{"id":"F2006L01401","name":"ASA 620 - Using the Work of an Expert - April 2006","slug":"asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"repealed","isInForce":false,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":58994,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006L01401-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"Repealed","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standa","sectionType":"section","heading":"Obtaining a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\nThis Auditing Standard is available on the AUASB website: [www.auasb.gov.au](http://www.auasb.gov.au).\n\nAlternatively, printed copies of this Auditing Standard are available by contacting:\n\n| Auditing and Assurance Standards BoardLevel 4530 Collins StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000AUSTRALIA | Phone: (03) 8080 7400Fax: (03) 8080 7450E-mail: enquiries@auasb.gov.auPostal Address:PO Box 204Collins Street WestMelbourne Victoria 8007AUSTRALIA |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"COPYRIGHT","sectionType":"section","heading":"COPYRIGHT","content":"##### COPYRIGHT\n\n© Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 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. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights for commercial purposes within Australia should be addressed to the Principal Executive, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne Victoria 8007. Otherwise, no part of the 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\nISSN 1833-4393","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"CONTENTS","sectionType":"part","heading":"CONTENTS","content":"#   \nCONTENTS\n\nPREFACE\n\nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nParagraphs\n\nApplication.................................. 1-2\n\nOperative Date................................ 3\n\nIntroduction.................................. 4-9\n\nDetermining the Need to Use the Work of an Expert....... 10-11\n\nCompetence and Objectivity of the Expert.............. 12-16\n\nScope of the Expert’s Work....................... 17-18\n\nEvaluating the Work of the Expert................... 19-24\n\nReference to an Expert in the Auditor’s Report........... 25-27\n\nConformity with International Standards on Auditing...... 28","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"Preface","sectionType":"part","heading":"Preface","content":"###### Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standard\n\nThis Auditing Standard is available on the AUASB website: [www.auasb.gov.au](http://www.auasb.gov.au).\n\nAlternatively, printed copies of this Auditing Standard are available by contacting:\n\n| Auditing and Assurance Standards BoardLevel 4530 Collins StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000AUSTRALIA | Phone: (03) 8080 7400Fax: (03) 8080 7450E-mail: enquiries@auasb.gov.auPostal Address:PO Box 204Collins Street WestMelbourne Victoria 8007AUSTRALIA |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n##### COPYRIGHT\n\n© Commonwealth of Australia 2006. 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. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights for commercial purposes within Australia should be addressed to the Principal Executive, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne Victoria 8007. Otherwise, no part of the 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\nISSN 1833-4393\n\n#   \nCONTENTS\n\nPREFACE\n\nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nParagraphs\n\nApplication.................................. 1-2\n\nOperative Date................................ 3\n\nIntroduction.................................. 4-9\n\nDetermining the Need to Use the Work of an Expert....... 10-11\n\nCompetence and Objectivity of the Expert.............. 12-16\n\nScope of the Expert’s Work....................... 17-18\n\nEvaluating the Work of the Expert................... 19-24\n\nReference to an Expert in the Auditor’s Report........... 25-27\n\nConformity with International Standards on Auditing...... 28\n\n#   \nPreface\n\n#### Reasons for Issuing Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) issues Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert due to the requirements of the legislative provisions explained below.\n\nThe Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 (the CLERP 9 Act) established the AUASB as an independent statutory body under section 227A of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, as from 1 July 2004. Under section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, the AUASB may make Auditing Standards for the purposes of the corporations legislation. These Auditing Standards are legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.\n\n#### Main Features\n\nThis Auditing Standard establishes mandatory requirements and provides explanatory guidance on using the work of an expert as audit evidence.\n\n#### Operative Date\n\nThis Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 July 2006.\n\n#### Main changes from AUS 606 (July 2002) Using the Work of an Expert\n\nThe main differences between this Auditing Standard and the Auditing Standard issued by the Auditing & Assurance Standards Board of the Australian Accounting Research Foundation, AUS 606 (July 2002) Using the Work of an Expert, are that in this Auditing Standard:\n\n1.  The word ‘shall’, in the bold-type paragraphs, is the terminology used to describe an auditor’s mandatory requirements, whereas an auditor’s degree of responsibility is described in AUS 606 by the word ‘should’.\n2.  The explanatory guidance paragraphs provide guidance and illustrative examples to assist the auditor in fulfilling the mandatory requirements, whereas in AUS 606 some obligations are implied within certain explanatory paragraphs. Accordingly, such paragraphs have been redrafted to clarify that the matter forms part of explanatory guidance.\n3.  Includes as an expert a person employed by the auditor, whereas in AUS 606, a person employed by the auditor is not considered an expert.\n\n##   \nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) makes Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert as set out in paragraphs 1 to 28, pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001.\n\nThis Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with the Preamble to AUASB Standards, which sets out the intentions of the AUASB on how the Auditing Standards are to be understood, interpreted and applied.\n\nThe mandatory requirements of this Auditing Standard are set out in bold-type paragraphs.\n\nDated 28 April 2006 M H Kelsall  \nChairman - AUASB","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"Reasons for Issuing Auditing Standard AS","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Reasons for Issuing Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert","content":"#### Reasons for Issuing Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) issues Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert due to the requirements of the legislative provisions explained below.\n\nThe Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 (the CLERP 9 Act) established the AUASB as an independent statutory body under section 227A of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, as from 1 July 2004. Under section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, the AUASB may make Auditing Standards for the purposes of the corporations legislation. These Auditing Standards are legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"Main Features","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Main Features","content":"#### Main Features\n\nThis Auditing Standard establishes mandatory requirements and provides explanatory guidance on using the work of an expert as audit evidence.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"Operative Date","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Operative Date","content":"#### Operative Date\n\nThis Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 July 2006.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"Main changes from AUS 606 (July 2002) Us","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Main changes from AUS 606 (July 2002) Using the Work of an Expert","content":"#### Main changes from AUS 606 (July 2002) Using the Work of an Expert\n\nThe main differences between this Auditing Standard and the Auditing Standard issued by the Auditing & Assurance Standards Board of the Australian Accounting Research Foundation, AUS 606 (July 2002) Using the Work of an Expert, are that in this Auditing Standard:\n\n1.  The word ‘shall’, in the bold-type paragraphs, is the terminology used to describe an auditor’s mandatory requirements, whereas an auditor’s degree of responsibility is described in AUS 606 by the word ‘should’.\n2.  The explanatory guidance paragraphs provide guidance and illustrative examples to assist the auditor in fulfilling the mandatory requirements, whereas in AUS 606 some obligations are implied within certain explanatory paragraphs. Accordingly, such paragraphs have been redrafted to clarify that the matter forms part of explanatory guidance.\n3.  Includes as an expert a person employed by the auditor, whereas in AUS 606, a person employed by the auditor is not considered an expert.\n\n##   \nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) makes Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert as set out in paragraphs 1 to 28, pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001.\n\nThis Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with the Preamble to AUASB Standards, which sets out the intentions of the AUASB on how the Auditing Standards are to be understood, interpreted and applied.\n\nThe mandatory requirements of this Auditing Standard are set out in bold-type paragraphs.\n\nDated 28 April 2006 M H Kelsall  \nChairman - AUASB","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"AUTHORITY STATEMENT","sectionType":"part","heading":"AUTHORITY STATEMENT","content":"##   \nAUTHORITY STATEMENT\n\nThe Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) makes Auditing Standard ASA 620 Using the Work of an Expert as set out in paragraphs 1 to 28, pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001.\n\nThis Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with the Preamble to AUASB Standards, which sets out the intentions of the AUASB on how the Auditing Standards are to be understood, interpreted and applied.\n\nThe mandatory requirements of this Auditing Standard are set out in bold-type paragraphs.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"AUDITING STANDARD ASA 620","sectionType":"part","heading":"AUDITING STANDARD ASA 620","content":"## AUDITING STANDARD ASA 620\n\n### Using the Work of an Expert\n\n##### Application\n\n1 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 Part 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report for any other purpose.\n\n2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\n3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 July 2006.\n\n##### Introduction\n\n4 The purpose of this Auditing Standard is to establish mandatory requirements and provide explanatory guidance on using the work of an expert as audit evidence.\n\n5 When using the work performed by an expert, the auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that such work is adequate for the purposes of the audit.\n\n6 “Expert” means a person or firm possessing special skill, knowledge and experience in a particular field other than accounting and auditing.\n\n7 The auditor’s education and experience enable the auditor to be knowledgeable about business matters in general, but the auditor is not expected to have the expertise of a person trained for or qualified to engage in the practice of another profession or occupation, such as an actuary or engineer.\n\n  \n\n8 An expert may be:\n\n(a) contracted by the entity;\n\n(b) contracted by the auditor;\n\n(c) employed by the entity; or\n\n(d) employed by the auditor.\n\n    When the auditor uses the work of an expert employed by the audit firm, the auditor will be able to rely on the firm’s systems for recruitment and training that determine that expert’s capabilities and competence, as explained in ASA 220 Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information, instead of needing to evaluate them for each audit engagement.\n\n9 Although the auditor may use the work of an expert as audit evidence, under ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, the auditor retains full responsibility for the audit opinion on the financial report.\n\n##### Determining the Need to Use the Work of an Expert\n\n10 In obtaining an understanding of the entity and performing further procedures in response to assessed risks, the auditor may need to obtain, in conjunction with the entity or independently, audit evidence in the form of reports, opinions, valuations and statements of an expert. Examples include the following:\n\n-   valuations of certain types of assets, for example land and buildings, plant and machinery, works of art and precious stones;\n-   determination of quantities or physical condition of assets, for example minerals stored in stockpiles, underground mineral and petroleum reserves and the remaining useful life of plant and machinery;\n-   determination of amounts using specialised techniques or methods, for example an actuarial valuation;\n-   the measurement of work completed and to be completed on contracts in progress; and\n-   legal opinions concerning interpretations of agreements, statutes and regulations.\n\n  \n\n11 When determining the need to use the work of an expert, the auditor would ordinarily consider:\n\n(a) the engagement team’s knowledge and previous experience of the matter being considered;\n\n(b) the risk of material misstatement based on the nature, complexity, and materiality of the matter being considered; and\n\n(c) the quantity and quality of other audit evidence expected to be obtained.\n\n##### Competence and Objectivity of the Expert\n\n12 When planning to use the work of an expert, the auditor shall evaluate the professional competence of the expert.\n\n13 The auditor would ordinarily consider the expert’s:\n\n(a) professional certification or licensing by, or membership in, an appropriate professional body; and\n\n(b) experience and reputation in the field in which the auditor is seeking audit evidence.\n\n14 The auditor shall evaluate the objectivity of the expert.\n\n15 The risk that an expert’s objectivity will be impaired increases when the expert is:\n\n(a) employed by the entity; or\n\n(b) related in some other manner to the entity, for example by being financially dependent upon or having an investment in the entity.\n\n    If the auditor is concerned regarding the competence or objectivity of the expert, the auditor would ordinarily discuss any reservations with management and consider whether sufficient appropriate audit evidence can be obtained concerning the work of an expert. The auditor may need to undertake additional audit procedures or seek audit evidence from another expert (after taking into account the factors in paragraph 11 of this Auditing Standard).\n  \n\n16 Where an expert is employed by or related to the entity, the auditor would ordinarily consider whether there are any mitigating factors such as professional and/or statutory obligations governing the work of an expert, that would impact on the objectivity of the expert. For example it is common practice for the actuary of a life insurance company to be an employee.\n\n##### Scope of the Expert’s Work\n\n17 The auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the scope of the expert’s work is adequate for the purposes of the audit.\n\n18 Audit evidence may be obtained through a review of the terms of reference which are often set out in written instructions from the entity to the expert. Such instructions to the expert may cover such matters as the following:\n\n-   the objectives and scope of the expert’s work;\n-   a general outline as to the specific matters the auditor expects the expert’s report to cover;\n-   the intended use by the auditor of the expert’s work, including the possible communication to third parties of the expert’s identity and extent of involvement;\n-   the extent of the expert’s access to appropriate records and files;\n-   clarification of the expert’s relationship with the entity, if any;\n-   confidentiality of the entity’s information; and\n-   information regarding the assumptions and methods intended to be used by the expert and their consistency with those used in prior periods.\n\n    In the event that these matters are not clearly set out in written instructions to the expert, the auditor may need to communicate with the expert directly to obtain audit evidence in this regard. In obtaining an understanding of the entity, the auditor also ordinarily considers whether to include the expert during the engagement team’s discussion of the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement.\n\n#####   \nEvaluating the Work of the Expert\n\n19 The auditor shall evaluate the appropriateness of the expert’s work as audit evidence regarding the assertion being considered.\n\n20 The auditor would ordinarily evaluate whether the substance of the expert’s findings is properly reflected in the financial report or supports the assertions, and consideration of:\n\n-   source data used;\n-   assumptions and methods used and their consistency with prior periods; and\n-   results of the expert’s work in the light of the auditor’s overall knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures.\n\n21 When considering whether the expert has used source data which is appropriate in the circumstances, the auditor would ordinarily consider the following procedures:\n\n(a) making enquiries regarding any procedures undertaken by the expert to establish whether the source data is relevant and reliable; and\n\n(b) reviewing or testing the data used by the expert.\n\n22 The appropriateness and reasonableness of assumptions and methods used and their application are the responsibility of the expert. The auditor does not have the same expertise and, therefore, cannot always challenge the expert’s assumptions and methods. However, the auditor will ordinarily need to obtain an understanding of the assumptions and methods used and to consider whether they are appropriate and reasonable, based on the auditor’s knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures.\n\n23 If the results of the expert’s work do not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence, or if the results are not consistent with other audit evidence, the auditor shall resolve the matter.\n\n24 This may involve discussions with the entity and the expert, applying additional audit procedures, including possibly engaging another expert, or modifying the auditor’s report.\n\n#####   \nReference to an Expert in the Auditor’s Report\n\n25 When issuing an unmodified auditor’s report, the auditor shall not refer to the work of an expert.\n\n26 Such a reference might be misunderstood to be a modification of the auditor’s opinion or a division of responsibility, neither of which is intended.\n\n27 If, as a result of the work of an expert, the auditor decides to issue a modified auditor’s report, in some circumstances it may be appropriate in explaining the nature of the modification, to refer to or describe the work of the expert (including the identity of the expert and the extent of the expert’s involvement). In these circumstances, the auditor would ordinarily obtain the permission of the expert before making such a reference. If permission is refused and the auditor believes a reference is necessary, the auditor may need to seek legal advice.\n\n##### Conformity with International Standards on Auditing\n\n28 Except as noted below, this Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 620 Using the Work of an Expert, issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants. The main difference between this Auditing Standard and ISA 620 is:\n\n-   This Auditing Standard includes the following explanatory guidance paragraphs that are not included in ISA 620:\n\n♦ Although the auditor may use the work of an expert as audit evidence, under ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, the auditor retains full responsibility for the audit opinion on the financial report (paragraph 9).\n\n♦ Where an expert is employed by or related to the entity, the auditor would ordinarily consider whether there are any mitigating factors such as professional and/or statutory obligations governing the work of an expert, that would impact on the objectivity of the expert. For example it is common practice for the actuary of a life insurance company to be an employee (paragraph 16).\n\nCompliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 620.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"Using the Work of an Expert","sectionType":"division","heading":"Using the Work of an Expert","content":"## AUDITING STANDARD ASA 620\n\n### Using the Work of an Expert\n\n##### Application\n\n1 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 Part 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report for any other purpose.\n\n2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other financial information.\n\n##### Operative Date\n\n3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 July 2006.\n\n##### Introduction\n\n4 The purpose of this Auditing Standard is to establish mandatory requirements and provide explanatory guidance on using the work of an expert as audit evidence.\n\n5 When using the work performed by an expert, the auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that such work is adequate for the purposes of the audit.\n\n6 “Expert” means a person or firm possessing special skill, knowledge and experience in a particular field other than accounting and auditing.\n\n7 The auditor’s education and experience enable the auditor to be knowledgeable about business matters in general, but the auditor is not expected to have the expertise of a person trained for or qualified to engage in the practice of another profession or occupation, such as an actuary or engineer.\n\n  \n\n8 An expert may be:\n\n(a) contracted by the entity;\n\n(b) contracted by the auditor;\n\n(c) employed by the entity; or\n\n(d) employed by the auditor.\n\n    When the auditor uses the work of an expert employed by the audit firm, the auditor will be able to rely on the firm’s systems for recruitment and training that determine that expert’s capabilities and competence, as explained in ASA 220 Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information, instead of needing to evaluate them for each audit engagement.\n\n9 Although the auditor may use the work of an expert as audit evidence, under ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, the auditor retains full responsibility for the audit opinion on the financial report.\n\n##### Determining the Need to Use the Work of an Expert\n\n10 In obtaining an understanding of the entity and performing further procedures in response to assessed risks, the auditor may need to obtain, in conjunction with the entity or independently, audit evidence in the form of reports, opinions, valuations and statements of an expert. Examples include the following:\n\n-   valuations of certain types of assets, for example land and buildings, plant and machinery, works of art and precious stones;\n-   determination of quantities or physical condition of assets, for example minerals stored in stockpiles, underground mineral and petroleum reserves and the remaining useful life of plant and machinery;\n-   determination of amounts using specialised techniques or methods, for example an actuarial valuation;\n-   the measurement of work completed and to be completed on contracts in progress; and\n-   legal opinions concerning interpretations of agreements, statutes and regulations.\n\n  \n\n11 When determining the need to use the work of an expert, the auditor would ordinarily consider:\n\n(a) the engagement team’s knowledge and previous experience of the matter being considered;\n\n(b) the risk of material misstatement based on the nature, complexity, and materiality of the matter being considered; and\n\n(c) the quantity and quality of other audit evidence expected to be obtained.\n\n##### Competence and Objectivity of the Expert\n\n12 When planning to use the work of an expert, the auditor shall evaluate the professional competence of the expert.\n\n13 The auditor would ordinarily consider the expert’s:\n\n(a) professional certification or licensing by, or membership in, an appropriate professional body; and\n\n(b) experience and reputation in the field in which the auditor is seeking audit evidence.\n\n14 The auditor shall evaluate the objectivity of the expert.\n\n15 The risk that an expert’s objectivity will be impaired increases when the expert is:\n\n(a) employed by the entity; or\n\n(b) related in some other manner to the entity, for example by being financially dependent upon or having an investment in the entity.\n\n    If the auditor is concerned regarding the competence or objectivity of the expert, the auditor would ordinarily discuss any reservations with management and consider whether sufficient appropriate audit evidence can be obtained concerning the work of an expert. The auditor may need to undertake additional audit procedures or seek audit evidence from another expert (after taking into account the factors in paragraph 11 of this Auditing Standard).\n  \n\n16 Where an expert is employed by or related to the entity, the auditor would ordinarily consider whether there are any mitigating factors such as professional and/or statutory obligations governing the work of an expert, that would impact on the objectivity of the expert. For example it is common practice for the actuary of a life insurance company to be an employee.\n\n##### Scope of the Expert’s Work\n\n17 The auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the scope of the expert’s work is adequate for the purposes of the audit.\n\n18 Audit evidence may be obtained through a review of the terms of reference which are often set out in written instructions from the entity to the expert. Such instructions to the expert may cover such matters as the following:\n\n-   the objectives and scope of the expert’s work;\n-   a general outline as to the specific matters the auditor expects the expert’s report to cover;\n-   the intended use by the auditor of the expert’s work, including the possible communication to third parties of the expert’s identity and extent of involvement;\n-   the extent of the expert’s access to appropriate records and files;\n-   clarification of the expert’s relationship with the entity, if any;\n-   confidentiality of the entity’s information; and\n-   information regarding the assumptions and methods intended to be used by the expert and their consistency with those used in prior periods.\n\n    In the event that these matters are not clearly set out in written instructions to the expert, the auditor may need to communicate with the expert directly to obtain audit evidence in this regard. In obtaining an understanding of the entity, the auditor also ordinarily considers whether to include the expert during the engagement team’s discussion of the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement.\n\n#####   \nEvaluating the Work of the Expert\n\n19 The auditor shall evaluate the appropriateness of the expert’s work as audit evidence regarding the assertion being considered.\n\n20 The auditor would ordinarily evaluate whether the substance of the expert’s findings is properly reflected in the financial report or supports the assertions, and consideration of:\n\n-   source data used;\n-   assumptions and methods used and their consistency with prior periods; and\n-   results of the expert’s work in the light of the auditor’s overall knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures.\n\n21 When considering whether the expert has used source data which is appropriate in the circumstances, the auditor would ordinarily consider the following procedures:\n\n(a) making enquiries regarding any procedures undertaken by the expert to establish whether the source data is relevant and reliable; and\n\n(b) reviewing or testing the data used by the expert.\n\n22 The appropriateness and reasonableness of assumptions and methods used and their application are the responsibility of the expert. The auditor does not have the same expertise and, therefore, cannot always challenge the expert’s assumptions and methods. However, the auditor will ordinarily need to obtain an understanding of the assumptions and methods used and to consider whether they are appropriate and reasonable, based on the auditor’s knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures.\n\n23 If the results of the expert’s work do not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence, or if the results are not consistent with other audit evidence, the auditor shall resolve the matter.\n\n24 This may involve discussions with the entity and the expert, applying additional audit procedures, including possibly engaging another expert, or modifying the auditor’s report.\n\n#####   \nReference to an Expert in the Auditor’s Report\n\n25 When issuing an unmodified auditor’s report, the auditor shall not refer to the work of an expert.\n\n26 Such a reference might be misunderstood to be a modification of the auditor’s opinion or a division of responsibility, neither of which is intended.\n\n27 If, as a result of the work of an expert, the auditor decides to issue a modified auditor’s report, in some circumstances it may be appropriate in explaining the nature of the modification, to refer to or describe the work of the expert (including the identity of the expert and the extent of the expert’s involvement). In these circumstances, the auditor would ordinarily obtain the permission of the expert before making such a reference. If permission is refused and the auditor believes a reference is necessary, the auditor may need to seek legal advice.\n\n##### Conformity with International Standards on Auditing\n\n28 Except as noted below, this Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 620 Using the Work of an Expert, issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants. The main difference between this Auditing Standard and ISA 620 is:\n\n-   This Auditing Standard includes the following explanatory guidance paragraphs that are not included in ISA 620:\n\n♦ Although the auditor may use the work of an expert as audit evidence, under ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, the auditor retains full responsibility for the audit opinion on the financial report (paragraph 9).\n\n♦ Where an expert is employed by or related to the entity, the auditor would ordinarily consider whether there are any mitigating factors such as professional and/or statutory obligations governing the work of an expert, that would impact on the objectivity of the expert. For example it is common practice for the actuary of a life insurance company to be an employee (paragraph 16).\n\nCompliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 620.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"Application","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application","content":"##### Application\n\n1 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 Part 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001; and\n\n(b) an audit of a financial report for any other purpose.\n\n2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other financial information.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"Introduction","sectionType":"section","heading":"Introduction","content":"##### Introduction\n\n4 The purpose of this Auditing Standard is to establish mandatory requirements and provide explanatory guidance on using the work of an expert as audit evidence.\n\n5 When using the work performed by an expert, the auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that such work is adequate for the purposes of the audit.\n\n6 “Expert” means a person or firm possessing special skill, knowledge and experience in a particular field other than accounting and auditing.\n\n7 The auditor’s education and experience enable the auditor to be knowledgeable about business matters in general, but the auditor is not expected to have the expertise of a person trained for or qualified to engage in the practice of another profession or occupation, such as an actuary or engineer.\n\n  \n\n8 An expert may be:\n\n(a) contracted by the entity;\n\n(b) contracted by the auditor;\n\n(c) employed by the entity; or\n\n(d) employed by the auditor.\n\n    When the auditor uses the work of an expert employed by the audit firm, the auditor will be able to rely on the firm’s systems for recruitment and training that determine that expert’s capabilities and competence, as explained in ASA 220 Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information, instead of needing to evaluate them for each audit engagement.\n\n9 Although the auditor may use the work of an expert as audit evidence, under ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, the auditor retains full responsibility for the audit opinion on the financial report.","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"Determining the Need to Use the Work of ","sectionType":"section","heading":"Determining the Need to Use the Work of an Expert","content":"##### Determining the Need to Use the Work of an Expert\n\n10 In obtaining an understanding of the entity and performing further procedures in response to assessed risks, the auditor may need to obtain, in conjunction with the entity or independently, audit evidence in the form of reports, opinions, valuations and statements of an expert. Examples include the following:\n\n-   valuations of certain types of assets, for example land and buildings, plant and machinery, works of art and precious stones;\n-   determination of quantities or physical condition of assets, for example minerals stored in stockpiles, underground mineral and petroleum reserves and the remaining useful life of plant and machinery;\n-   determination of amounts using specialised techniques or methods, for example an actuarial valuation;\n-   the measurement of work completed and to be completed on contracts in progress; and\n-   legal opinions concerning interpretations of agreements, statutes and regulations.\n\n  \n\n11 When determining the need to use the work of an expert, the auditor would ordinarily consider:\n\n(a) the engagement team’s knowledge and previous experience of the matter being considered;\n\n(b) the risk of material misstatement based on the nature, complexity, and materiality of the matter being considered; and\n\n(c) the quantity and quality of other audit evidence expected to be obtained.","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Competence and Objectivity of the Expert","sectionType":"section","heading":"Competence and Objectivity of the Expert","content":"##### Competence and Objectivity of the Expert\n\n12 When planning to use the work of an expert, the auditor shall evaluate the professional competence of the expert.\n\n13 The auditor would ordinarily consider the expert’s:\n\n(a) professional certification or licensing by, or membership in, an appropriate professional body; and\n\n(b) experience and reputation in the field in which the auditor is seeking audit evidence.\n\n14 The auditor shall evaluate the objectivity of the expert.\n\n15 The risk that an expert’s objectivity will be impaired increases when the expert is:\n\n(a) employed by the entity; or\n\n(b) related in some other manner to the entity, for example by being financially dependent upon or having an investment in the entity.\n\n    If the auditor is concerned regarding the competence or objectivity of the expert, the auditor would ordinarily discuss any reservations with management and consider whether sufficient appropriate audit evidence can be obtained concerning the work of an expert. The auditor may need to undertake additional audit procedures or seek audit evidence from another expert (after taking into account the factors in paragraph 11 of this Auditing Standard).\n  \n\n16 Where an expert is employed by or related to the entity, the auditor would ordinarily consider whether there are any mitigating factors such as professional and/or statutory obligations governing the work of an expert, that would impact on the objectivity of the expert. For example it is common practice for the actuary of a life insurance company to be an employee.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"Scope of the Expert’s Work","sectionType":"section","heading":"Scope of the Expert’s Work","content":"##### Scope of the Expert’s Work\n\n17 The auditor shall obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the scope of the expert’s work is adequate for the purposes of the audit.\n\n18 Audit evidence may be obtained through a review of the terms of reference which are often set out in written instructions from the entity to the expert. Such instructions to the expert may cover such matters as the following:\n\n-   the objectives and scope of the expert’s work;\n-   a general outline as to the specific matters the auditor expects the expert’s report to cover;\n-   the intended use by the auditor of the expert’s work, including the possible communication to third parties of the expert’s identity and extent of involvement;\n-   the extent of the expert’s access to appropriate records and files;\n-   clarification of the expert’s relationship with the entity, if any;\n-   confidentiality of the entity’s information; and\n-   information regarding the assumptions and methods intended to be used by the expert and their consistency with those used in prior periods.\n\n    In the event that these matters are not clearly set out in written instructions to the expert, the auditor may need to communicate with the expert directly to obtain audit evidence in this regard. In obtaining an understanding of the entity, the auditor also ordinarily considers whether to include the expert during the engagement team’s discussion of the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement.","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"Evaluating the Work of the Expert","sectionType":"section","heading":"Evaluating the Work of the Expert","content":"#####   \nEvaluating the Work of the Expert\n\n19 The auditor shall evaluate the appropriateness of the expert’s work as audit evidence regarding the assertion being considered.\n\n20 The auditor would ordinarily evaluate whether the substance of the expert’s findings is properly reflected in the financial report or supports the assertions, and consideration of:\n\n-   source data used;\n-   assumptions and methods used and their consistency with prior periods; and\n-   results of the expert’s work in the light of the auditor’s overall knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures.\n\n21 When considering whether the expert has used source data which is appropriate in the circumstances, the auditor would ordinarily consider the following procedures:\n\n(a) making enquiries regarding any procedures undertaken by the expert to establish whether the source data is relevant and reliable; and\n\n(b) reviewing or testing the data used by the expert.\n\n22 The appropriateness and reasonableness of assumptions and methods used and their application are the responsibility of the expert. The auditor does not have the same expertise and, therefore, cannot always challenge the expert’s assumptions and methods. However, the auditor will ordinarily need to obtain an understanding of the assumptions and methods used and to consider whether they are appropriate and reasonable, based on the auditor’s knowledge of the business and the results of other audit procedures.\n\n23 If the results of the expert’s work do not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence, or if the results are not consistent with other audit evidence, the auditor shall resolve the matter.\n\n24 This may involve discussions with the entity and the expert, applying additional audit procedures, including possibly engaging another expert, or modifying the auditor’s report.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"Reference to an Expert in the Auditor’s ","sectionType":"section","heading":"Reference to an Expert in the Auditor’s Report","content":"#####   \nReference to an Expert in the Auditor’s Report\n\n25 When issuing an unmodified auditor’s report, the auditor shall not refer to the work of an expert.\n\n26 Such a reference might be misunderstood to be a modification of the auditor’s opinion or a division of responsibility, neither of which is intended.\n\n27 If, as a result of the work of an expert, the auditor decides to issue a modified auditor’s report, in some circumstances it may be appropriate in explaining the nature of the modification, to refer to or describe the work of the expert (including the identity of the expert and the extent of the expert’s involvement). In these circumstances, the auditor would ordinarily obtain the permission of the expert before making such a reference. If permission is refused and the auditor believes a reference is necessary, the auditor may need to seek legal advice.","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"Conformity with International Standards ","sectionType":"section","heading":"Conformity with International Standards on Auditing","content":"##### Conformity with International Standards on Auditing\n\n28 Except as noted below, this Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 620 Using the Work of an Expert, issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants. The main difference between this Auditing Standard and ISA 620 is:\n\n-   This Auditing Standard includes the following explanatory guidance paragraphs that are not included in ISA 620:\n\n♦ Although the auditor may use the work of an expert as audit evidence, under ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, the auditor retains full responsibility for the audit opinion on the financial report (paragraph 9).\n\n♦ Where an expert is employed by or related to the entity, the auditor would ordinarily consider whether there are any mitigating factors such as professional and/or statutory obligations governing the work of an expert, that would impact on the objectivity of the expert. For example it is common practice for the actuary of a life insurance company to be an employee (paragraph 16).\n\nCompliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 620.","sortOrder":19}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"model":"kimi-k2.5","source":"moonshot-realtime","completionTokens":2143},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The standard maintains its original intended scope of governing the use of expert work in audit engagements. While this version expanded the definition of 'expert' to include persons employed by the auditor (previously excluded), this represents a clarification of coverage rather than a fundamental shift in the standard's purpose or application beyond audit evidence gathering."},"complexity_factors":["Cross-references to three other auditing standards (ASA 220, ASA 700) and the Corporations Act 2001","Distinction between mandatory requirements (bold 'shall' paragraphs) and explanatory guidance ('would ordinarily') creates dual-layer structure","Conditional logic based on four different employment relationships (contracted by entity, contracted by auditor, employed by entity, employed by auditor)","Nested evaluation requirements: competence → objectivity → scope → work evaluation → resolution of inconsistencies","Specific prohibition on referencing experts in unmodified reports with limited exception for modified reports requiring legal considerations"],"plain_english_summary":"This Auditing Standard sets mandatory rules for when and how auditors may rely on external specialists (experts) for non-accounting matters—e.g., valuations, actuarial or geological work. Auditors must assess the need for experts, vet their qualifications and objectivity, ensure their work covers the audit needs, and evaluate their findings.\n\nAuditors remain fully responsible for the opinion. The standard applies to audits under the Corporations Act 2001 and to any experts engaged for those audits."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006","history":"/api/acts/asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006/history","analysis":"/api/acts/asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/asa-620-using-the-work-of-an-expert-april-2006/documents"}}