圖為約翰·卡洛斯先生在會計審計準則國際趨同演講會上發(fā)言

國際審計準則的發(fā)展

約翰·卡洛斯 國際審計與鑒證準則理事會主席

　　很高興今天能代表國際審計與鑒證準則理事會（IAASB）來到北京。中國加速國際審計準則趨同的決定體現(xiàn)了你們對國際審計準則的信心，對此，我深表感謝，對于中國注冊會計師協(xié)會（簡稱“中注協(xié)”）應對這一決定而取得的進展表示欽佩。

　　歐盟也作出了類似的決定，很快將開始采用國際審計準則。還有很多國家有類似的政策。IAASB需要確保所制定的國際審計準則能被不同司法體系、歷史和文化的國家所采納。從一定層面上說，我們通過國際審計準則制定中穩(wěn)健而透明的程序來實現(xiàn)該目標。

　　我們完備的準則制定程序是高標準的，最近得到了公眾利益監(jiān)督委員會的批準。該委員會要求我們將制定程序與其他類似的準則制定者進行比較。我們確信我們的準則制定程序是經得起比較的，這將使我們的準則使用者有信心相信國際審計準則是高質量的。

　　我們對完備的準則制定程序有信心的另一個重要原因，是因為我們的會議是向公眾公開的，會議議程等材料可以通過網站免費查看。會議記錄也能在網站找到。這樣一來，人們就可以知道我們討論的依據(jù)究竟是什么，而且，如果他們愿意的話，還可以親耳聆聽討論的內容。

　　對于我們準則的權威性而言，有關當事人能對我們的征求意見稿發(fā)表意見是很重要的。因此，我們一貫將權威性文件予以公開，以便征求意見�？紤]到在國際環(huán)境中這樣做的難度，我們給予120天的時間征求意見—我們希望這已足夠進行翻譯和內部征詢意見，我們認為這對于征求更進一步的意見至關重要。

　　來自不同國家的各種意見有利于確保國際審計準則能為多數(shù)國家接受并無需修正地施行。如果不能達到這個水平，準則就不能被稱為“國際”準則。所以，我們力圖使準則“框架中立”—就是說，運用準則的能力并不取決于任何關于法律或會計框架的假設。當然，有時候出于國情的考慮，需要對準則作出改動—無論這是由于法律的沖突，還是其他一些當?shù)丨h(huán)境的原因。保證這種情況在當?shù)氐靡赃m當解決是各國準則制定者的責任。但有必要注意的是，應確保國際準則不因為國家改變而變得面目全非。我們正在草擬一個政策說明來幫助各國準則制定者決定什么形式的改變是被允許的，同時還能夠確保所制定的準則與國際準則保持一致。

　　我希望在中國，關心審計的人們，或許可以通過中注協(xié)對我們的征求意見稿發(fā)表意見。我希望可以聽到來自中國意見。另一條途徑是我們主辦的由各重要國家審計準則制定者參加的年度會議。我希望中注協(xié)的審計準則委員會可以派代表參加我們的下一次準則制定者會議。這些會議有助于我們認識到所需要處理的問題，因為國際上很多人關注找尋共同的方法以解決共同的問題。

　　IAASB的構成對于制定可接受的準則也是很重要的。目前，在我們的18名委員中，12個國家派出了自己的代表。這種理事會委員構成有兩大好處：第一，將不同環(huán)境下的經驗帶到會上，這有助于IAASB理解在國際審計準則中所允許的各個國家的差異；第二，使IAASB委員認識到行事的方法可以不同于人們最初的理解，——這有助于我們在關鍵的時候變得靈活，還使我們能夠找到最佳的方法。只要是有效的，即使在個別使用準則的國家可能要對準則予以修改的情況下，也應運用的最佳方法。

　　如果關注一下我們的議程和潛在的議程就可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們不乏需要處理的題目。我們的問題是，要尋求平衡，在需要我們采取行動的眾多項目與有限的資源之間尋求平衡，在制定更多準則和“準則泛濫”的危險之間尋求平衡。目前，我們正努力提高我們準則的清晰度。在這方面我們有許多目標，但是，最基本的是剔除可能會對翻譯產生影響的任何語言使用的含糊不清。為達到這一目的，我們?yōu)槊宽棞蕜t都設定了目標，并將之分段，分別包括各自的準則要求和指南。我們希望這將有助于人們清楚地理解準則的要求。這還有助于各國準則制定者在當?shù)夭杉{國際審計準則。比如，在中國，你們將準則要求和指南分列在不同的文件中；其他準則制定者可能也作類似的處理。我們認為，這種分別列示的做法有助于各國準則制定者正確地實施國際審計準則。但我們強調，準則要求和指南對于確保審計師正確理解準則要求都是必需的。

　　我們也正在制定其他不同的項目，如：對關聯(lián)方的考慮、集團財務報表審計、審計中利用專家工作、客戶聲明書以及服務組織。每一個項目都有自己的需要。比如，關于關聯(lián)方項目的制定就在舞弊及其審計項目之后。這一項目更新了關于舞弊方面的國際審計準則，使審計能更有效地識別舞弊所造成的財務報告錯報。但我們還認識到在某些領域舞弊更加普遍，或者更可能產生—如其中之一就是實體與關聯(lián)方的交易和關聯(lián)關系中所產生的舞弊。作為另一個例子，由于會計的發(fā)展，比如更加廣泛地使用公允價值，需要更多地利用專家工作，所以我們正關注利用專家工作項目。

　　在未來的兩年左右時間中，我們還將繼續(xù)致力于這些工作。但由于現(xiàn)有的項目已趨成熟，我們還需要考慮之后我們應該做什么。在使國際審計準則變得清晰的過程中，我們有機會來考慮其他準則是否需要大范圍的修訂。但也有其他題目，比如運用可擴展商業(yè)報告語言（XBRL）系統(tǒng)下的報告，在這種情況下數(shù)據(jù)可以以標準的類別提供給使用者，以便使用者進行分析。可能還會有處理預期信息的需求，而且，要求考慮我們是否可以就鑒證非財務信息發(fā)布一個準則，比如管理報告或持續(xù)經營能力報告。

　　我們還會發(fā)現(xiàn)快速前進的國際環(huán)境要求我們在問題產生時作出更快的反應。比如，很多國家采納了國際財務報告準則（IFRS），但不是所有的能夠完全按照它來做。我們也許會發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們需要考慮審計師如何參考與IFRS類似而非完全就是IFRS的財務報告框架。在這些情況中，人們經常會有種可以理解的愿望，就是參考資料最好是某種經修改了的IFRS.這是否被允許以及被允許到什么程度，是個有難度的問題，這涉及到在復雜的國際環(huán)境中本國法律要求與專業(yè)標準之間的相互影響。

　　我很高興今天能有機會向大家介紹國際準則和IAASB的工作。我確信，我們的工作對于可靠的財務報告和金融穩(wěn)定做出了重要的貢獻。但重要的是，應認識到這一貢獻只是共同努力做好許多事情中的一個部分，這許多的事情包括：會計教育，包括強調道德行為和價值；遵循高質量報告和審計準則的法律、職業(yè)和監(jiān)管要求；對職業(yè)標準的內、外部監(jiān)管；強化公司報告要求；以及懲戒安排。

　　很高興今天和大家在一起，我祝愿中國在國際準則趨同上的努力獲得成功。

　　相關講話鏈接：

　　金人慶在中國會計審計準則體系發(fā)布會上發(fā)表重要講話

　　樓繼偉：中國企業(yè)會計準則建設的可貴實踐和嶄新突破　　　　

　　劉仲藜：創(chuàng)新審計準則體系維護社會公眾利益

　　格雷厄姆·沃德先生在會計審計準則體系發(fā)布會上發(fā)言

　　相關專題：“中國會計審計準則體系發(fā)布”專題

　　講話原文：

　　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.