图为约翰·卡洛斯先生在会计审计准则国际趋同演讲会上发言

国际审计准则的发展

约翰·卡洛斯 国际审计与鉴证准则理事会主席

　　很高兴今天能代表国际审计与鉴证准则理事会（IAASB）来到北京。中国加速国际审计准则趋同的决定体现了你们对国际审计准则的信心，对此，我深表感谢，对于中国注册会计师协会（简称“中注协”）应对这一决定而取得的进展表示钦佩。

　　欧盟也作出了类似的决定，很快将开始采用国际审计准则。还有很多国家有类似的政策。IAASB需要确保所制定的国际审计准则能被不同司法体系、历史和文化的国家所采纳。从一定层面上说，我们通过国际审计准则制定中稳健而透明的程序来实现该目标。

　　我们完备的准则制定程序是高标准的，最近得到了公众利益监督委员会的批准。该委员会要求我们将制定程序与其他类似的准则制定者进行比较。我们确信我们的准则制定程序是经得起比较的，这将使我们的准则使用者有信心相信国际审计准则是高质量的。

　　我们对完备的准则制定程序有信心的另一个重要原因，是因为我们的会议是向公众公开的，会议议程等材料可以通过网站免费查看。会议记录也能在网站找到。这样一来，人们就可以知道我们讨论的依据究竟是什么，而且，如果他们愿意的话，还可以亲耳聆听讨论的内容。

　　对于我们准则的权威性而言，有关当事人能对我们的征求意见稿发表意见是很重要的。因此，我们一贯将权威性文件予以公开，以便征求意见。考虑到在国际环境中这样做的难度，我们给予120天的时间征求意见—我们希望这已足够进行翻译和内部征询意见，我们认为这对于征求更进一步的意见至关重要。

　　来自不同国家的各种意见有利于确保国际审计准则能为多数国家接受并无需修正地施行。如果不能达到这个水平，准则就不能被称为“国际”准则。所以，我们力图使准则“框架中立”—就是说，运用准则的能力并不取决于任何关于法律或会计框架的假设。当然，有时候出于国情的考虑，需要对准则作出改动—无论这是由于法律的冲突，还是其他一些当地环境的原因。保证这种情况在当地得以适当解决是各国准则制定者的责任。但有必要注意的是，应确保国际准则不因为国家改变而变得面目全非。我们正在草拟一个政策说明来帮助各国准则制定者决定什么形式的改变是被允许的，同时还能够确保所制定的准则与国际准则保持一致。

　　我希望在中国，关心审计的人们，或许可以通过中注协对我们的征求意见稿发表意见。我希望可以听到来自中国意见。另一条途径是我们主办的由各重要国家审计准则制定者参加的年度会议。我希望中注协的审计准则委员会可以派代表参加我们的下一次准则制定者会议。这些会议有助于我们认识到所需要处理的问题，因为国际上很多人关注找寻共同的方法以解决共同的问题。

　　IAASB的构成对于制定可接受的准则也是很重要的。目前，在我们的18名委员中，12个国家派出了自己的代表。这种理事会委员构成有两大好处：第一，将不同环境下的经验带到会上，这有助于IAASB理解在国际审计准则中所允许的各个国家的差异；第二，使IAASB委员认识到行事的方法可以不同于人们最初的理解，——这有助于我们在关键的时候变得灵活，还使我们能够找到最佳的方法。只要是有效的，即使在个别使用准则的国家可能要对准则予以修改的情况下，也应运用的最佳方法。

　　如果关注一下我们的议程和潜在的议程就可以发现，我们不乏需要处理的题目。我们的问题是，要寻求平衡，在需要我们采取行动的众多项目与有限的资源之间寻求平衡，在制定更多准则和“准则泛滥”的危险之间寻求平衡。目前，我们正努力提高我们准则的清晰度。在这方面我们有许多目标，但是，最基本的是剔除可能会对翻译产生影响的任何语言使用的含糊不清。为达到这一目的，我们为每项准则都设定了目标，并将之分段，分别包括各自的准则要求和指南。我们希望这将有助于人们清楚地理解准则的要求。这还有助于各国准则制定者在当地采纳国际审计准则。比如，在中国，你们将准则要求和指南分列在不同的文件中；其他准则制定者可能也作类似的处理。我们认为，这种分别列示的做法有助于各国准则制定者正确地实施国际审计准则。但我们强调，准则要求和指南对于确保审计师正确理解准则要求都是必需的。

　　我们也正在制定其他不同的项目，如：对关联方的考虑、集团财务报表审计、审计中利用专家工作、客户声明书以及服务组织。每一个项目都有自己的需要。比如，关于关联方项目的制定就在舞弊及其审计项目之后。这一项目更新了关于舞弊方面的国际审计准则，使审计能更有效地识别舞弊所造成的财务报告错报。但我们还认识到在某些领域舞弊更加普遍，或者更可能产生—如其中之一就是实体与关联方的交易和关联关系中所产生的舞弊。作为另一个例子，由于会计的发展，比如更加广泛地使用公允价值，需要更多地利用专家工作，所以我们正关注利用专家工作项目。

　　在未来的两年左右时间中，我们还将继续致力于这些工作。但由于现有的项目已趋成熟，我们还需要考虑之后我们应该做什么。在使国际审计准则变得清晰的过程中，我们有机会来考虑其他准则是否需要大范围的修订。但也有其他题目，比如运用可扩展商业报告语言（XBRL）系统下的报告，在这种情况下数据可以以标准的类别提供给使用者，以便使用者进行分析。可能还会有处理预期信息的需求，而且，要求考虑我们是否可以就鉴证非财务信息发布一个准则，比如管理报告或持续经营能力报告。

　　我们还会发现快速前进的国际环境要求我们在问题产生时作出更快的反应。比如，很多国家采纳了国际财务报告准则（IFRS），但不是所有的能够完全按照它来做。我们也许会发现，我们需要考虑审计师如何参考与IFRS类似而非完全就是IFRS的财务报告框架。在这些情况中，人们经常会有种可以理解的愿望，就是参考资料最好是某种经修改了的IFRS.这是否被允许以及被允许到什么程度，是个有难度的问题，这涉及到在复杂的国际环境中本国法律要求与专业标准之间的相互影响。

　　我很高兴今天能有机会向大家介绍国际准则和IAASB的工作。我确信，我们的工作对于可靠的财务报告和金融稳定做出了重要的贡献。但重要的是，应认识到这一贡献只是共同努力做好许多事情中的一个部分，这许多的事情包括：会计教育，包括强调道德行为和价值；遵循高质量报告和审计准则的法律、职业和监管要求；对职业标准的内、外部监管；强化公司报告要求；以及惩戒安排。

　　很高兴今天和大家在一起，我祝愿中国在国际准则趋同上的努力获得成功。

　　相关讲话链接：

　　金人庆在中国会计审计准则体系发布会上发表重要讲话

　　楼继伟：中国企业会计准则建设的可贵实践和崭新突破　　　　

　　刘仲藜：创新审计准则体系维护社会公众利益

　　格雷厄姆·沃德先生在会计审计准则体系发布会上发言

　　相关专题：“中国会计审计准则体系发布”专题

　　讲话原文：

　　Development of International Standardson Auditing

Speech by John Kellas， Chairman IAAS Bon the Release Ceremony for Chinese Accounting Standards System for Business Enterprises and Chinese Auditing Standards System

Beijing， 15 February， 2006

　　It is a great pleasure to be able to represent the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board （IAASB） in Beijing today. I should like to express my appreciation of the confidence shown in the International Standards on Auditing （ISAs） by the decision of China to accelerate convergence with the ISAs； and my admiration for the way in which the CICPA has made progress in response to that decision.

　　A similar decision has been taken by the European Union， which will shortly be going through the process of endorsing the ISAs. And there are many other countries who have similar policies. At IAASB， we need to ensure that we write ISAs that can be adopted in jurisdictions with such different legal systems， histories and cultures. We do this， in part， by having a sound and transparent process for the development of the ISAs.

　　Our due processes are of a very high standard. They have recently been approved by the Public Interest Oversight Board， which required us to compare our processes with those of other comparable standard setters. We believe that ours stood up well to this comparison， and should give those who use our standards confidence that the ISAs will be of high quality.

　　An important part of our determination to create confidence in our due process is that our meetings are open to the public， and the agenda materials are freely available on our web site. Recordings of our meetings are also placed on the web site. In this way， people can see exactly what our discussions are based on， and hear， if they wish， the discussions themselves.

　　It is important to the authority of our standards that interested parties should be able to comment on our proposals. We therefore always expose any intended authoritative document for comment. Recognising the difficulties of doing this in the international context， we allow 120 days for responses to proposals—enough， we hope， to allow for translation and domestic consultation to take place， which we think are essential to encourage the depth of comment we are seeking.

　　A good range of comment from many jurisdictions is essential to help us to ensure that our ISAs will be acceptable and will work in most countries without amendment. If this were not the case， they would cease to be‘international’standards. So we try to make them‘framework neutral’—that is， the ability to use them does not depend on any assumption about legal or accounting frameworks. Of course， sometimes domestic considerations will require changes to the standards—either because of a conflict of law， or some other local circumstance. It is for national standard setters to ensure that such matters are appropriately dealt with at local level. But care is necessary， to ensure that the international standards are not undermined by country changes. We are working on a policy statement to help national standard setters to decide what type of variation might be permitted， while preserving the ability to deem the resulting standards compliant with international standards.

　　I hope that those in China with an interest in auditing will make comments on our proposals， perhaps through the CICPA. A further avenue through which I am looking for input from China is the annual meeting we hold with important national auditing standard setters. I hope that the CICPA’s auditing standards board can be represented at our next meeting of standard setters. These meetings help us to identify issues that we should be dealing with because there is sufficient international concern to achieve a common solution to common problems.

　　The composition of the IAASB is also important in the context of the development of acceptable standards. At present， amongst our 18 members， 12 countries are represented round the table. This broad membership has 2 advantages： first， it brings to the table a range of experiences of different environments， and this helps the IAASB to understand the differences between jurisdictions that need to be allowed for within the ISAs； secondly， it allows IAASB members to see that there may be different ways of doing things than they had at first understood—this can help us to be flexible when it is important to be so， but it also allows us to identify the best approach which， provided it will work， should be adopted even though it may require changes within certain countries that use the standards.

　　Looking at our agenda， and our potential agenda， we are not short of possible topics to be tackled. Our problem is to balance the need for action on our part， with our resources and the ever-present danger of“standards overload”， which can be counter-productive. At present， we are working hard to improve the clarity of our standards. We have a number of objectives in this project， but the principal one is to remove any ambiguity in our use of language that might affect the interpretation of the requirements. We are doing this by introducing objectives into each standard， followed by separate sections that include respectively requirements and guidance. We hope this will help people to understand clearly what the standards are requiring. It may also help national standard setters to adopt the ISAs locally. In China， for example， you separate requirements and guidance in different documents； other standard setters may do something similar. We think that for us to make that separation will assist national standard setters in the proper implementation of the ISAs. But we stress that both requirements and guidance are necessary to ensure that the requirements are properly understood by auditors.

　　We are also working on projects as diverse as the consideration of related parties； the audit of group financial statements； the use of experts on an audit； representation letters； and service organisations. Each of these projects responds to an identified need. For example， our work on related parties follows on from our work on fraud and the audit. That project updated our ISA on fraud to try to make the audit more effective in identifying when financial statements are misstated because of fraud. But we also recognise that there are some areas where fraud is more prevalent， or more likely—and one of these is in transactions and relationships between an entity and parties related to it. As another example， we are looking at the use of experts since developments in accounting， such as greater use of fair values， are tending to require greater use of specialist expertise.

　　These matters will keep us occupied for the next 2 years or so. But we also need to consider what we need to do after that time， as current projects mature. The process of clarifying our ISAs will give us an opportunity to consider whether any other standards require more extensive revision. But there are also other topics， such as reporting using XBRL， under which a set of data can be supplied to users in standard categories which allow users to manipulate the data readily for analysis. There may also be a need to deal with forecast information， and there are demands to consider whether we should issue a standard on assurance on non-financial information such as management or sustainability reports.

　　We may also find that the fast moving international environment requires us to find ways of responding to issues more quickly as they arise. For example， many jurisdictions are adopting International Financial Reporting Standards （IFRS）， but not all find that they can do so completely. We may find that we need to consider how auditors can refer to financial reporting frameworks that are close to IFRS， but not wholly IFRS. There is often an understandable desire in these cases that the references should be to some form of modified IFRS. Whether， and how far， this should be allowed is a difficult question， involving the interplay of domestic legal requirements and professional standards in a complex international environment.

　　I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to you today about international standards and the work of the IAASB. Our work， I am sure， makes an important contribution to reliable financial reporting， and therefore to financial stability. But it is important to recognise that this contribution is only one among many others that have a part to play in achieving this： accountancy education， including an emphasis on ethical behaviour and values； legal， professional and regulatory requirements to follow high quality standards of reporting and auditing； internal and external monitoring of professional standards； enforcement of corporate reporting requirements； and disciplinary arrangements.

　　It has been a pleasure to be with you today； I wish China well in its endeavours to achieve convergence with international standards.