1. Ingvild Gulbrandsen PSC meeting Copenhagen, Denmark 27.5.2016
ISSAI 4000
Ingvild Gulbrandsen
PSC meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark
Husk å informere om at neste CAS møte blir framskyndet til tidlig 2017, og ikke i September 2016.
Jeg har ca 20 minutter til disposisjon.

2. General Information
26 SAIs, IIA and IDI commented on the Exposure Draft ISSAI 4000, ranging from 29 pages to no comments.
The comments were discussed at the Annual CAS meeting in Bejing – October 2015
The CAS secretariat analyzed the comments and integrated text into the document.
Consultation with ECA and SAI Romania for further discussions and clarifications.
The document was sent to CAS for commenting before it was sent to PSC.

3. Main areas that were commented and how it was dealt with
Structure, specific requirements with sub requirements followed by explanation material.
We found the structure with one requirement followed by explanations the most suitable at this stage.

4. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
The assurance framework for CA and PA are too similar.
The audit objective is different, but for PA and direct reporting in CA there are similarities. It is the auditor that gathers subject matter information in both cases.

5. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
Consistence between ISSAI 400 and ISSAI 4000, and overlap.
Consistence between requirements and explanations.
We have worked a lot with these concerns after the hearing. We concluded that some overlap is needed.

6. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
The difference between limited and reasonable assurance.
The differanse between an attestation engagement and a direct reporting engagement.
There was discussions in the CAS meeting in 2014 to make the distinctions clearer in the document, and the hearing gave a lot of feedback on the shortcomings that we have tried to incorporate.

7. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
More explanation and flexibility in phrasing conclusions.
We have made a clearer distinction between giving an opinion (normally in an attestation engagement) and conclusion (normally in an direct reporting engagement). The conclusion(s) is more explaining the findings and answers to audit questions.

8. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
The reflection of different legislative frameworks across INTOSAI. When determening subject matter and audit criteria, an SAI will not always have the ability to influence the scope of the audit work. This should be reflected in the document.
This is reflected through the document.

9. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
The challenges using an assurance framework in a SAI with jurisdictional powers.
The SAI of Tunis, France, Portugal, Brasil and Romania are members of CAS and are SAIs with jurisdictional powers. They find this ISSAI suitable for their audit work.

10. More specific comments that we have worked on
More explanation of selection of areas significant for the intended user.
More explanation of subject matter and scope.
More explanation of materiality through the audit process.

11. Main areas that were commented and how it was delt with
More explanation and indications of the differences between audit strategy and audit plan.

12. More specific comments that we have worked on
More explanation of the methods that can be used to gather audit evidence.
More explanation of audit risk and assurance.
More explanation of audit criteria, their characteristics and the difference between regularity and propriety.

13. More specific comments that we have worked on
More explanation on quality control and procedures to use.
More explanation on audit sampling.

14. More specific comments that we have worked on
More explanation on reporting and report structure when doing an attestation engagement, direct reporting engagement or additional report structure for SAIs with jurisdictional powers.

15. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION