Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2023C01118:body:0:p75
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2023C01118
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 220123–223212

engagements are performed;

           * The nature and complexity of the matter being documented, such as whether it relates to an aspect of the system of quality management that has changed or an area of greater quality risk, and the complexity of the judgements relating to the matter; and

           * The frequency and extent of changes in the system of quality management.

    In a less complex firm, it may not be necessary to have documentation supporting matters communicated because informal communication methods may be effective. Nevertheless, a less complex firm may determine it appropriate to document such communications in order to provide evidence that they occurred.

A204.      In some instances, an external oversight authority may establish documentation requirements, either formally or informally, for example, as a result of the outcome of external inspection findings. Relevant ethical requirements may also include specific requirements addressing documentation, for example, the APESB Code requires documentation of particular matters, including certain situations related to conflicts of interest, non-compliance with laws and regulations and independence.

A205.      The firm is not required to document the consideration of every condition, event, circumstance, action or inaction for each quality objective, or each risk that may give rise to a quality risk. However, in documenting the quality risks and how the firm's responses address the quality risks, the firm may document the reasons for the assessment given to the quality risks (i.e., the considered occurrence and effect on the achievement of one or more quality objectives), in order to support the consistent implementation and operation of the responses.

A206.      The documentation may be provided by the network, other network firms, or other structures or organisations within the network.

  [1]  See ASQM 2 Engagement Quality Reviews.
  [2]  See, for example, Australian Standard on Auditing (ASA) 220, Quality Management for an Audit of a Financial Report and Other Historical Financial Information, paragraph 3.
[*]  See ASA 102 Compliance with Ethical Requirements when Performing Audits, Reviews and Other Assurance Engagements.
  [3]  "Engagement partner" and "partner" is to be read as referring to their public sector equivalents where relevant.
  [4]  See ASA 620 Using the Work of an Auditor's Expert, paragraph 6(a), defines the term "auditor's expert".
  [5]  See Australian Standard on Review Engagements (ASRE) 2400 Review of a Financial Report Performed by an Assurance Practitioner Who is Not the Auditor of the Entity.
  [6]  See Australian Standard on Assurance Engagements (ASAE) 3000, Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information.
  [7]  See The Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board's APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including Independence Standards) (APESB Code).
  [8]  See ASA 220, paragraphs A15–A25.
  [9]  See ASA 220, paragraphs A23–A25.
  [10]  See ASA 220, paragraphs 35.
  [11]