Overall results compared with that of UK Audit Committee Chairs
Figure 2 compares the results with those of the UK (2016) on six questions regarding specific aspects of audit quality. ACCs were asked to rate their auditor on a 1-7 scale (where 1 would suggest a low level of satisfaction, 4 is as expected, and 7 a high level of satisfaction).
The results demonstrate that the views of ACCs in the UK and Australia are very similar, in that both are very satisfied with their auditor (Figure 2).
The following section of this report provides a comparison of the results of the feedback from the ASX 300 ACCs with the 2016 United Kingdom Survey results, also disaggregated by the ASX top 100, 101-200 and 201-300. A sample of comments we received are included to provide insights into why ACCs rated their auditor that way.
Comparison of mean scores per question, Australia to United Kingdom
1. How satisfied were you with your external auditor's audit focus, approach and risk assessment?
Australia
5.90/7
United Kingdom
6.10/7
2. How satisfied were you that your external auditor has adopted an appropriate approach to quality management for your engagement?
Australia
5.86/7
United Kingdom
6.00/7
3. How satisfied were you with the way in which your external auditor demonstrated that they had adopted an appropriate mind-set and culture, and acted with appropriate professional skepticism?
Australia
5.92/7
United Kingdom
6.10/7
4. To what degree did the external auditor exhibit independence and objectivity?
Australia
6.04/7
United Kingdom
6.30/7
5. How satisfied were you with the communication/interaction between the external auditor and the Audit Committee?
Australia
6.01/7
United Kingdom
6.30/7
6. How satisfied were you with the extent the external auditor demonstrated innovation in their audit approach and methodology used? (Not asked in UK 2016 survey)
Australia
5.08/7
United Kingdom
Figure 2 – Comparing Australian ACCs' views with those in the UK (2016).
