Engagement PerformanceEngagement Performance

Engagement Performance

Direction, Supervision and Performance

1. The engagement partner shall take responsibility for:
   1. The direction, supervision and performance of the audit engagement in compliance with Australian Auditing Standards, relevant ethical requirements, and applicable legal and regulatory requirements; and (Ref: Para. A14‑A16, A21)
   2. The auditor’s report being appropriate in the circumstances.

Reviews

1. The engagement partner shall take responsibility for reviews being performed in accordance with the firm’s review policies and procedures. (Ref: Para. A17‑A18, A21)
2. On or before the date of the auditor’s report, the engagement partner shall, through a review of the audit documentation and discussion with the engagement team, be satisfied that sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained to support the conclusions reached and for the auditor’s report to be issued. (Ref: Para. A19‑A21)

Consultation

1. The engagement partner shall:
   1. Take responsibility for the engagement team undertaking appropriate consultation on difficult or contentious matters;
   2. Be satisfied that members of the engagement team have undertaken appropriate consultation during the course of the engagement, both within the engagement team and between the engagement team and others at the appropriate level within or outside the firm;
   3. Be satisfied that the nature and scope of, and conclusions resulting from, such consultations are agreed with the party consulted; and
   4. Determine that conclusions resulting from such consultations have been implemented. (Ref: Para. A22‑A23)

Engagement Quality Control Review

1. For audits of financial reports of listed entities, and those other audit engagements, if any, for which the firm has determined that an engagement quality control review is required, the engagement partner shall:
   1. Determine that an engagement quality control reviewer has been appointed;
   2. Discuss significant matters arising during the audit engagement, including those identified during the engagement quality control review, with the engagement quality control reviewer; and
   3. Not date the auditor’s report until the completion of the engagement quality control review. (Ref: Para. A24‑A26)
2. The engagement quality control reviewer shall perform an objective evaluation of the significant judgements made by the engagement team, and the conclusions reached in formulating the auditor’s report. This evaluation shall involve:
   1. Discussion of significant matters with the engagement partner;
   2. Review of the financial reports and the proposed auditor’s report;
   3. Review of selected audit documentation relating to the significant judgements the engagement team made and the conclusions it reached; and
   4. Evaluation of the conclusions reached in formulating the auditor’s report and consideration of whether the proposed auditor’s report is appropriate. (Ref: Para. A27‑A33)
3. [Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 21.1]

Aus 21.1 For audits of financial reports of listed entities, and those other audit engagements, if any, for which the firm has determined that an engagement quality control review is required, the engagement quality control reviewer, on performing an engagement quality control review, shall also consider the following:

1. The engagement team’s evaluation of the firm’s independence in relation to the audit engagement;
2. Whether appropriate consultation has taken place on matters involving differences of opinion or other difficult or contentious matters, and the conclusions arising from those consultations; and
3. Whether audit documentation selected for review reflects the work performed in relation to the significant judgements made and supports the conclusions reached. (Ref: Para. A30‑A33)

Differences of Opinion

1. If differences of opinion arise within the engagement team, with those consulted or, where applicable, between the engagement partner and the engagement quality control reviewer, the engagement team shall follow the firm’s policies and procedures for dealing with and resolving differences of opinion.