to the auditing process. The committee is pleased that the
professional bodies are promoting behavioural change, but it remains concerned
that a clear strategy has not been articulated if the efforts by the various
bodies do not lead to measurable improvements in audit quality.
2.59
The committee shares ASIC's concern about audit quality in Australia and
is pleased that ASIC has a policy of constructive engagement with the audit
firms and professional bodies. The committee looks forward to an update from
ASIC on how it has worked with the large audit firms on their action plans to
improve audit quality and whether there has been constructive engagement with
all the relevant firms.
2.60
The committee notes that professional bodies such as CPA Australia and
the ICAA acknowledge the need to maintain and extend their programs of
professional support in regional and rural areas and commends them for their
efforts. The committee looks forward to hearing from ASIC about their
discussions with the largest audit firms on the issue of ongoing professional
relationships and mentoring between large city audit firms and small regional
audit firms.
2.61
The committee is concerned about the standard of training in the
auditing industry and that university courses and professional training do not
appear to be instilling in auditors a sufficient degree of critical judgement.
The committee notes ASIC's comments on graduate qualities, and is interested to
learn from ASIC what progress they have made in facilitating an improvement in
the level of scepticism among graduates.
2.62
The committee is keen to know more about the approaches that ASIC has
made to audit committee chairs within client firms.
2.63
The committee would like further clarification of the extent to which
conditions in the USA and Europe translate to the Australian context,
particularly with regard to discussions about audit-only provisions for audit
firms and mandatory audit firm rotation. The committee believes that all
options should be considered, and that ASIC needs to be both mindful of
international developments and differences between the Australian economy and
other jurisdictions.
2.64
The committee notes that CPA Australia and AFAANZ conclude that the
Australian audit market is competitive. However, the committee remains
concerned about the structure of the audit industry despite the gains in market
share made by large medium- and medium-sized firms. The committee notes that
the big four audit firms continue to dominate the market in terms of their
command of audit fees, suggesting that mid-tier firms may face barriers in
competing in the top end of the listed market.
2.65
The committee is concerned about the relationships between auditors and
client firms, in particular the inherent conflict involved in blowing the
whistle on financial matters if it might jeopardise other lucrative contracts
that an auditor has with a client firm.
2.66
The committee notes that CPA Australia drew attention to other
initiatives that may have the potential to improve audit quality and investor information.
The committee is keen to gain ASIC's perspectives on proposals such as
integrated reporting and auditor commentary.
2.67
The committee acknowledges the evidence provided by industry and
professional bodies about what an audit actually encompasses, but it remains
concerned about the gap that exists between what the public expects and what
the public gets with regard to an audit.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|