{"id":"F2009L04091","name":"ASA 530 - Audit Sampling - October 2009","slug":"asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":81669,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2009L04091-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standa","sectionType":"section","heading":"Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standard","content":"##### Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standard\n\nThe most recently compiled versions of Auditing Standards, original Standards and amending Standards (see Compilation Details) are available on the AUASB website: www.auasb.gov.au","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"Contact Details","sectionType":"section","heading":"Contact Details","content":"##### Contact Details\n\n| Auditing and Assurance Standards BoardPodium Level 14, 530 Collins StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000AUSTRALIA | Phone: (03) 8080 7400E-mail: enquiries@auasb.gov.auPostal Address:PO Box 204Collins Street WestMelbourne Victoria 8007AUSTRALIA |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"COPYRIGHT","sectionType":"section","heading":"COPYRIGHT","content":"##### COPYRIGHT\n\n© 2021 Commonwealth of Australia. The text, graphics and layout of this Auditing Standard are protected by Australian copyright law and the comparable law of other countries. Reproduction within Australia in unaltered form (retaining this notice) is permitted for personal and non‑commercial use subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source as being the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB).\n\nRequests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights for commercial purposes within Australia should be addressed to the Technical Director, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne, Victoria 8007 or sent to [enquiries@auasb.gov.au](mailto:enquiries@auasb.gov.au). Otherwise, no part of this Auditing Standard may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the AUASB except as permitted by law.\n\nThis Auditing Standard reproduces substantial parts of the corresponding International Standard on Auditing issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) and published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), in the manner described in the statement on Conformity with International Standards on Auditing. The AUASB acknowledges that IFAC is the owner of copyright in the International Standard on Auditing incorporated in this Auditing Standard throughout the world.\n\nAll existing rights in this material are reserved outside Australia. Reproduction outside Australia in unaltered form (retaining this notice) is permitted for personal and non-commercial use only.\n\nFurther information and requests for authorisation to reproduce this Auditing Standard for commercial purposes outside Australia should be addressed to the Technical Director, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne, Victoria 8007 or sent to [enquiries@auasb.gov.au](mailto:enquiries@auasb.gov.au). Any decision to approve a request may also require the agreement of IFAC.\n\nISSN 1833-4393","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"CONTENTS","sectionType":"part","heading":"CONTENTS","content":"# CONTENTS\n\nCOMPILATION DETAILS\n\nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nCONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON AUDITING\n\nParagraphs\n\nApplication......................................................Aus 0.1-Aus 0.2\n\nOperative Date.........................................................Aus 0.3\n\nIntroduction\n\nScope of this Auditing Standard.................................................1-2\n\nEffective Date...............................................................3\n\nObjective..................................................................4\n\nDefinitions.................................................................5\n\nRequirements\n\nSample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing................................6-8\n\nPerforming Audit Procedures..................................................9-11\n\nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements.................................12-13\n\nProjecting Misstatements......................................................14\n\nEvaluating Results of Audit Sampling.............................................15\n\nApplication and Other Explanatory Material\n\nDefinitions.............................................................A1-A3\n\nSample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing............................A4-A13\n\nPerforming Audit Procedures..............................................A14-A16\n\nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements..................................A17\n\nProjecting Misstatements.................................................A18-A20\n\nEvaluating Results of Audit Sampling........................................A21-A23\n\nAppendix 1: Stratification and Value-Weighted Selection\n\nAppendix 2: Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Controls\n\nAppendix 3: Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Details\n\nAppendix 4: Sample Selection Methods","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"COMPILATION DETAILS","sectionType":"part","heading":"COMPILATION DETAILS","content":"##### Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standard\n\nThe most recently compiled versions of Auditing Standards, original Standards and amending Standards (see Compilation Details) are available on the AUASB website: www.auasb.gov.au\n\n##### Contact Details\n\n| Auditing and Assurance Standards BoardPodium Level 14, 530 Collins StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000AUSTRALIA | Phone: (03) 8080 7400E-mail: enquiries@auasb.gov.auPostal Address:PO Box 204Collins Street WestMelbourne Victoria 8007AUSTRALIA |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n##### COPYRIGHT\n\n© 2021 Commonwealth of Australia. The text, graphics and layout of this Auditing Standard are protected by Australian copyright law and the comparable law of other countries. Reproduction within Australia in unaltered form (retaining this notice) is permitted for personal and non‑commercial use subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source as being the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB).\n\nRequests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights for commercial purposes within Australia should be addressed to the Technical Director, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne, Victoria 8007 or sent to [enquiries@auasb.gov.au](mailto:enquiries@auasb.gov.au). Otherwise, no part of this Auditing Standard may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the AUASB except as permitted by law.\n\nThis Auditing Standard reproduces substantial parts of the corresponding International Standard on Auditing issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) and published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), in the manner described in the statement on Conformity with International Standards on Auditing. The AUASB acknowledges that IFAC is the owner of copyright in the International Standard on Auditing incorporated in this Auditing Standard throughout the world.\n\nAll existing rights in this material are reserved outside Australia. Reproduction outside Australia in unaltered form (retaining this notice) is permitted for personal and non-commercial use only.\n\nFurther information and requests for authorisation to reproduce this Auditing Standard for commercial purposes outside Australia should be addressed to the Technical Director, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne, Victoria 8007 or sent to [enquiries@auasb.gov.au](mailto:enquiries@auasb.gov.au). Any decision to approve a request may also require the agreement of IFAC.\n\nISSN 1833-4393\n\n# CONTENTS\n\nCOMPILATION DETAILS\n\nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nCONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON AUDITING\n\nParagraphs\n\nApplication......................................................Aus 0.1-Aus 0.2\n\nOperative Date.........................................................Aus 0.3\n\nIntroduction\n\nScope of this Auditing Standard.................................................1-2\n\nEffective Date...............................................................3\n\nObjective..................................................................4\n\nDefinitions.................................................................5\n\nRequirements\n\nSample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing................................6-8\n\nPerforming Audit Procedures..................................................9-11\n\nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements.................................12-13\n\nProjecting Misstatements......................................................14\n\nEvaluating Results of Audit Sampling.............................................15\n\nApplication and Other Explanatory Material\n\nDefinitions.............................................................A1-A3\n\nSample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing............................A4-A13\n\nPerforming Audit Procedures..............................................A14-A16\n\nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements..................................A17\n\nProjecting Misstatements.................................................A18-A20\n\nEvaluating Results of Audit Sampling........................................A21-A23\n\nAppendix 1: Stratification and Value-Weighted Selection\n\nAppendix 2: Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Controls\n\nAppendix 3: Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Details\n\nAppendix 4: Sample Selection Methods\n\n  \n\n# COMPILATION DETAILS\n\n### Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling (as Amended)\n\nThis compilation takes into account amendments made up to and including 3 March 2020 and was prepared on 10 November 2021 by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB).\n\nThis compilation is not a separate Auditing Standard made by the AUASB. Instead, it is a representation of ASA 530 (October 2009) as amended by another Auditing Standard which is listed in the Table below.\n\n##### Table of Standards\n\n| Standard       | Date made       | Operative Date                                                         |\n| -------------- | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| ASA 530 [A]    | 27 October 2009 | Financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010      |\n| ASA 2020-1 [B] | 3 March 2020    | Financial reporting periods commencing on or after 15 December 2021[*] |\n\n\\[A\\] Federal Register of Legislation – registration number F2009L04091, 17 November 2009\n\n\\[B\\] Federal Register of Legislation – registration number F2020L00252, 13 March 2020\n\n##### Table of Amendments\n\n| Paragraph affected | How affected | By … [paragraph] |\n| ------------------ | ------------ | ---------------- |\n| A7                 | Amended      | ASA 2020-1 [135] |\n| Appendix 2         | Amended      | ASA 2020-1 [136] |\n\n  \n\n## AUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nAuditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling (as amended to 3 March 2020) is set out in paragraphs Aus 0.1 to A23 and Appendix 1 to 4.\n\nThis Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with ASA 101 Preamble to AUASB Standards, which sets out how AUASB Standards are to be understood, interpreted and applied. This Auditing Standard is to be read also in conjunction with ASA 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.\n\n##### Conformity with International Standards on Auditing\n\nThis Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 530 Audit Sampling issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), an independent standard‑setting board of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).\n\nParagraphs that have been added to this Auditing Standard (and do not appear in the text of the equivalent ISA) are identified with the prefix “Aus”.\n\nCompliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 530.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling","sectionType":"division","heading":"Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling (as Amended)","content":"### Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling (as Amended)\n\nThis compilation takes into account amendments made up to and including 3 March 2020 and was prepared on 10 November 2021 by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB).\n\nThis compilation is not a separate Auditing Standard made by the AUASB. Instead, it is a representation of ASA 530 (October 2009) as amended by another Auditing Standard which is listed in the Table below.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"Table of Standards","sectionType":"section","heading":"Table of Standards","content":"##### Table of Standards\n\n| Standard       | Date made       | Operative Date                                                         |\n| -------------- | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| ASA 530 [A]    | 27 October 2009 | Financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010      |\n| ASA 2020-1 [B] | 3 March 2020    | Financial reporting periods commencing on or after 15 December 2021[*] |\n\n\\[A\\] Federal Register of Legislation – registration number F2009L04091, 17 November 2009\n\n\\[B\\] Federal Register of Legislation – registration number F2020L00252, 13 March 2020","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"Table of Amendments","sectionType":"section","heading":"Table of Amendments","content":"##### Table of Amendments\n\n| Paragraph affected | How affected | By … [paragraph] |\n| ------------------ | ------------ | ---------------- |\n| A7                 | Amended      | ASA 2020-1 [135] |\n| Appendix 2         | Amended      | ASA 2020-1 [136] |\n\n  \n\n## AUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nAuditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling (as amended to 3 March 2020) is set out in paragraphs Aus 0.1 to A23 and Appendix 1 to 4.\n\nThis Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with ASA 101 Preamble to AUASB Standards, which sets out how AUASB Standards are to be understood, interpreted and applied. This Auditing Standard is to be read also in conjunction with ASA 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.\n\n##### Conformity with International Standards on Auditing\n\nThis Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 530 Audit Sampling issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), an independent standard‑setting board of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).\n\nParagraphs that have been added to this Auditing Standard (and do not appear in the text of the equivalent ISA) are identified with the prefix “Aus”.\n\nCompliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 530.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"AUTHORITY STATEMENT","sectionType":"part","heading":"AUTHORITY STATEMENT","content":"## AUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nAuditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling (as amended to 3 March 2020) is set out in paragraphs Aus 0.1 to A23 and Appendix 1 to 4.\n\nThis Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with ASA 101 Preamble to AUASB Standards, which sets out how AUASB Standards are to be understood, interpreted and applied. This Auditing Standard is to be read also in conjunction with ASA 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"Conformity with International Standards ","sectionType":"section","heading":"Conformity with International Standards on Auditing","content":"##### Conformity with International Standards on Auditing\n\nThis Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 530 Audit Sampling issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), an independent standard‑setting board of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).\n\nParagraphs that have been added to this Auditing Standard (and do not appear in the text of the equivalent ISA) are identified with the prefix “Aus”.\n\nCompliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 530.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"Auditing Standard ASA 530","sectionType":"part","heading":"Auditing Standard ASA 530","content":"Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) made Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, on 27 October 2009.\n\nThis compiled version of ASA 530 incorporates subsequent amendments contained in another Auditing Standard made by the AUASB up to and including 3 March 2020 (see Compilation Details).\n\n## Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\n### Audit Sampling\n\n##### Application\n\nAus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:\n\n(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.\n\nAus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\nAus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010. \\[Note: For operative dates of paragraphs changed or added by an Amending Standard, see Compilation Details.\\]\n\n##### Introduction\n\n###### Scope of this Auditing Standard\n\n1.  This Auditing Standard applies when the auditor has decided to use audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.\n2.  This Auditing Standard complements ASA 500,[\\[1\\]](#_ftn2) which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ASA 500 provides guidance on the means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one means.\n\n###### Effective Date\n\n1.  \\[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3\\]\n\n##### Objective\n\n1.  The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.\n\n##### Definitions\n\n1.  For the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:\n    1.  Audit sampling (sampling) means the application of audit procedures to less than 100% of items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions about the entire population.\n    2.  Population means the entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.\n    3.  Sampling risk means the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:\n        1.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.\n        2.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were incorrect.\n    4.  Non-sampling risk means the risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)\n    5.  Anomaly means a misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of misstatements or deviations in a population.\n    6.  Sampling unit means the individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)\n    7.  Statistical sampling means an approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:\n        1.  Random selection of the sample items; and\n        2.  The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement of sampling risk.\n\nA sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-statistical sampling.\n\n1.  Stratification means the process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).\n2.  Tolerable misstatement means a monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para. A3)\n3.  Tolerable rate of deviation means a rate of deviation from prescribed internal control procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.\n\n##### Requirements\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\n1.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn. (Ref: Para. A4-A9)\n2.  The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level. (Ref: Para. A10-A11)\n3.  The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12-A13)\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures\n\n1.  The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item selected.\n2.  If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)\n3.  If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of details. (Ref: Para. A15-A16)\n\n###### Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements\n\n1.  The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)\n2.  In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder of the population.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements\n\n1.  For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the population. (Ref: Para. A18-A20)\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling\n\n1.  The auditor shall evaluate:\n    1.  The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21-A22)\n    2.  Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n##### Application and Other Explanatory Material\n\n###### Definitions\n\nNon-Sampling Risk (Ref: Para. 5(d))\n\n1.  Examples of non-sampling risk include use of inappropriate audit procedures, or misinterpretation of audit evidence and failure to recognise a misstatement or deviation.\n\nSampling Unit (Ref: Para. 5(f))\n\n1.  The sampling units might be physical items (for example, cheques listed on deposit slips, credit entries on bank statements, sales invoices or debtors’ balances) or monetary units.\n\nTolerable Misstatement (Ref: Para. 5(i))\n\n1.  When designing a sample, the auditor determines tolerable misstatement in order to address the risk that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial report to be materially misstated and provide a margin for possible undetected misstatements. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality, as defined in ASA 320,[\\[2\\]](#_ftn3) to a particular sampling procedure. Tolerable misstatement may be the same amount or an amount lower than performance materiality.\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\nSample Design (Ref: Para. 6)\n\n1.  Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about some characteristic of the items selected in order to form or assist in forming a conclusion concerning the population from which the sample is drawn. Audit sampling can be applied using either non-statistical or statistical sampling approaches.\n2.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor’s consideration includes the specific purpose to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that is likely to best achieve that purpose. Consideration of the nature of the audit evidence sought and possible deviation or misstatement conditions or other characteristics relating to that audit evidence will assist the auditor in defining what constitutes a deviation or misstatement and what population to use for sampling. In fulfilling the requirement of paragraph 10 of ASA 500, when performing audit sampling, the auditor performs audit procedures to obtain evidence that the population from which the audit sample is drawn is complete.\n3.  The auditor’s consideration of the purpose of the audit procedure, as required by paragraph 6, includes a clear understanding of what constitutes a deviation or misstatement so that all, and only, those conditions that are relevant to the purpose of the audit procedure are included in the evaluation of deviations or projection of misstatements. For example, in a test of details relating to the existence of accounts receivable, such as confirmation, payments made by the customer before the confirmation date but received shortly after that date by the client, are not considered a misstatement. Also, a misposting between customer accounts does not affect the total accounts receivable balance. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to consider this a misstatement in evaluating the sample results of this particular audit procedure, even though it may have an important effect on other areas of the audit, such as the assessment of the risk of fraud or the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.\n4.  In considering the characteristics of a population, for tests of controls, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected rate of deviation based on the auditor’s understanding of the controls or on the examination of a small number of items from the population. This assessment is made in order to design an audit sample and to determine sample size. For example, if the expected rate of deviation is unacceptably high, the auditor will ordinarily decide not to perform tests of controls. Similarly, for tests of details, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected misstatement in the population. If the expected misstatement is high, 100% examination or use of a large sample size may be appropriate when performing tests of details.\n5.  In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. Appendix 1 provides further discussion on stratification and value-weighted selection.\n6.  The decision whether to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter for the auditor’s judgement, however, sample size is not a valid criterion to distinguish between statistical and non-statistical approaches.\n\nSample Size (Ref: Para. 7)\n\n1.  The level of sampling risk that the auditor is willing to accept affects the sample size required. The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the greater the sample size will need to be.\n2.  The sample size can be determined by the application of a statistically-based formula or through the exercise of professional judgement. Appendices 2 and 3 indicate the influences that various factors typically have on the determination of sample size. When circumstances are similar, the effect on sample size of factors such as those identified in Appendices 2 and 3 will be similar regardless of whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.\n\nSelection of Items for Testing (Ref: Para. 8)\n\n1.  With statistical sampling, sample items are selected in a way that each sampling unit has a known probability of being selected. With non-statistical sampling, judgement is used to select sample items. Because the purpose of sampling is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected, it is important that the auditor selects a representative sample, so that bias is avoided, by choosing sample items which have characteristics typical of the population.\n2.  The principal methods of selecting samples are the use of random selection, systematic selection and haphazard selection. Each of these methods is discussed in Appendix 4.\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)\n\n1.  An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a voided cheque is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorisation. If the auditor is satisfied that the cheque has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an appropriately chosen replacement is examined.\n2.  An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.\n3.  An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.\n\n######   \nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements (Ref: Para. 12)\n\n1.  In analysing the deviations and misstatements identified, the auditor may observe that many have a common feature, for example, type of transaction, location, product line or period of time. In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all items in the population that possess the common feature, and extend audit procedures to those items. In addition, such deviations or misstatements may be intentional, and may indicate the possibility of fraud.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)\n\n1.  The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to be recorded.\n2.  When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the  \n    non-anomalous misstatements.\n3.  For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ASA 330[\\[3\\]](#_ftn4) provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are detected.\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)\n\n1.  For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.\n2.  In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may exceed tolerable misstatement. Also, if the projected misstatement is greater than the auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is obtained.\n3.  If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:\n\n-   Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or\n-   Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive procedures.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"Audit Sampling","sectionType":"division","heading":"Audit Sampling","content":"Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) made Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, on 27 October 2009.\n\nThis compiled version of ASA 530 incorporates subsequent amendments contained in another Auditing Standard made by the AUASB up to and including 3 March 2020 (see Compilation Details).\n\n## Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\n### Audit Sampling\n\n##### Application\n\nAus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:\n\n(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.\n\nAus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\nAus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010. \\[Note: For operative dates of paragraphs changed or added by an Amending Standard, see Compilation Details.\\]\n\n##### Introduction\n\n###### Scope of this Auditing Standard\n\n1.  This Auditing Standard applies when the auditor has decided to use audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.\n2.  This Auditing Standard complements ASA 500,[\\[1\\]](#_ftn2) which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ASA 500 provides guidance on the means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one means.\n\n###### Effective Date\n\n1.  \\[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3\\]\n\n##### Objective\n\n1.  The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.\n\n##### Definitions\n\n1.  For the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:\n    1.  Audit sampling (sampling) means the application of audit procedures to less than 100% of items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions about the entire population.\n    2.  Population means the entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.\n    3.  Sampling risk means the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:\n        1.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.\n        2.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were incorrect.\n    4.  Non-sampling risk means the risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)\n    5.  Anomaly means a misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of misstatements or deviations in a population.\n    6.  Sampling unit means the individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)\n    7.  Statistical sampling means an approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:\n        1.  Random selection of the sample items; and\n        2.  The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement of sampling risk.\n\nA sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-statistical sampling.\n\n1.  Stratification means the process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).\n2.  Tolerable misstatement means a monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para. A3)\n3.  Tolerable rate of deviation means a rate of deviation from prescribed internal control procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.\n\n##### Requirements\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\n1.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn. (Ref: Para. A4-A9)\n2.  The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level. (Ref: Para. A10-A11)\n3.  The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12-A13)\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures\n\n1.  The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item selected.\n2.  If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)\n3.  If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of details. (Ref: Para. A15-A16)\n\n###### Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements\n\n1.  The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)\n2.  In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder of the population.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements\n\n1.  For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the population. (Ref: Para. A18-A20)\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling\n\n1.  The auditor shall evaluate:\n    1.  The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21-A22)\n    2.  Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n##### Application and Other Explanatory Material\n\n###### Definitions\n\nNon-Sampling Risk (Ref: Para. 5(d))\n\n1.  Examples of non-sampling risk include use of inappropriate audit procedures, or misinterpretation of audit evidence and failure to recognise a misstatement or deviation.\n\nSampling Unit (Ref: Para. 5(f))\n\n1.  The sampling units might be physical items (for example, cheques listed on deposit slips, credit entries on bank statements, sales invoices or debtors’ balances) or monetary units.\n\nTolerable Misstatement (Ref: Para. 5(i))\n\n1.  When designing a sample, the auditor determines tolerable misstatement in order to address the risk that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial report to be materially misstated and provide a margin for possible undetected misstatements. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality, as defined in ASA 320,[\\[2\\]](#_ftn3) to a particular sampling procedure. Tolerable misstatement may be the same amount or an amount lower than performance materiality.\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\nSample Design (Ref: Para. 6)\n\n1.  Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about some characteristic of the items selected in order to form or assist in forming a conclusion concerning the population from which the sample is drawn. Audit sampling can be applied using either non-statistical or statistical sampling approaches.\n2.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor’s consideration includes the specific purpose to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that is likely to best achieve that purpose. Consideration of the nature of the audit evidence sought and possible deviation or misstatement conditions or other characteristics relating to that audit evidence will assist the auditor in defining what constitutes a deviation or misstatement and what population to use for sampling. In fulfilling the requirement of paragraph 10 of ASA 500, when performing audit sampling, the auditor performs audit procedures to obtain evidence that the population from which the audit sample is drawn is complete.\n3.  The auditor’s consideration of the purpose of the audit procedure, as required by paragraph 6, includes a clear understanding of what constitutes a deviation or misstatement so that all, and only, those conditions that are relevant to the purpose of the audit procedure are included in the evaluation of deviations or projection of misstatements. For example, in a test of details relating to the existence of accounts receivable, such as confirmation, payments made by the customer before the confirmation date but received shortly after that date by the client, are not considered a misstatement. Also, a misposting between customer accounts does not affect the total accounts receivable balance. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to consider this a misstatement in evaluating the sample results of this particular audit procedure, even though it may have an important effect on other areas of the audit, such as the assessment of the risk of fraud or the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.\n4.  In considering the characteristics of a population, for tests of controls, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected rate of deviation based on the auditor’s understanding of the controls or on the examination of a small number of items from the population. This assessment is made in order to design an audit sample and to determine sample size. For example, if the expected rate of deviation is unacceptably high, the auditor will ordinarily decide not to perform tests of controls. Similarly, for tests of details, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected misstatement in the population. If the expected misstatement is high, 100% examination or use of a large sample size may be appropriate when performing tests of details.\n5.  In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. Appendix 1 provides further discussion on stratification and value-weighted selection.\n6.  The decision whether to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter for the auditor’s judgement, however, sample size is not a valid criterion to distinguish between statistical and non-statistical approaches.\n\nSample Size (Ref: Para. 7)\n\n1.  The level of sampling risk that the auditor is willing to accept affects the sample size required. The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the greater the sample size will need to be.\n2.  The sample size can be determined by the application of a statistically-based formula or through the exercise of professional judgement. Appendices 2 and 3 indicate the influences that various factors typically have on the determination of sample size. When circumstances are similar, the effect on sample size of factors such as those identified in Appendices 2 and 3 will be similar regardless of whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.\n\nSelection of Items for Testing (Ref: Para. 8)\n\n1.  With statistical sampling, sample items are selected in a way that each sampling unit has a known probability of being selected. With non-statistical sampling, judgement is used to select sample items. Because the purpose of sampling is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected, it is important that the auditor selects a representative sample, so that bias is avoided, by choosing sample items which have characteristics typical of the population.\n2.  The principal methods of selecting samples are the use of random selection, systematic selection and haphazard selection. Each of these methods is discussed in Appendix 4.\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)\n\n1.  An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a voided cheque is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorisation. If the auditor is satisfied that the cheque has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an appropriately chosen replacement is examined.\n2.  An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.\n3.  An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.\n\n######   \nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements (Ref: Para. 12)\n\n1.  In analysing the deviations and misstatements identified, the auditor may observe that many have a common feature, for example, type of transaction, location, product line or period of time. In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all items in the population that possess the common feature, and extend audit procedures to those items. In addition, such deviations or misstatements may be intentional, and may indicate the possibility of fraud.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)\n\n1.  The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to be recorded.\n2.  When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the  \n    non-anomalous misstatements.\n3.  For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ASA 330[\\[3\\]](#_ftn4) provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are detected.\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)\n\n1.  For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.\n2.  In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may exceed tolerable misstatement. Also, if the projected misstatement is greater than the auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is obtained.\n3.  If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:\n\n-   Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or\n-   Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive procedures.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"Application","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application","content":"##### Application\n\nAus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:\n\n(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.\n\nAus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"Operative Date","sectionType":"section","heading":"Operative Date","content":"##### Operative Date\n\nAus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010. \\[Note: For operative dates of paragraphs changed or added by an Amending Standard, see Compilation Details.\\]","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"Introduction","sectionType":"section","heading":"Introduction","content":"Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) made Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, on 27 October 2009.\n\nThis compiled version of ASA 530 incorporates subsequent amendments contained in another Auditing Standard made by the AUASB up to and including 3 March 2020 (see Compilation Details).\n\n## Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\n### Audit Sampling\n\n##### Application\n\nAus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:\n\n(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.\n\nAus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\nAus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010. \\[Note: For operative dates of paragraphs changed or added by an Amending Standard, see Compilation Details.\\]\n\n##### Introduction\n\n###### Scope of this Auditing Standard\n\n1.  This Auditing Standard applies when the auditor has decided to use audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.\n2.  This Auditing Standard complements ASA 500,[\\[1\\]](#_ftn2) which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ASA 500 provides guidance on the means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one means.\n\n###### Effective Date\n\n1.  \\[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3\\]\n\n##### Objective\n\n1.  The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.\n\n##### Definitions\n\n1.  For the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:\n    1.  Audit sampling (sampling) means the application of audit procedures to less than 100% of items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions about the entire population.\n    2.  Population means the entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.\n    3.  Sampling risk means the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:\n        1.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.\n        2.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were incorrect.\n    4.  Non-sampling risk means the risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)\n    5.  Anomaly means a misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of misstatements or deviations in a population.\n    6.  Sampling unit means the individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)\n    7.  Statistical sampling means an approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:\n        1.  Random selection of the sample items; and\n        2.  The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement of sampling risk.\n\nA sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-statistical sampling.\n\n1.  Stratification means the process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).\n2.  Tolerable misstatement means a monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para. A3)\n3.  Tolerable rate of deviation means a rate of deviation from prescribed internal control procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.\n\n##### Requirements\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\n1.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn. (Ref: Para. A4-A9)\n2.  The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level. (Ref: Para. A10-A11)\n3.  The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12-A13)\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures\n\n1.  The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item selected.\n2.  If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)\n3.  If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of details. (Ref: Para. A15-A16)\n\n###### Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements\n\n1.  The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)\n2.  In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder of the population.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements\n\n1.  For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the population. (Ref: Para. A18-A20)\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling\n\n1.  The auditor shall evaluate:\n    1.  The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21-A22)\n    2.  Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n##### Application and Other Explanatory Material\n\n###### Definitions\n\nNon-Sampling Risk (Ref: Para. 5(d))\n\n1.  Examples of non-sampling risk include use of inappropriate audit procedures, or misinterpretation of audit evidence and failure to recognise a misstatement or deviation.\n\nSampling Unit (Ref: Para. 5(f))\n\n1.  The sampling units might be physical items (for example, cheques listed on deposit slips, credit entries on bank statements, sales invoices or debtors’ balances) or monetary units.\n\nTolerable Misstatement (Ref: Para. 5(i))\n\n1.  When designing a sample, the auditor determines tolerable misstatement in order to address the risk that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial report to be materially misstated and provide a margin for possible undetected misstatements. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality, as defined in ASA 320,[\\[2\\]](#_ftn3) to a particular sampling procedure. Tolerable misstatement may be the same amount or an amount lower than performance materiality.\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\nSample Design (Ref: Para. 6)\n\n1.  Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about some characteristic of the items selected in order to form or assist in forming a conclusion concerning the population from which the sample is drawn. Audit sampling can be applied using either non-statistical or statistical sampling approaches.\n2.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor’s consideration includes the specific purpose to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that is likely to best achieve that purpose. Consideration of the nature of the audit evidence sought and possible deviation or misstatement conditions or other characteristics relating to that audit evidence will assist the auditor in defining what constitutes a deviation or misstatement and what population to use for sampling. In fulfilling the requirement of paragraph 10 of ASA 500, when performing audit sampling, the auditor performs audit procedures to obtain evidence that the population from which the audit sample is drawn is complete.\n3.  The auditor’s consideration of the purpose of the audit procedure, as required by paragraph 6, includes a clear understanding of what constitutes a deviation or misstatement so that all, and only, those conditions that are relevant to the purpose of the audit procedure are included in the evaluation of deviations or projection of misstatements. For example, in a test of details relating to the existence of accounts receivable, such as confirmation, payments made by the customer before the confirmation date but received shortly after that date by the client, are not considered a misstatement. Also, a misposting between customer accounts does not affect the total accounts receivable balance. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to consider this a misstatement in evaluating the sample results of this particular audit procedure, even though it may have an important effect on other areas of the audit, such as the assessment of the risk of fraud or the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.\n4.  In considering the characteristics of a population, for tests of controls, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected rate of deviation based on the auditor’s understanding of the controls or on the examination of a small number of items from the population. This assessment is made in order to design an audit sample and to determine sample size. For example, if the expected rate of deviation is unacceptably high, the auditor will ordinarily decide not to perform tests of controls. Similarly, for tests of details, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected misstatement in the population. If the expected misstatement is high, 100% examination or use of a large sample size may be appropriate when performing tests of details.\n5.  In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. Appendix 1 provides further discussion on stratification and value-weighted selection.\n6.  The decision whether to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter for the auditor’s judgement, however, sample size is not a valid criterion to distinguish between statistical and non-statistical approaches.\n\nSample Size (Ref: Para. 7)\n\n1.  The level of sampling risk that the auditor is willing to accept affects the sample size required. The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the greater the sample size will need to be.\n2.  The sample size can be determined by the application of a statistically-based formula or through the exercise of professional judgement. Appendices 2 and 3 indicate the influences that various factors typically have on the determination of sample size. When circumstances are similar, the effect on sample size of factors such as those identified in Appendices 2 and 3 will be similar regardless of whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.\n\nSelection of Items for Testing (Ref: Para. 8)\n\n1.  With statistical sampling, sample items are selected in a way that each sampling unit has a known probability of being selected. With non-statistical sampling, judgement is used to select sample items. Because the purpose of sampling is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected, it is important that the auditor selects a representative sample, so that bias is avoided, by choosing sample items which have characteristics typical of the population.\n2.  The principal methods of selecting samples are the use of random selection, systematic selection and haphazard selection. Each of these methods is discussed in Appendix 4.\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)\n\n1.  An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a voided cheque is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorisation. If the auditor is satisfied that the cheque has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an appropriately chosen replacement is examined.\n2.  An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.\n3.  An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.\n\n######   \nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements (Ref: Para. 12)\n\n1.  In analysing the deviations and misstatements identified, the auditor may observe that many have a common feature, for example, type of transaction, location, product line or period of time. In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all items in the population that possess the common feature, and extend audit procedures to those items. In addition, such deviations or misstatements may be intentional, and may indicate the possibility of fraud.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)\n\n1.  The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to be recorded.\n2.  When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the  \n    non-anomalous misstatements.\n3.  For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ASA 330[\\[3\\]](#_ftn4) provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are detected.\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)\n\n1.  For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.\n2.  In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may exceed tolerable misstatement. Also, if the projected misstatement is greater than the auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is obtained.\n3.  If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:\n\n-   Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or\n-   Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive procedures.","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Scope of this Auditing Standard","sectionType":"section","heading":"Scope of this Auditing Standard","content":"###### Scope of this Auditing Standard\n\n1.  This Auditing Standard applies when the auditor has decided to use audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.\n2.  This Auditing Standard complements ASA 500,[\\[1\\]](#_ftn2) which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ASA 500 provides guidance on the means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one means.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"Effective Date","sectionType":"section","heading":"Effective Date","content":"###### Effective Date\n\n1.  \\[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3\\]","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"Objective","sectionType":"section","heading":"Objective","content":"##### Objective\n\n1.  The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"Definitions","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions","content":"##### Definitions\n\n1.  For the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:\n    1.  Audit sampling (sampling) means the application of audit procedures to less than 100% of items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions about the entire population.\n    2.  Population means the entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.\n    3.  Sampling risk means the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:\n        1.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.\n        2.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were incorrect.\n    4.  Non-sampling risk means the risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)\n    5.  Anomaly means a misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of misstatements or deviations in a population.\n    6.  Sampling unit means the individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)\n    7.  Statistical sampling means an approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:\n        1.  Random selection of the sample items; and\n        2.  The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement of sampling risk.\n\nA sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-statistical sampling.\n\n1.  Stratification means the process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).\n2.  Tolerable misstatement means a monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para. A3)\n3.  Tolerable rate of deviation means a rate of deviation from prescribed internal control procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"Requirements","sectionType":"section","heading":"Requirements","content":"Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) made Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, on 27 October 2009.\n\nThis compiled version of ASA 530 incorporates subsequent amendments contained in another Auditing Standard made by the AUASB up to and including 3 March 2020 (see Compilation Details).\n\n## Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\n### Audit Sampling\n\n##### Application\n\nAus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:\n\n(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.\n\nAus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\nAus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010. \\[Note: For operative dates of paragraphs changed or added by an Amending Standard, see Compilation Details.\\]\n\n##### Introduction\n\n###### Scope of this Auditing Standard\n\n1.  This Auditing Standard applies when the auditor has decided to use audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.\n2.  This Auditing Standard complements ASA 500,[\\[1\\]](#_ftn2) which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ASA 500 provides guidance on the means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one means.\n\n###### Effective Date\n\n1.  \\[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3\\]\n\n##### Objective\n\n1.  The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.\n\n##### Definitions\n\n1.  For the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:\n    1.  Audit sampling (sampling) means the application of audit procedures to less than 100% of items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions about the entire population.\n    2.  Population means the entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.\n    3.  Sampling risk means the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:\n        1.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.\n        2.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were incorrect.\n    4.  Non-sampling risk means the risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)\n    5.  Anomaly means a misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of misstatements or deviations in a population.\n    6.  Sampling unit means the individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)\n    7.  Statistical sampling means an approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:\n        1.  Random selection of the sample items; and\n        2.  The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement of sampling risk.\n\nA sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-statistical sampling.\n\n1.  Stratification means the process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).\n2.  Tolerable misstatement means a monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para. A3)\n3.  Tolerable rate of deviation means a rate of deviation from prescribed internal control procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.\n\n##### Requirements\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\n1.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn. (Ref: Para. A4-A9)\n2.  The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level. (Ref: Para. A10-A11)\n3.  The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12-A13)\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures\n\n1.  The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item selected.\n2.  If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)\n3.  If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of details. (Ref: Para. A15-A16)\n\n###### Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements\n\n1.  The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)\n2.  In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder of the population.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements\n\n1.  For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the population. (Ref: Para. A18-A20)\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling\n\n1.  The auditor shall evaluate:\n    1.  The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21-A22)\n    2.  Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n##### Application and Other Explanatory Material\n\n###### Definitions\n\nNon-Sampling Risk (Ref: Para. 5(d))\n\n1.  Examples of non-sampling risk include use of inappropriate audit procedures, or misinterpretation of audit evidence and failure to recognise a misstatement or deviation.\n\nSampling Unit (Ref: Para. 5(f))\n\n1.  The sampling units might be physical items (for example, cheques listed on deposit slips, credit entries on bank statements, sales invoices or debtors’ balances) or monetary units.\n\nTolerable Misstatement (Ref: Para. 5(i))\n\n1.  When designing a sample, the auditor determines tolerable misstatement in order to address the risk that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial report to be materially misstated and provide a margin for possible undetected misstatements. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality, as defined in ASA 320,[\\[2\\]](#_ftn3) to a particular sampling procedure. Tolerable misstatement may be the same amount or an amount lower than performance materiality.\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\nSample Design (Ref: Para. 6)\n\n1.  Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about some characteristic of the items selected in order to form or assist in forming a conclusion concerning the population from which the sample is drawn. Audit sampling can be applied using either non-statistical or statistical sampling approaches.\n2.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor’s consideration includes the specific purpose to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that is likely to best achieve that purpose. Consideration of the nature of the audit evidence sought and possible deviation or misstatement conditions or other characteristics relating to that audit evidence will assist the auditor in defining what constitutes a deviation or misstatement and what population to use for sampling. In fulfilling the requirement of paragraph 10 of ASA 500, when performing audit sampling, the auditor performs audit procedures to obtain evidence that the population from which the audit sample is drawn is complete.\n3.  The auditor’s consideration of the purpose of the audit procedure, as required by paragraph 6, includes a clear understanding of what constitutes a deviation or misstatement so that all, and only, those conditions that are relevant to the purpose of the audit procedure are included in the evaluation of deviations or projection of misstatements. For example, in a test of details relating to the existence of accounts receivable, such as confirmation, payments made by the customer before the confirmation date but received shortly after that date by the client, are not considered a misstatement. Also, a misposting between customer accounts does not affect the total accounts receivable balance. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to consider this a misstatement in evaluating the sample results of this particular audit procedure, even though it may have an important effect on other areas of the audit, such as the assessment of the risk of fraud or the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.\n4.  In considering the characteristics of a population, for tests of controls, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected rate of deviation based on the auditor’s understanding of the controls or on the examination of a small number of items from the population. This assessment is made in order to design an audit sample and to determine sample size. For example, if the expected rate of deviation is unacceptably high, the auditor will ordinarily decide not to perform tests of controls. Similarly, for tests of details, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected misstatement in the population. If the expected misstatement is high, 100% examination or use of a large sample size may be appropriate when performing tests of details.\n5.  In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. Appendix 1 provides further discussion on stratification and value-weighted selection.\n6.  The decision whether to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter for the auditor’s judgement, however, sample size is not a valid criterion to distinguish between statistical and non-statistical approaches.\n\nSample Size (Ref: Para. 7)\n\n1.  The level of sampling risk that the auditor is willing to accept affects the sample size required. The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the greater the sample size will need to be.\n2.  The sample size can be determined by the application of a statistically-based formula or through the exercise of professional judgement. Appendices 2 and 3 indicate the influences that various factors typically have on the determination of sample size. When circumstances are similar, the effect on sample size of factors such as those identified in Appendices 2 and 3 will be similar regardless of whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.\n\nSelection of Items for Testing (Ref: Para. 8)\n\n1.  With statistical sampling, sample items are selected in a way that each sampling unit has a known probability of being selected. With non-statistical sampling, judgement is used to select sample items. Because the purpose of sampling is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected, it is important that the auditor selects a representative sample, so that bias is avoided, by choosing sample items which have characteristics typical of the population.\n2.  The principal methods of selecting samples are the use of random selection, systematic selection and haphazard selection. Each of these methods is discussed in Appendix 4.\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)\n\n1.  An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a voided cheque is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorisation. If the auditor is satisfied that the cheque has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an appropriately chosen replacement is examined.\n2.  An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.\n3.  An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.\n\n######   \nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements (Ref: Para. 12)\n\n1.  In analysing the deviations and misstatements identified, the auditor may observe that many have a common feature, for example, type of transaction, location, product line or period of time. In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all items in the population that possess the common feature, and extend audit procedures to those items. In addition, such deviations or misstatements may be intentional, and may indicate the possibility of fraud.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)\n\n1.  The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to be recorded.\n2.  When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the  \n    non-anomalous misstatements.\n3.  For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ASA 330[\\[3\\]](#_ftn4) provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are detected.\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)\n\n1.  For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.\n2.  In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may exceed tolerable misstatement. Also, if the projected misstatement is greater than the auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is obtained.\n3.  If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:\n\n-   Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or\n-   Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive procedures.","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"Sample Design, Size and Selection of Ite","sectionType":"section","heading":"Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing","content":"###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\n1.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn. (Ref: Para. A4-A9)\n2.  The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level. (Ref: Para. A10-A11)\n3.  The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12-A13)","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"Performing Audit Procedures","sectionType":"section","heading":"Performing Audit Procedures","content":"###### Performing Audit Procedures\n\n1.  The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item selected.\n2.  If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)\n3.  If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of details. (Ref: Para. A15-A16)","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misst","sectionType":"section","heading":"Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements","content":"###### Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements\n\n1.  The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)\n2.  In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder of the population.","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"Projecting Misstatements","sectionType":"section","heading":"Projecting Misstatements","content":"###### Projecting Misstatements\n\n1.  For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the population. (Ref: Para. A18-A20)","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling","sectionType":"section","heading":"Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling","content":"###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling\n\n1.  The auditor shall evaluate:\n    1.  The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21-A22)\n    2.  Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)\n\n\\* \\* \\*","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"Application and Other Explanatory Materi","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application and Other Explanatory Material","content":"Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) made Auditing Standard ASA 530 Audit Sampling pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, on 27 October 2009.\n\nThis compiled version of ASA 530 incorporates subsequent amendments contained in another Auditing Standard made by the AUASB up to and including 3 March 2020 (see Compilation Details).\n\n## Auditing Standard ASA 530\n\n### Audit Sampling\n\n##### Application\n\nAus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:\n\n(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.\n\nAus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\nAus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010. \\[Note: For operative dates of paragraphs changed or added by an Amending Standard, see Compilation Details.\\]\n\n##### Introduction\n\n###### Scope of this Auditing Standard\n\n1.  This Auditing Standard applies when the auditor has decided to use audit sampling in performing audit procedures. It deals with the auditor’s use of statistical and non-statistical sampling when designing and selecting the audit sample, performing tests of controls and tests of details, and evaluating the results from the sample.\n2.  This Auditing Standard complements ASA 500,[\\[1\\]](#_ftn2) which deals with the auditor’s responsibility to design and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to be able to draw reasonable conclusions on which to base the auditor’s opinion. ASA 500 provides guidance on the means available to the auditor for selecting items for testing, of which audit sampling is one means.\n\n###### Effective Date\n\n1.  \\[Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3\\]\n\n##### Objective\n\n1.  The objective of the auditor, when using audit sampling, is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected.\n\n##### Definitions\n\n1.  For the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:\n    1.  Audit sampling (sampling) means the application of audit procedures to less than 100% of items within a population of audit relevance such that all sampling units have a chance of selection in order to provide the auditor with a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions about the entire population.\n    2.  Population means the entire set of data from which a sample is selected and about which the auditor wishes to draw conclusions.\n    3.  Sampling risk means the risk that the auditor’s conclusion based on a sample may be different from the conclusion if the entire population were subjected to the same audit procedure. Sampling risk can lead to two types of erroneous conclusions:\n        1.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are more effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement does not exist when in fact it does. The auditor is primarily concerned with this type of erroneous conclusion because it affects audit effectiveness and is more likely to lead to an inappropriate audit opinion.\n        2.  In the case of a test of controls, that controls are less effective than they actually are, or in the case of a test of details, that a material misstatement exists when in fact it does not. This type of erroneous conclusion affects audit efficiency as it would usually lead to additional work to establish that initial conclusions were incorrect.\n    4.  Non-sampling risk means the risk that the auditor reaches an erroneous conclusion for any reason not related to sampling risk. (Ref: Para. A1)\n    5.  Anomaly means a misstatement or deviation that is demonstrably not representative of misstatements or deviations in a population.\n    6.  Sampling unit means the individual items constituting a population. (Ref: Para. A2)\n    7.  Statistical sampling means an approach to sampling that has the following characteristics:\n        1.  Random selection of the sample items; and\n        2.  The use of probability theory to evaluate sample results, including measurement of sampling risk.\n\nA sampling approach that does not have characteristics (i) and (ii) is considered non-statistical sampling.\n\n1.  Stratification means the process of dividing a population into sub-populations, each of which is a group of sampling units which have similar characteristics (often monetary value).\n2.  Tolerable misstatement means a monetary amount set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the monetary amount set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual misstatement in the population. (Ref: Para. A3)\n3.  Tolerable rate of deviation means a rate of deviation from prescribed internal control procedures set by the auditor in respect of which the auditor seeks to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that the rate of deviation set by the auditor is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population.\n\n##### Requirements\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\n1.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor shall consider the purpose of the audit procedure and the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn. (Ref: Para. A4-A9)\n2.  The auditor shall determine a sample size sufficient to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level. (Ref: Para. A10-A11)\n3.  The auditor shall select items for the sample in such a way that each sampling unit in the population has a chance of selection. (Ref: Para. A12-A13)\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures\n\n1.  The auditor shall perform audit procedures, appropriate to the purpose, on each item selected.\n2.  If the audit procedure is not applicable to the selected item, the auditor shall perform the procedure on a replacement item. (Ref: Para. A14)\n3.  If the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures, or suitable alternative procedures, to a selected item, the auditor shall treat that item as a deviation from the prescribed control, in the case of tests of controls, or a misstatement, in the case of tests of details. (Ref: Para. A15-A16)\n\n###### Nature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements\n\n1.  The auditor shall investigate the nature and cause of any deviations or misstatements identified, and evaluate their possible effect on the purpose of the audit procedure and on other areas of the audit. (Ref: Para. A17)\n2.  In the extremely rare circumstances when the auditor considers a misstatement or deviation discovered in a sample to be an anomaly, the auditor shall obtain a high degree of certainty that such misstatement or deviation is not representative of the population. The auditor shall obtain this degree of certainty by performing additional audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the misstatement or deviation does not affect the remainder of the population.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements\n\n1.  For tests of details, the auditor shall project misstatements found in the sample to the population. (Ref: Para. A18-A20)\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling\n\n1.  The auditor shall evaluate:\n    1.  The results of the sample; and (Ref: Para. A21-A22)\n    2.  Whether the use of audit sampling has provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. (Ref: Para. A23)\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n##### Application and Other Explanatory Material\n\n###### Definitions\n\nNon-Sampling Risk (Ref: Para. 5(d))\n\n1.  Examples of non-sampling risk include use of inappropriate audit procedures, or misinterpretation of audit evidence and failure to recognise a misstatement or deviation.\n\nSampling Unit (Ref: Para. 5(f))\n\n1.  The sampling units might be physical items (for example, cheques listed on deposit slips, credit entries on bank statements, sales invoices or debtors’ balances) or monetary units.\n\nTolerable Misstatement (Ref: Para. 5(i))\n\n1.  When designing a sample, the auditor determines tolerable misstatement in order to address the risk that the aggregate of individually immaterial misstatements may cause the financial report to be materially misstated and provide a margin for possible undetected misstatements. Tolerable misstatement is the application of performance materiality, as defined in ASA 320,[\\[2\\]](#_ftn3) to a particular sampling procedure. Tolerable misstatement may be the same amount or an amount lower than performance materiality.\n\n###### Sample Design, Size and Selection of Items for Testing\n\nSample Design (Ref: Para. 6)\n\n1.  Audit sampling enables the auditor to obtain and evaluate audit evidence about some characteristic of the items selected in order to form or assist in forming a conclusion concerning the population from which the sample is drawn. Audit sampling can be applied using either non-statistical or statistical sampling approaches.\n2.  When designing an audit sample, the auditor’s consideration includes the specific purpose to be achieved and the combination of audit procedures that is likely to best achieve that purpose. Consideration of the nature of the audit evidence sought and possible deviation or misstatement conditions or other characteristics relating to that audit evidence will assist the auditor in defining what constitutes a deviation or misstatement and what population to use for sampling. In fulfilling the requirement of paragraph 10 of ASA 500, when performing audit sampling, the auditor performs audit procedures to obtain evidence that the population from which the audit sample is drawn is complete.\n3.  The auditor’s consideration of the purpose of the audit procedure, as required by paragraph 6, includes a clear understanding of what constitutes a deviation or misstatement so that all, and only, those conditions that are relevant to the purpose of the audit procedure are included in the evaluation of deviations or projection of misstatements. For example, in a test of details relating to the existence of accounts receivable, such as confirmation, payments made by the customer before the confirmation date but received shortly after that date by the client, are not considered a misstatement. Also, a misposting between customer accounts does not affect the total accounts receivable balance. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to consider this a misstatement in evaluating the sample results of this particular audit procedure, even though it may have an important effect on other areas of the audit, such as the assessment of the risk of fraud or the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.\n4.  In considering the characteristics of a population, for tests of controls, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected rate of deviation based on the auditor’s understanding of the controls or on the examination of a small number of items from the population. This assessment is made in order to design an audit sample and to determine sample size. For example, if the expected rate of deviation is unacceptably high, the auditor will ordinarily decide not to perform tests of controls. Similarly, for tests of details, the auditor makes an assessment of the expected misstatement in the population. If the expected misstatement is high, 100% examination or use of a large sample size may be appropriate when performing tests of details.\n5.  In considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. Appendix 1 provides further discussion on stratification and value-weighted selection.\n6.  The decision whether to use a statistical or non-statistical sampling approach is a matter for the auditor’s judgement, however, sample size is not a valid criterion to distinguish between statistical and non-statistical approaches.\n\nSample Size (Ref: Para. 7)\n\n1.  The level of sampling risk that the auditor is willing to accept affects the sample size required. The lower the risk the auditor is willing to accept, the greater the sample size will need to be.\n2.  The sample size can be determined by the application of a statistically-based formula or through the exercise of professional judgement. Appendices 2 and 3 indicate the influences that various factors typically have on the determination of sample size. When circumstances are similar, the effect on sample size of factors such as those identified in Appendices 2 and 3 will be similar regardless of whether a statistical or non-statistical approach is chosen.\n\nSelection of Items for Testing (Ref: Para. 8)\n\n1.  With statistical sampling, sample items are selected in a way that each sampling unit has a known probability of being selected. With non-statistical sampling, judgement is used to select sample items. Because the purpose of sampling is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected, it is important that the auditor selects a representative sample, so that bias is avoided, by choosing sample items which have characteristics typical of the population.\n2.  The principal methods of selecting samples are the use of random selection, systematic selection and haphazard selection. Each of these methods is discussed in Appendix 4.\n\n###### Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)\n\n1.  An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a voided cheque is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorisation. If the auditor is satisfied that the cheque has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an appropriately chosen replacement is examined.\n2.  An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.\n3.  An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.\n\n######   \nNature and Cause of Deviations and Misstatements (Ref: Para. 12)\n\n1.  In analysing the deviations and misstatements identified, the auditor may observe that many have a common feature, for example, type of transaction, location, product line or period of time. In such circumstances, the auditor may decide to identify all items in the population that possess the common feature, and extend audit procedures to those items. In addition, such deviations or misstatements may be intentional, and may indicate the possibility of fraud.\n\n###### Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)\n\n1.  The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to be recorded.\n2.  When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the  \n    non-anomalous misstatements.\n3.  For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ASA 330[\\[3\\]](#_ftn4) provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are detected.\n\n###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)\n\n1.  For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.\n2.  In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may exceed tolerable misstatement. Also, if the projected misstatement is greater than the auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is obtained.\n3.  If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:\n\n-   Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or\n-   Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive procedures.","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. ","sectionType":"section","heading":"Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)","content":"###### Performing Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 10-11)\n\n1.  An example of when it is necessary to perform the procedure on a replacement item is when a voided cheque is selected while testing for evidence of payment authorisation. If the auditor is satisfied that the cheque has been properly voided such that it does not constitute a deviation, an appropriately chosen replacement is examined.\n2.  An example of when the auditor is unable to apply the designed audit procedures to a selected item is when documentation relating to that item has been lost.\n3.  An example of a suitable alternative procedure might be the examination of subsequent cash receipts together with evidence of their source and the items they are intended to settle when no reply has been received in response to a positive confirmation request.","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)","sectionType":"section","heading":"Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)","content":"###### Projecting Misstatements (Ref: Para. 14)\n\n1.  The auditor is required to project misstatements for the population to obtain a broad view of the scale of misstatement but this projection may not be sufficient to determine an amount to be recorded.\n2.  When a misstatement has been established as an anomaly, it may be excluded when projecting misstatements to the population. However, the effect of any such misstatement, if uncorrected, still needs to be considered in addition to the projection of the  \n    non-anomalous misstatements.\n3.  For tests of controls, no explicit projection of deviations is necessary since the sample deviation rate is also the projected deviation rate for the population as a whole. ASA 330[\\[3\\]](#_ftn4) provides guidance when deviations from controls upon which the auditor intends to rely are detected.","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Re","sectionType":"section","heading":"Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)","content":"###### Evaluating Results of Audit Sampling (Ref: Para. 15)\n\n1.  For tests of controls, an unexpectedly high sample deviation rate may lead to an increase in the assessed risk of material misstatement, unless further audit evidence substantiating the initial assessment is obtained. For tests of details, an unexpectedly high misstatement amount in a sample may cause the auditor to believe that a class of transactions or account balance is materially misstated, in the absence of further audit evidence that no material misstatement exists.\n2.  In the case of tests of details, the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, is the auditor’s best estimate of misstatement in the population. When the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement, if any, exceeds tolerable misstatement, the sample does not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested. The closer the projected misstatement plus anomalous misstatement is to tolerable misstatement, the more likely that actual misstatement in the population may exceed tolerable misstatement. Also, if the projected misstatement is greater than the auditor’s expectations of misstatement used to determine the sample size, the auditor may conclude that there is an unacceptable sampling risk that the actual misstatement in the population exceeds the tolerable misstatement. Considering the results of other audit procedures helps the auditor to assess the risk that actual misstatement in the population exceeds tolerable misstatement, and the risk may be reduced if additional audit evidence is obtained.\n3.  If the auditor concludes that audit sampling has not provided a reasonable basis for conclusions about the population that has been tested, the auditor may:\n\n-   Request management to investigate misstatements that have been identified and the potential for further misstatements and to make any necessary adjustments; or\n-   Tailor the nature, timing and extent of those further audit procedures to best achieve the required assurance. For example, in the case of tests of controls, the auditor might extend the sample size, test an alternative control or modify related substantive procedures.","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"Stratification and Value-Weighted Select","sectionType":"section","heading":"Stratification and Value-Weighted Selection","content":"##### Stratification and Value-Weighted Selection\n\nIn considering the characteristics of the population from which the sample will be drawn, the auditor may determine that stratification or value-weighted selection is appropriate. This Appendix provides guidance to the auditor on the use of stratification and value-weighted sampling techniques.","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"Stratification","sectionType":"section","heading":"Stratification","content":"###### Stratification\n\n1.  Audit efficiency may be improved if the auditor stratifies a population by dividing it into discrete sub-populations which have an identifying characteristic. The objective of stratification is to reduce the variability of items within each stratum and therefore allow sample size to be reduced without increasing sampling risk.\n\n1.  When performing tests of details, the population is often stratified by monetary value. This allows greater audit effort to be directed to the larger value items, as these items may contain the greatest potential misstatement in terms of overstatement. Similarly, a population may be stratified according to a particular characteristic that indicates a higher risk of misstatement, for example, when testing the allowance for doubtful accounts in the valuation of accounts receivable, balances may be stratified by age.\n2.  The results of audit procedures applied to a sample of items within a stratum can only be projected to the items that make up that stratum. To draw a conclusion on the entire population, the auditor will need to consider the risk of material misstatement in relation to whatever other strata make up the entire population. For example, 20% of the items in a population may make up 90% of the value of an account balance. The auditor may decide to examine a sample of these items. The auditor evaluates the results of this sample and reaches a conclusion on the 90% of value separately from the remaining 10% (on which a further sample or other means of gathering audit evidence will be used, or which may be considered immaterial).\n3.  If a class of transactions or account balance has been divided into strata, the misstatement is projected for each stratum separately. Projected misstatements for each stratum are then combined when considering the possible effect of misstatements on the total class of transactions or account balance.","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"Value-Weighted Selection","sectionType":"section","heading":"Value-Weighted Selection","content":"###### Value-Weighted Selection\n\n1.  When performing tests of details it may be efficient to identify the sampling unit as the individual monetary units that make up the population. Having selected specific monetary units from within the population, for example, the accounts receivable balance, the auditor may then examine the particular items, for example, individual balances, that contain those monetary units. One benefit of this approach to defining the sampling unit is that audit effort is directed to the larger value items because they have a greater chance of selection, and can result in smaller sample sizes. This approach may be used in conjunction with the systematic method of sample selection (described in Appendix 4) and is most efficient when selecting items using random selection.\n\n  \n\nAppendix 2\n\n(Ref: Para. A11)","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"Examples of Factors Influencing Sample S","sectionType":"section","heading":"Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Controls","content":"##### Examples of Factors Influencing Sample Size for Tests of Controls\n\nThe following are factors that the auditor may consider when determining the sample size for tests of controls. These factors, which need to be considered together, assume the auditor does not modify the nature or timing of tests of controls or otherwise modify the approach to substantive procedures in response to assessed risks.\n\n| FACTOR                                                                                                                                                            | EFFECT ON SAMPLE SIZE |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| 1. An increase in the extent to which the auditor’s risk assessment takes into account plans to test the operating effectiveness of controls                      | Increase              | The more assurance the auditor intends to obtain from the operating effectiveness of controls, the lower the auditor’s assessment of the risk of material misstatement will be, and the larger the sample size will need to be. When the auditor’s assessment of the risk of material misstatement at the assertion level includes an expectation of the operating effectiveness of controls, the auditor is required to perform tests of controls. Other things being equal, the greater the reliance the auditor places on the operating effectiveness of controls in the risk assessment, the greater is the extent of the auditor’s tests of controls (and therefore, the sample size is increased).              |\n| 2. An increase in the tolerable rate of deviation                                                                                                                 | Decrease              | The lower the tolerable rate of deviation, the larger the sample size needs to be.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |\n| 3. An increase in the expected rate of deviation of the population to be tested                                                                                   | Increase              | The higher the expected rate of deviation, the larger the sample size needs to be so that the auditor is in a position to make a reasonable estimate of the actual rate of deviation. Factors relevant to the auditor’s consideration of the expected rate of deviation include the auditor’s understanding of the business (in particular, risk assessment procedures undertaken to obtain an understanding of internal control), changes in personnel or in internal control, the results of audit procedures applied in prior periods and the results of other audit procedures. High expected control deviation rates ordinarily warrant little, if any, reduction of the assessed risk of material misstatement. |\n| 4. An increase in the auditor’s desired level of assurance that the tolerable rate of deviation is not exceeded by the actual rate of deviation in the population | Increase              | The greater the level of assurance that the auditor desires that the results of the sample are in fact indicative of the actual incidence of deviation in the population, the larger the sample size needs to be.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |\n| 5. An increase in the number of sampling units in the population                                                                                                  | Negligible effect     | For large populations, the actual size of the population has little, if any, effect on sample size. For small populations however, audit sampling may not be as efficient as alternative means of obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |\n\n  \n\nAppendix 3\n\n(Ref: Para. A11)","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"Sample Selection Methods","sectionType":"section","heading":"Sample Selection Methods","content":"##### Sample Selection Methods\n\nThere are many methods of selecting samples. The principal methods are as follows:\n\n1.  Random selection (applied through random number generators, for example, random number tables).\n2.  Systematic selection, in which the number of sampling units in the population is divided by the sample size to give a sampling interval, for example 50, and having determined a starting point within the first 50, each 50th sampling unit thereafter is selected. Although the starting point may be determined haphazardly, the sample is more likely to be truly random if it is determined by use of a computerised random number generator or random number tables. When using systematic selection, the auditor would need to determine that sampling units within the population are not structured in such a way that the sampling interval corresponds with a particular pattern in the population.\n3.  Monetary Unit Sampling is a type of value-weighted selection (as described in Appendix 1) in which sample size, selection and evaluation results in a conclusion in monetary amounts.\n4.  Haphazard selection, in which the auditor selects the sample without following a structured technique. Although no structured technique is used, the auditor would nonetheless avoid any conscious bias or predictability (for example, avoiding difficult to locate items, or always choosing or avoiding the first or last entries on a page) and thus attempt to ensure that all items in the population have a chance of selection. Haphazard selection is not appropriate when using statistical sampling.\n5.  Block selection involves selection of a block(s) of contiguous items from within the population. Block selection cannot ordinarily be used in audit sampling because most populations are structured such that items in a sequence can be expected to have similar characteristics to each other, but different characteristics from items elsewhere in the population. Although in some circumstances it may be an appropriate audit procedure to examine a block of items, it would rarely be an appropriate sample selection technique when the auditor intends to draw valid inferences about the entire population based on the sample.","sortOrder":37}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The document is a compilation of ASA 530 (October 2009) as amended up to March 2020 and adds some Australia‑specific paragraphs (marked Aus) and amended application material (e.g. A7, Appendix 2). Those amendments clarify and update guidance but do not materially broaden the original purpose: the standard still governs auditor behaviour when audit sampling is used (Scope paras 1–2; Aus 0.1–0.3). There is no substantive growth beyond the core subject of audit sampling; amendments refine methods and examples rather than extend the regulatory reach to new activities."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple defined terms (around 9–12 core definitions: audit sampling, population, sampling risk, non-sampling risk, anomaly, sampling unit, statistical sampling, stratification, tolerable misstatement, tolerable rate of deviation).","Cross-references to other AUASB standards (ASA 101, ASA 200, ASA 500, ASA 320, ASA 330) and to the equivalent ISA, creating interpretive dependencies.","Detailed conditional rules (different rules for tests of controls vs tests of details; handling of anomalies; replacement items; projection requirements).","Four appendices providing technical guidance (stratification/value-weighted selection; factors influencing sample size for controls & details; multiple selection methods) that add technical branches to application.","Judgement-based requirements (choice between statistical and non-statistical approaches, expected misstatement/deviation, tolerable misstatement) that increase practical complexity despite relatively concise text.","Amendments and Aus paragraphs (document is a compilation with amendments up to 2020), producing scattered additional national material (Aus 0.1–0.3 and amended paras A7, Appendix 2).","Interplay between quantitative (statistical) and qualitative (professional judgement) guidance, requiring both statistical understanding and auditing judgement."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument is and who it covers**\n\n- ASA 530 is an Auditing Standard made by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB). It sets out what auditors must do when they use sampling (testing less than 100% of items) in an audit of a financial report or other historical financial information (see Aus 0.1; Scope paras 1–2).\n\n**Mechanics — what the standard requires, in plain terms**\n\n- When an auditor chooses to use sampling, ASA 530 requires them to: design the sample, decide how large it must be, select items so every item has a chance of selection, perform the planned procedures on each selected item, investigate any deviations or misstatements found, project sample findings to the whole population (for tests of details), and evaluate whether the sampling evidence gives a reasonable basis for audit conclusions (Requirements paras 6–15; Application material A4–A23).\n\n- The standard recognises two broad approaches to sampling: statistical (random selection plus use of probability theory) and non‑statistical (judgemental selection). The choice between them is left to the auditor’s judgement; using one or the other does not turn on sample size alone (Definitions para 5(g); A6).\n\n- Key design elements the auditor must address include: defining the population and sampling unit, setting tolerable misstatement or tolerable rate of deviation, assessing expected misstatement or expected deviation, considering stratification or value‑weighted selection, and determining sample size to reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level (Definitions paras 5–9; Requirements paras 6–8; Application paras A4–A13; Appendix 1).\n\n- The auditor must treat a selected item for which the planned procedure cannot be applied as a deviation (controls testing) or misstatement (details testing) unless suitable alternative procedures are available; if a discovered misstatement appears to be an anomaly (not representative) the auditor must obtain strong evidence that it is not representative before excluding it from projections (Requirements paras 10–13; A14–A17).\n\n- For tests of details the auditor must project sample misstatements to the population; for tests of controls the sample deviation rate serves as the projected deviation rate (Requirements paras 14–15; A18–A20).\n\n**Why the AUASB says it matters (official rationale)**\n\n- The stated objective is to provide a reasonable basis for the auditor to draw conclusions about the population from which the sample is selected (Objective para 4). The standard complements ASA 500, which covers the auditor’s broader responsibility to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence (Introduction para 2).\n\n**Practical effects, incentives and trade-offs**\n\n- Who decides: auditors make the practical choices required by the standard (population boundaries, sampling method, sample size, whether to treat an item as an anomaly), subject to the specific requirements and guidance in ASA 530 (Requirements paras 6–11; A4–A13).\n\n- Who pays: the primary incremental cost falls on the auditee and ultimately its owners/creditors because more extensive sampling or more conservative choices (larger samples, additional procedures to resolve anomalies) increase audit time and fees. Users of financial statements (creditors, investors) are the direct beneficiaries of higher assurance.\n\n- Behaviour change produced: auditors will incorporate sampling design steps into planning, may increase sample sizes where risk is higher or tolerable misstatement is lower, will investigate sample exceptions, and may ask management for investigations or adjustments if projections indicate potential material misstatement (Requirements paras 6–15; Evaluating Results A21–A23).\n\n- Trade-offs and opportunity cost: greater assurance from larger samples increases auditor cost (time/fees). Auditors balance sampling risk (chance sample misleads) against audit efficiency; the standard formalises that trade‑off by requiring the auditor to set tolerable misstatement/rate and reduce sampling risk to an acceptably low level (Sample Size para A11; Sample Design A4–A9).\n\n- Implementation risk and discretionary space: the standard leaves substantial professional judgement (choice of sampling approach, definition of population, expected misstatement/deviation, what counts as an anomaly). That discretion helps tailor procedures to diverse clients but also creates variability in practice and reliance on auditor competence (Definitions paras; A6; A11). Non‑sampling risk (wrong procedures or misinterpretation) is explicitly highlighted as a distinct danger (Definitions para 5(d); A1).\n\n- Effects on private enterprise and markets: the standard increases the procedural and documentation burden on auditors and audited entities. That can modestly raise audit costs, particularly for smaller entities where sampling may be less efficient, but is intended to improve the reliability of audited financial information which supports contracting and capital markets (Scope and Objective paras).\n\n**Concrete compliance mechanisms and remedies**\n\n- If sampling results do not provide a reasonable basis for conclusions, the auditor must obtain further evidence: ask management to investigate/adjust, extend the sample, test alternative controls, or change substantive procedures (Evaluating Results para 15; A23).\n\n**Where to look in the Standard**\n\n- Core requirements: Requirements paras 6–15 (Sample design, performance, investigation, projection, evaluation).\n- Definitions and concepts: Definitions paras 5–9 and Application paras A1–A3.\n- Practical guidance and examples: Appendices 1–4 (stratification, factors influencing sample size, selection methods).\n\n**Net practical takeaway**\n\n- ASA 530 prescribes that when auditors test less than 100% of items they must design and document a sampling approach that gives reasonable assurance about the whole population, use professional judgement to set tolerable misstatement and sample size, investigate exceptions thoroughly, and, where sampling evidence is insufficient, obtain more evidence or ask management for action. These steps increase audit rigour but also increase audit effort and cost in proportion to the auditor’s risk tolerance and the client’s risk profile (Requirements paras 6–15; A4–A23)."},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"provider":"moonshot","completionTokens":2800},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The standard maintains its original focus on audit sampling methodology. While it has been technically amended (notably paragraph A7 and Appendix 2 in 2020), these changes represent updates to guidance rather than expansion into new substantive areas. The scope remains confined to designing, performing, and evaluating audit samples for tests of controls and tests of details."},"complexity_factors":["10 defined technical terms in section 5, including nested definitions for sampling risk (which itself contains two sub-types of erroneous conclusions)","Cross-references to at least 5 other Australian Auditing Standards (ASA 101, 200, 320, 330, and 500) that must be read together with this standard","Four technical appendices covering stratification methods, value-weighted selection, and sample size calculation factors","Dual framework structure requiring parallel guidance for both statistical (probability-based) and non-statistical (judgment-based) sampling approaches throughout","Conditional logic in Requirements section (e.g., 'If the audit procedure is not applicable... then perform on replacement item' and 'If unable to apply... then treat as deviation')","Special handling rules for 'anomalies' requiring additional audit procedures to obtain 'high degree of certainty'"],"plain_english_summary":"This standard tells auditors how to use sampling instead of testing every transaction: require representative selection, sufficient sample size, and either statistical or judgmental methods; it sets rules for projecting found errors to the population and treating missing items as errors unless alternatives exist. \n\nIt applies to auditors of financial reports under the Corporations Act and the companies they audit, ensuring audit opinions rest on valid, defensible evidence while keeping testing practical."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009","history":"/api/acts/asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009/history","analysis":"/api/acts/asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/asa-530-audit-sampling-october-2009/documents"}}