Mark Phillips | November 2019
This article was current at the time of publication.
Early in 2018, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released an information sheet about improving audit quality.
In part, it emphasised: “The quality of financial reports is key to confident and informed markets and investors. The purpose of the independent audit is to provide confidence in the quality of financial reports. Improving audit quality and the consistency of audit execution is essential to maintaining confidence in the independent assurance they provide.”
However, what is audit quality and how do stakeholders know if a quality audit has been delivered?
The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) describes the term “audit quality” as encompassing the key elements that create an environment that maximises the likelihood that quality audits are performed consistently. Of course, the type of mechanisms that will be effective will vary between firms and change over time.
A new guide developed by CPA Australia on behalf of the Australian Auditing and Accounting Public Policy Committee (APPC), which comprises representatives of BDO, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, KPMG, PwC, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, and the Institute of Public Accountants (IPA), adds new insights into this important issue.
Firms can use this tool to develop a recognition and accountability framework or review their current framework and processes.
Of particular note for smaller accounting practices is that the guide, titled An External Auditor’s Guide to Improving Audit Quality Using an Individual Recognition and Accountability Framework, is not designed to create new rules or a one-size-fits-all framework, but is, rather, a resource that is scalable for small and mid-tier firms.
As its title suggests, a key finding is that a fundamental driver of improvement in audit quality is using recognition and accountability mechanisms that focus on individuals with audit-related leadership positions. Both mechanisms contribute to audit quality: Recognition emphasises incentives or rewards for good audit quality, while accountability focuses on the consequences of poor audit quality.
The framework explained
Clearly, to deliver quality audits, those responsible need to be motivated to strive for high-quality outcomes and be aware that they must take responsibility when the standard falls short of expectations.
It is also imperative that those working on audit engagements understand the level of quality required to deliver outcomes in which users can have confidence.
Consistency is essential, and a firm’s system of quality control is the foundation for quality results.
It should be a given that all members of an audit team play a part in achieving audit quality, but the guide predominantly focuses on those directly responsible for audit quality at the engagement level – the audit engagement leader and audit engagement quality control reviewer, as well as those responsible for setting the “tone at the top” when it comes to audit quality.
Far from being a box-ticking exercise, audit leaders must meet the quality control requirements of audit engagements under ISA 220, as well as ensure the framework is effective in motivating the behaviours sought at a grassroots level.
This necessitates putting in place a transparent process, which encompasses:
- setting expectations about audit quality, who will be accountable, for what they will be accountable and when they will be assessed on the outcomes
- establishing accountability and recognition mechanisms by identifying audit quality measures, capturing relevant data and monitor those measures
- ensuring that audit leaders are consistently rewarded for high quality audit outcomes and behaviours and conversely receive consequences proportionate to poor audit quality outcomes and behaviours.
The findings of internal reviews and external inspections of audit engagements – along with the audit leaders’ responses to those findings – are key inputs when assessing audit quality. These will reflect the audit team’s past quality outcomes, while the responses should also address any shortcomings.
In addition to responding to review and inspection findings, accountability and recognition mechanisms need to emphasise quality and compliance processes, such as independence clearance, file management and mandatory training, as well as identifying quality behaviours, such as mentoring, coaching and setting the tone at the top.
The bottom line is that in order to drive up audit quality audit leaders need to be consistently recognised for exceptional audit quality, but should that not prove to be the case, be held accountable for poor quality.
A guide developed by CPA Australia on behalf of the Australian Auditing and Accounting Public Policy Committee (APPC)
Restructured code of ethics clarifies SMSF audit independence issues
Public practitioners with SMSF clients will need to review engagements where the firm conducts the accounting and audit. Here are some of the new requirements coming out of changes to the restructured codearticle
Licensing requirements and regulations for auditors
Licensed auditors: New Zealand
Practitioners who conduct audits in New Zealand must hold a licence
- Accounting systems and processes
Applying the auditing competency standard
Answers to some frequently asked questions about the auditing competency standard
Advanced Audit and Assurance
This subject examines audit and assurance processes, methodologies and procedures
Audit guide sets context for inquiry
Auditors are under the microscope, but is a wholesale overhaul of the profession necessary?article