Management makes a number of judgements about the amounts and disclosures in the financial report.

ASA 260 contains a discussion of the qualitative aspects of accounting practices. In considering the qualitative aspects of the entity’s accounting practices, the auditor may become aware of possible bias in management’s judgements. The auditor may conclude that the cumulative effect of a lack of neutrality, together with the effect of uncorrected misstatements, causes the financial report as a whole to be materially misstated. Indicators of a lack of neutrality that may affect the auditor’s evaluation of whether the financial report as a whole is materially misstated include the following:

The selective correction of misstatements brought to management’s attention during the audit (e.g., correcting misstatements with the effect of increasing reported earnings, but not correcting misstatements that have the effect of decreasing reported earnings).

Possible management bias in the making of accounting estimates.

ASA 540 addresses possible management bias in making accounting estimates. Indicators of possible management bias do not constitute misstatements for purposes of drawing conclusions on the reasonableness of individual accounting estimates. They may, however, affect the auditor’s evaluation of whether the financial report as a whole is free from material misstatement.

In evaluating whether the financial report appropriately discloses the significant accounting policies selected and applied, the auditor’s consideration includes matters such as:

Whether all disclosures related to the significant accounting policies that are required to be included by the applicable financial reporting framework have been disclosed;

Whether the information about the significant accounting policies that has been disclosed is relevant and therefore reflects how the recognition, measurement and presentation criteria in the applicable financial reporting framework have been applied to classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures in the financial report in the particular circumstances of the entity’s operations and its environment; and

The clarity with which the significant accounting policies have been presented.

Evaluating the understandability of the financial report includes consideration of such matters as whether:

The information in the financial report is presented in a clear and concise manner.

The placement of significant disclosures gives appropriate prominence to them (e.g., when there is perceived value of entityspecific information to users), and whether the disclosures are appropriately crossreferenced in a manner that would not give rise to significant challenges for users in identifying necessary information.

It is common for a financial report prepared in accordance with a general purpose framework to present an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. Evaluating whether, in view of the applicable financial reporting framework, the financial report provides adequate disclosures to enable the intended users to understand the effect of material transactions and events on the entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows includes consideration of such matters as:

The extent to which the information in the financial report is relevant and specific to the circumstances of the entity; and

Whether the disclosures are adequate to assist the intended users to understand:

The nature and extent of the entity’s potential assets and liabilities arising from transactions or events that do not meet the criteria for recognition (or the criteria for derecognition) established by the applicable financial reporting framework.

The nature and extent of risks of material misstatement arising from transactions and events.

The methods used and the assumptions and judgements made, and changes to them, that affect amounts presented or otherwise disclosed, including relevant sensitivity analyses.

Some financial reporting frameworks acknowledge explicitly or implicitly the concept of fair presentation. As noted in paragraph 7(b) of this Auditing Standard, a fair presentation financial reporting framework not only requires compliance with the requirements of the framework, but also acknowledges explicitly or implicitly that it may be necessary for management to provide disclosures beyond those specifically required by the framework.

The auditor’s evaluation about whether the financial report achieves fair presentation, both in respect of presentation and disclosure, is a matter of professional judgement. This evaluation takes into account such matters as the facts and circumstances of the entity, including changes thereto, based on the auditor’s understanding of the entity and the audit evidence obtained during the audit. The evaluation also includes consideration, for example, of the disclosures needed to achieve a fair presentation arising from matters that could be material (i.e., in general, misstatements are considered to be material if they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of the users taken on the basis of the financial report as a whole), such as the effect of evolving financial reporting requirements or the changing economic environment.

Evaluating whether the financial report achieves fair presentation may include, for example, discussions with management and those charged with governance about their views on why a particular presentation was chosen, as well as alternatives that may have been considered. The discussions may include, for example:

The degree to which the amounts in the financial report is aggregated or disaggregated, and whether the presentation of amounts or disclosures obscures useful information, or results in misleading information.

Consistency with appropriate industry practice, or whether any departures are relevant to the entity’s circumstances and therefore warranted.

As explained in ASA 200, the preparation of the financial report by management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance requires the inclusion of an adequate description of the applicable financial reporting framework in the financial report. That description advises users of the financial report of the framework on which the financial report is based.

A description that the financial report is prepared in accordance with a particular applicable financial reporting framework is appropriate only if the financial report complies with all the requirements of that framework that are effective during the period covered by the financial report.

A description of the applicable financial reporting framework that contains imprecise qualifying or limiting language (e.g., “the financial report is in substantial compliance with Australian Accounting Standards”) is not an adequate description of that framework as it may mislead users of the financial report.

In some cases, the financial report may represent that it is prepared in accordance with two financial reporting frameworks (e.g., the Australian Accounting Standards and IFRSs). This may be because management is required, or has chosen, to prepare the financial report in accordance with both frameworks, in which case both are applicable financial reporting frameworks. Such description is appropriate only if the financial report complies with each of the frameworks individually. To be regarded as being prepared in accordance with both frameworks, the financial report needs to comply with both frameworks simultaneously and without any need for reconciling statements. In practice, simultaneous compliance is unlikely unless the jurisdiction has adopted the other framework (e.g., IFRSs) as its own national framework, or has eliminated all barriers to compliance with it.

A financial report that is prepared in accordance with one financial reporting framework and that contains a note or supplementary statement reconciling the results to those that would be shown under another framework is not prepared in accordance with that other framework. This is because the financial report does not include all the information in the manner required by that other framework.

The financial report may, however, be prepared in accordance with one applicable financial reporting framework and, in addition, describe in the notes to the financial report the extent to which the financial report complies with another framework (e.g., a financial report prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards that also describes the extent to which it complies with IFRSs). Such description may constitute supplementary financial information as discussed in paragraph 54 and is covered by the auditor’s opinion if it cannot be clearly differentiated from the financial report.

There may be cases where the financial report, although prepared in accordance with the requirements of a fair presentation framework, does not achieve fair presentation. Where this is the case, it may be possible for management to include additional disclosures in the financial report beyond those specifically required by the framework or, in extremely rare circumstances, to depart from a requirement in the framework in order to achieve fair presentation of the financial report.

It will be extremely rare for the auditor to consider a financial report that is prepared in accordance with a compliance framework to be misleading if, in accordance with ASA 210, the auditor determined that the framework is acceptable.

A written report encompasses reports issued in hard copy and those using an electronic medium.

The Appendix to this Auditing Standard contains illustrations of auditor’s reports on a financial report, incorporating the elements set out in paragraphs 20–49. With the exception of the Opinion and Basis for Opinion sections, this Auditing Standard does not establish requirements for ordering the elements of the auditor’s report. However, this Auditing Standard requires the use of specific headings, which are intended to assist in making auditor’s reports that refer to audits that have been conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards more recognisable, particularly in situations where the elements of the auditor’s report are presented in an order that differs from the illustrative auditor’s reports in the Appendix to this Auditing Standard.

A title indicating the report is the report of an independent auditor, for example, “Independent Auditor’s Report,” distinguishes the independent auditor’s report from reports issued by others.

Law, regulation or the terms of the engagement may specify to whom the auditor’s report is to be addressed in that particular jurisdiction. The auditor’s report is normally addressed to those for whom the report is prepared, often either to the shareholders or to those charged with governance of the entity whose financial report is being audited.

The auditor’s report states, for example, that the auditor has audited the financial report of the entity, which comprises [state the title of each financial statement and assertion statement comprising the financial report required by the applicable financial reporting framework, specifying the date or period covered by each financial statement and assertion statement] and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies.

When the auditor is aware that the audited financial report will be included in a document that contains other information, such as an annual report, the auditor may consider, if the form of presentation allows, identifying the page numbers on which the audited financial report is presented. This helps users to identify the financial report to which the auditor’s report relates.

The phrases “present fairly, in all material respects,” and “give a true and fair view” are regarded as being equivalent. Whether the phrase “present fairly, in all material respects,” or the phrase “give a true and fair view” is used in any particular jurisdiction is determined by the law or regulation governing the audit of a financial report in that jurisdiction, or by generally accepted practice in that jurisdiction. Where law or regulation requires the use of different wording, this does not affect the requirement in paragraph 14 for the auditor to evaluate the fair presentation of the financial report prepared in accordance with a fair presentation framework.

When the auditor expresses an unmodified opinion, it is not appropriate to use phrases such as “with the foregoing explanation” or “subject to” in relation to the opinion, as these suggest a conditional opinion or a weakening or modification of opinion.

The auditor’s opinion covers the financial report as defined by the applicable financial reporting framework. For example, in the case of many general purpose frameworks, the financial report may include: a statement of financial position, a statement of comprehensive income, a statement of changes in equity, a statement of cash flows, and related notes, which ordinarily comprise a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. In some jurisdictions, additional information may also be considered to be an integral part of the financial report.

In the case of a financial report prepared in accordance with a fair presentation framework, the auditor’s opinion states that the financial report presents fairly, in all material respects, or gives a true and fair view of, the matters that the financial report are designed to present. For example, in the case of a financial report prepared in accordance with IFRSs, these matters are the financial position of the entity as at the end of the period and the entity’s financial performance and cash flows for the period then ended. Consequently, the […] in paragraph 25 and elsewhere in this Auditing Standard is intended to be replaced by the words in italics in the preceding sentence when the applicable financial reporting framework is IFRSs or, in the case of other applicable financial reporting frameworks, be replaced with words that describe the matters that the financial report is designed to present.

The identification of the applicable financial reporting framework in the auditor’s opinion is intended to advise users of the auditor’s report of the context in which the auditor’s opinion is expressed; it is not intended to limit the evaluation required in paragraph 14. The applicable financial reporting framework is identified in such terms as:

“… in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards” or

“… in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in Jurisdiction X …”

When the applicable financial reporting framework encompasses financial reporting standards and legal or regulatory requirements, the framework is identified in such terms as “… in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards and the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001.” ASA 210 deals with circumstances where there are conflicts between the financial reporting standards and the legislative or regulatory requirements.

As indicated in paragraph A13, the financial report may be prepared in accordance with two financial reporting frameworks, which are therefore both applicable financial reporting frameworks. Accordingly, each framework is considered separately when forming the auditor’s opinion on the financial report, and the auditor’s opinion in accordance with paragraphs 25–27 refers to both frameworks as follows:

If the financial report complies with each of the frameworks individually, two opinions are expressed: that is, that the financial report is prepared in accordance with one of the applicable financial reporting frameworks (e.g., the Australian Accounting Standards) and an opinion that the financial report is prepared in accordance with the other applicable financial reporting framework. These opinions may be expressed separately or in a single sentence (e.g., the financial report is presented fairly, in all material respects […], in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards and with the other applicable financial reporting framework).

If the financial report complies with one of the frameworks but fails to comply with the other framework, an unmodified opinion can be given that the financial report is prepared in accordance with the one framework (e.g., the Australian Accounting Standards) but a modified opinion given with regard to the other framework in accordance with ASA 705.

As indicated in paragraph A15, the financial report may represent compliance with the applicable financial reporting framework and, in addition, disclose the extent of compliance with another financial reporting framework. Such supplementary information is covered by the auditor’s opinion if it cannot be clearly differentiated from the financial report (see paragraphs 53–54 and related application material in paragraphs A78–A84). Accordingly,

If the disclosure as to the compliance with the other framework is misleading, a modified opinion is expressed in accordance with ASA 705.

If the disclosure is not misleading, but the auditor judges it to be of such importance that it is fundamental to the users’ understanding of the financial report, an Emphasis of Matter paragraph is added in accordance with ASA 706, drawing attention to the disclosure.

The Basis for Opinion section provides important context about the auditor’s opinion. Accordingly, this Auditing Standard requires the Basis for Opinion section to directly follow the Opinion section in the auditor’s report.

The reference to the standards used conveys to the users of the auditor’s report that the audit has been conducted in accordance with established standards.

[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus A34.1]

Aus.The identification of the relevant ethical requirements increases transparency about those requirements relating to the particular audit engagement. ASA 200 explains that the auditor is subject to the relevant ethical requirements as described in ASA 102.*

In some jurisdictions, relevant ethical requirements may exist in several different sources, such as the ethical code(s) and additional rules and requirements within law and regulation. When the independence and other relevant ethical requirements are contained in a limited number of sources, the auditor may choose to name the relevant source(s) (e.g., the name of the code, rule or regulation applicable in the jurisdiction), or may refer to a term that is commonly understood and that appropriately summarises those sources (e.g., independence requirements for audits of private entities in Jurisdiction X).

Law or regulation, Australian Auditing Standards or the terms of an audit engagement may require the auditor to provide in the auditor’s report more specific information about the sources of the relevant ethical requirements, including those pertaining to independence, that applied to the audit of the financial report.

In determining the appropriate amount of information to include in the auditor’s report when there are multiple sources of relevant ethical requirements relating to the audit of the financial report, an important consideration is balancing transparency against the risk of obscuring other useful information in the auditor’s report.

Considerations specific to group audits

In group audits when there are multiple sources of relevant ethical requirements, including those pertaining to independence, the reference in the auditor’s report to the jurisdiction ordinarily relates to the relevant ethical requirements that are applicable to the group engagement team. This is because, in a group audit, component auditors are also subject to ethical requirements that are relevant to the group audit.

The Australian Auditing Standards do not establish specific independence or ethical requirements for auditors, including component auditors, and thus do not extend, or otherwise override, the independence requirements of the relevant ethical requirements or other ethical requirements to which the group engagement team is subject, nor do the Australian Auditing Standards require that the component auditor in all cases to be subject to the same specific independence requirements that are applicable to the group engagement team. As a result, relevant ethical requirements, including those pertaining to independence, in a group audit situation may be complex. ASA 600 provides guidance for auditors in performing work on the financial information of a component for a group audit, including those situations where the component auditor does not meet the independence requirements that are relevant to the group audit.

Law or regulation may require communication of key audit matters for audits of entities other than listed entities, for example, entities characterised in such law or regulation as public interest entities.

The auditor may also decide to communicate key audit matters for other entities, including those that may be of significant public interest, for example because they have a large number and wide range of stakeholders and considering the nature and size of the business. Examples of such entities may include financial institutions (such as banks, insurance companies, and superannuation funds), and other entities such as charities.

ASA 210 requires the auditor to agree the terms of the audit engagement with management and those charged with governance, as appropriate, and explains that the roles of management and those charged with governance in agreeing the terms of the audit engagement for the entity depend on the governance arrangements of the entity and relevant law or regulation. ASA 210 also requires the audit engagement letter or other suitable form of written agreement to include reference to the expected form and content of any reports to be issued by the auditor. When the auditor is not otherwise required to communicate key audit matters, ASA 210 explains that it may be helpful for the auditor to make reference in the terms of the audit engagement to the possibility of communicating key audit matters in the auditor’s report and, in certain jurisdictions, it may be necessary for the auditor to include a reference to such possibility in order to retain the ability to do so.

Listed entities are not common in the public sector. However, public sector entities may be significant due to size, complexity or public interest aspects. In such cases, an auditor of a public sector entity may be required by law or regulation or may otherwise decide to communicate key audit matters in the auditor’s report.

ASA 200 explains the premise, relating to the responsibilities of management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance, on which an audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards is conducted. Management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance accept responsibility for the preparation of the financial report in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework, including, where relevant, their fair presentation. Management also accepts responsibility for such internal control as it determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial report that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. The description of management’s responsibilities in the auditor’s report includes reference to both responsibilities as it helps to explain to users the premise on which an audit is conducted. ASA 260 uses the term those charged with governance to describe the person(s) or organisation(s) with responsibility for overseeing the entity, and provides a discussion about the diversity of governance structures across jurisdictions and by entity.

There may be circumstances when it is appropriate for the auditor to add to the descriptions of the responsibilities of management and those charged with governance in paragraphs 34–35 to reflect additional responsibilities that are relevant to the preparation of the financial report in the context of the particular jurisdiction or the nature of the entity.

ASA 210 requires the auditor to agree management’s responsibilities in an engagement letter or other suitable form of written agreement. ASA 210 provides some flexibility in doing so, by explaining that, if law or regulation prescribes the responsibilities of management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance in relation to financial reporting, the auditor may determine that the law or regulation includes responsibilities that, in the auditor’s judgement, are equivalent in effect to those set out in ASA 210. For such responsibilities that are equivalent, the auditor may use the wording of the law or regulation to describe them in the engagement letter or other suitable form of written agreement. In such cases, this wording may also be used in the auditor’s report to describe the responsibilities as required by paragraph 34(a). In other circumstances, including where the auditor decides not to use the wording of law or regulation as incorporated in the engagement letter, the wording in paragraph 34(a) is used. In addition to including the description of management’s responsibilities in the auditor’s report as required by paragraph 34, the auditor may refer to a more detailed description of these responsibilities by including a reference to where such information may be obtained (e.g., in the annual report of the entity or a website of an appropriate authority).

In some jurisdictions, law or regulation prescribing management’s responsibilities may specifically refer to a responsibility for the adequacy of accounting books and records, or accounting system. As books, records and systems are an integral part of internal control (as defined in ASA 315), the descriptions in ASA 210 and in paragraph 34 do not make specific reference to them.

The Appendix to this Auditing Standard provides illustrations of how the requirement in paragraph 34(b) would be applied when the Australian Accounting Standards are the applicable financial reporting framework. If an applicable financial reporting framework other than the Australian Accounting Standards is used, the illustrative statements featured in the Appendix to this Auditing Standard may need to be adapted to reflect the application of the other financial reporting framework in the circumstances.

When some, but not all, of the individuals involved in the oversight of the financial reporting process are also involved in preparing the financial report, the description as required by paragraph 35 may need to be modified to appropriately reflect the particular circumstances of the entity. When individuals responsible for the oversight of the financial reporting process are the same as those responsible for the preparation of the financial report, no reference to oversight responsibilities is required.

The description of the auditor’s responsibilities as required by paragraphs 37–40 may be tailored to reflect the specific nature of the entity, for example, when the auditor’s report addresses a group’s financial report. [Aus] Illustration 2A in the Appendix to this Auditing Standard includes an example of how this may be done.

The auditor’s report explains that the objectives of the auditor are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial report as a whole is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes the auditor’s opinion. These are in contrast to management’s responsibilities for the preparation for the financial report.

The Appendix to this Auditing Standard provides illustrations of how the requirement in paragraph 38(c), to provide a description of materiality, would be applied when the Australian Accounting Standards are the applicable financial reporting framework. If an applicable financial reporting framework other than the Australian Accounting Standards is used, the illustrative report presented in the Appendix to this Auditing Standard may need to be adapted to reflect the application of the other financial reporting framework in the circumstances.

The auditor may also consider it useful to provide additional information in the description of the auditor’s responsibilities beyond what is required by paragraph 40(c). For example, the auditor may make reference to the requirement in paragraph 9 of ASA 701 to determine the matters that required significant auditor attention in performing the audit, taking into account areas of higher assessed risk of material misstatement or significant risks identified in accordance with ASA 315; significant auditor judgements relating to areas in the financial report that involved significant management judgement, including accounting estimates that have been identified as having high estimation uncertainty; and the effects on the audit of significant events or transactions that occurred during the period.

Including the information required by paragraphs 39–40 in an appendix to the auditor’s report or, when law, regulation or Australian Auditing Standards expressly permit, referring to a website of an appropriate authority containing such information may be a useful way of streamlining the content of the auditor’s report. However, because the description of the auditor’s responsibilities contains information that is necessary to inform users’ expectations of an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards, a reference is required to be included in the auditor’s report indicating where such information can be accessed.

Location in an appendix (Ref: Para.  41(b), 50(k))

Paragraph 41 permits the auditor to include the statements required by paragraphs 3940 describing the auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial report in an appendix to the auditor’s report, provided that appropriate reference is made within the body of the auditor’s report to the location of the appendix. The following is an illustration of how such a reference to an appendix could be made in the auditor’s report:

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Report

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial report as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial report.

A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial report is included in appendix X of this auditor’s report. This description, which is located at [indicate page number or other specific reference to the location of the description], forms part of our auditor’s report.

Reference to a website of an appropriate authority (Ref: Para. 41(c), 42)

Paragraph 41 explains that the auditor may refer to a description of the auditor’s responsibilities located on a website of an appropriate authority, only if expressly permitted by law, regulation or Australian Auditing Standards. The information on the website that is incorporated in the auditor’s report by way of a specific reference to the website location where such information can be found may describe the auditor’s work, or the audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards more broadly, but it cannot be inconsistent with the description required in paragraphs 39–40. This means that the wording of the description of the auditor’s responsibilities on the website may be more detailed, or may address other matters relating to an audit of the financial report, provided that such wording reflects and does not contradict the matters addressed in paragraphs 39–40.

An appropriate authority could be the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, a regulator, or an audit oversight body. Such organisations are wellplaced to ensure the accuracy, completeness and continued availability of the standardised information. It would not be appropriate for the auditor to maintain such a website. The following is an illustration of how such a reference to a website could be made in the auditor’s report:

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Report

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial report as a whole is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial report.

A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial report is located at [Organisation’s] website at: [website address]. This description forms part of our auditor’s report.

Aus.When the auditor refers to a description of the auditor’s responsibilities on a website, the appropriate authority is The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the website address is *

In some jurisdictions, the auditor may have additional responsibilities to report on other matters that are supplementary to the auditor’s responsibilities under the Australian Auditing Standards. For example, the auditor may be asked to report certain matters if they come to the auditor’s attention during the course of the audit of the financial report. Alternatively, the auditor may be asked to perform and report on additional specified procedures, or to express an opinion on specific matters, such as the adequacy of accounting books and records, internal control over financial reporting or other information. Auditing standards in the specific jurisdiction often provide guidance on the auditor’s responsibilities with respect to specific additional reporting responsibilities in that jurisdiction.

Aus.When the audit of a financial report is conducted in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001 (the “Act”), section 308(3)(b) of that Act requires the auditor to describe in the auditor’s report any deficiency, failure or shortcoming in respect of certain matters referred to in section 307(b), (c) or (d) of that Act.

In some cases, the relevant law or regulation may require or permit the auditor to report on these other responsibilities as part of their auditor’s report on the financial report. In other cases, the auditor may be required or permitted to report on them in a separate report.

Aus.An example of “other reporting responsibilities” is where a remuneration report is included in a directors’ report and the auditor is required to report in accordance with section 308(3C) of the Corporations Act 2001.

Paragraphs 43–45 permit combined presentation of other reporting responsibilities and the auditor’s responsibilities under the Australian Auditing Standards only when they address the same topics and the wording of the auditor’s report clearly differentiates the other reporting responsibilities from those under the Australian Auditing Standards. Such clear differentiation may make it necessary for the auditor’s report to refer to the source of the other reporting responsibilities and to state that such responsibilities are beyond those required under the Australian Auditing Standards. Otherwise, other reporting responsibilities are required to be addressed in a separate section in the auditor’s report with a heading “Report on Other Legal and Regulatory Requirements,” or otherwise as appropriate to the content of the section. In such cases, paragraph 45 requires the auditor to include reporting responsibilities under the Australian Auditing Standards under a heading titled “Report on the Audit of the Financial Report.”

[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus A61.1]

Aus.ASQC 1 requires that the firm establish policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that engagements are performed in accordance with professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Notwithstanding these ASQC 1 requirements, naming the engagement partner in the auditor’s report is intended to provide further transparency to the users of the auditor’s report.

Law or regulation may require that the auditor’s report include the name of the engagement partner responsible for audits other than those of a general purpose financial report of listed entities. The auditor may also be required by law or regulation, or may decide to include additional information beyond the engagement partner’s name in the auditor’s report to further identify the engagement partner, for example, the engagement partner’s professional license number that is relevant to the jurisdiction where the auditor practices.

[Deleted by the AUASB.]*

The auditor’s signature is either in the name of the audit firm, the personal name of the auditor or both, as appropriate for the particular jurisdiction. In addition to the auditor’s signature, in certain jurisdictions, the auditor may be required to declare in the auditor’s report the auditor’s professional accountancy designation or the fact that the auditor or firm, as appropriate, has been recognised by the appropriate licensing authority in that jurisdiction.

Aus.Under the Corporations Act 2001, the auditor of a company or registered scheme is required to sign the auditor’s report in both their own name and the name of their firm [section 324AB(3)] or the name of the audit company [section 324AD(1)], as applicable.

In some cases, law or regulation may allow for the use of electronic signatures in the auditor’s report.

The date of the auditor’s report informs the user of the auditor’s report that the auditor has considered the effect of events and transactions of which the auditor became aware and that occurred up to that date. The auditor’s responsibility for events and transactions after the date of the auditor’s report is addressed in ASA 560.

Since the auditor’s opinion is provided on the financial report and the financial report is the responsibility of management, the auditor is not in a position to conclude that sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained until evidence is obtained that all the statements and disclosures that comprise the financial report, have been prepared and management has accepted responsibility for them.

In some jurisdictions, law or regulation identifies the individuals or bodies (e.g., the directors) that are responsible for concluding that all the statements and disclosures that comprise the financial report, have been prepared, and specifies the necessary approval process. In such cases, evidence is obtained of that approval before dating the report on the financial report. In other jurisdictions, however, the approval process is not prescribed in law or regulation. In such cases, the procedures the entity follows in preparing and finalising its financial report in view of its management and governance structures are considered in order to identify the individuals or body with the authority to conclude that all the statements that comprises the financial report, including the related notes, have been prepared. In some cases, law or regulation identifies the point in the financial reporting process at which the audit is expected to be complete.

In some jurisdictions, final approval of the financial report by shareholders is required before the financial report is issued publicly. In these jurisdictions, final approval by shareholders is not necessary for the auditor to conclude that sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained. The date of approval of the financial report for purposes of Australian Auditing Standards is the earlier date on which those with the recognised authority determine that all the statements and disclosures that comprise the financial report, have been prepared and that those with the recognised authority have asserted that they have taken responsibility for them.

ASA 200 explains that the auditor may be required to comply with legal or regulatory requirements in addition to Australian Auditing Standards. When the differences between the legal or regulatory requirements and Australian Auditing Standards relate only to the layout and wording of the auditor’s report, the requirements in paragraph 50(a)–(o) set out the minimum elements to be included in the auditor’s report to enable a reference to the Australian Auditing Standards . In those circumstances, the requirements in paragraphs 2149 that are not included in paragraph 50(a)–(o) do not need to be applied including, for example, the required ordering of the Opinion and Basis for Opinion sections.

Where specific requirements in a particular jurisdiction do not conflict with Australian Auditing Standards, the layout and wording required by paragraphs 21–49 assist users of the auditor’s report in more readily recognising the auditor’s report as a report of an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.

Law or regulation may require the auditor to provide additional information about the audit that was performed, which may include information that is consistent with the objectives of ASA 701, or may prescribe the nature and extent of communication about such matters.

The Australian Auditing Standards do not override law or regulation that governs an audit of a financial report. When ASA 701 is applicable, reference can only be made to Australian Auditing Standards in the auditor’s report if, in applying the law or regulation, the section required by paragraph 50(h) is not inconsistent with the reporting requirements in ASA 701. In such circumstances, the auditor may need to tailor certain aspects of the communication of key audit matters in the auditor’s report required by ASA 701, for example by:

Modifying the heading “Key Audit Matters”, if law or regulation prescribes a specific heading;

Explaining why the information required by law or regulation is being provided in the auditor’s report, for example by making a reference to the relevant law or regulation and describing how that information relates to the key audit matters;

Where law or regulation prescribes the nature and extent of the description, supplementing the prescribed information to achieve an overall description of each key audit matter that is consistent with the requirement in paragraph 13 of ASA 701.

ASA 210 deals with circumstances where law or regulation of the relevant jurisdiction prescribes the layout or wording of the auditor’s report in terms that are significantly different from the requirements of Australian Auditing Standards, which in particular includes the auditor’s opinion. In these circumstances, ASA 210 requires the auditor to evaluate:

Whether users might misunderstand the assurance obtained from the audit of the financial report and, if so,

Whether additional explanation in the auditor’s report can mitigate possible misunderstanding.

If the auditor concludes that additional explanation in the auditor’s report cannot mitigate possible misunderstanding, ASA 210 requires the auditor not to accept the audit engagement, unless required by law or regulation to do so. In accordance with ASA 210, an audit conducted in accordance with such law or regulation does not comply with Australian Auditing Standards. Accordingly, the auditor does not include any reference in the auditor’s report to the audit having been conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.

Auditors of public sector entities may also have the ability pursuant to law or regulation to report publicly on certain matters, either in the auditor’s report or in a supplementary report, which may include information that is consistent with the objectives of ASA 701. In such circumstances, the auditor may need to tailor certain aspects of the communication of key audit matters in the auditor’s report required by ASA 701 or include a reference in the auditor’s report to a description of the matter in the supplementary report.

The auditor may refer in the auditor’s report to the audit having been conducted in accordance with both Australian Auditing Standards as well as the other auditing standards when, in addition to complying with the relevant other auditing standards, the auditor complies with each of the Australian Auditing Standards relevant to the audit.

A reference to both Australian Auditing Standards and the other auditing standards is not appropriate if there is a conflict between the requirements in the Australian Auditing Standards and those in the other auditing standards that would lead the auditor to form a different opinion or not to include an Emphasis of Matter or Other Matter paragraph that, in the particular circumstances, is required by the Australian Auditing Standards. In such a case, the auditor’s report refers only to the auditing standards (either Australian Auditing Standards or the other auditing standards) in accordance with which the auditor’s report has been prepared.

In some circumstances, the entity may be required by law, regulation or the Australian Auditing Standards, or may voluntarily choose, to present together with the financial report supplementary information that is not required by the applicable financial reporting framework. For example, supplementary information might be presented to enhance a user’s understanding of the applicable financial reporting framework or to provide further explanation of specific financial statement items. Such information is normally presented in either supplementary schedules or as additional notes.

Paragraph 53 explains that the auditor’s opinion covers supplementary information that is an integral part of the financial report because of its nature or how it is presented. This evaluation is a matter of professional judgement. To illustrate:

When the notes to the financial statements include an explanation or the reconciliation of the extent to which the financial report complies with another financial reporting framework, the auditor may consider this to be supplementary information that cannot be clearly differentiated from the financial report. The auditor’s opinion would also cover notes or supplementary schedules that are crossreferenced from the financial report.

When an additional profit and loss account that discloses specific items of expenditure is disclosed as a separate schedule included as an Appendix to the financial report, the auditor may consider this to be supplementary information that can be clearly differentiated from the financial report.

Supplementary information that is covered by the auditor’s opinion does not need to be specifically referred to in the auditor’s report when the reference to the notes in the description of the statements that comprises the financial report in the auditor’s report is sufficient.

Law or regulation may not require that the supplementary information be audited, and management may decide to ask the auditor not to include the supplementary information within the scope of the audit of the financial report.

The auditor’s evaluation whether unaudited supplementary information is presented in a manner that could be construed as being covered by the auditor’s opinion includes, for example, where that information is presented in relation to the financial report and any audited supplementary information, and whether it is clearly labelled as “unaudited.”

Management could change the presentation of unaudited supplementary information that could be construed as being covered by the auditor’s opinion, for example, by:

Removing any crossreferences from the financial report to unaudited supplementary schedules or unaudited notes so that the demarcation between the audited and unaudited information is sufficiently clear.

Placing the unaudited supplementary information outside of the financial report or, if that is not possible in the circumstances, at a minimum placing the unaudited notes together at the end of the required notes to the financial report and clearly labelling them as unaudited. Unaudited notes that are intermingled with the audited notes can be misinterpreted as being audited.

The fact that supplementary information is unaudited does not relieve the auditor of the responsibilities described in ASA 720.

Appendix

(Ref: Para. A19)