Chapter 6: Recap of the questions

Objective

1. Do you agree that we have set the right objective for considering Issues 1 and 2?

Occupational licensing for CRD assurance practitioners

2. Have we described the status quo and problem definition correctly? If not, why not?

3. Do you have any comments about how we have described the co-regulatory model under the Auditor Regulation Act?

4. If co-regulation is the preferred option should we depart from any of the Auditor Regulation Act requirements? If so, which ones and why? 

5. If direct regulation is the preferred option do you agree that the FMA should be the regulator? If not, why not and who else should it be?

6. Do you agree that the hybrid model is not viable? Why/why not?

7. Do you agree with our proposal that the FMA will set the minimum standards for CRD assurance practitioners? Why/why not?

8. Do you agree that we should only regulate the CRD assurance practitioner who takes overall responsibility for the assurance engagement? Why/why not?

9. Have we considered the best options (continuing with the status quo, co-regulation and direct regulation) to assess? If not, what other options should we consider?

10. Do you agree with the criteria we are using to assess the options? Do you consider that the effectiveness criterion should have the most weight or should they all have equal weight?

11. What level of trust and confidence do you think users will have in the climate statements under the status quo?

12. Do you agree with our assessment of the effectiveness criterion? If not, why not?

13. Do you agree with our analysis of the flexibility criterion? If not, why not?

14. Do you agree with our analysis of the competitive neutrality criterion? If not, why not?

15. Do you have any information about set-up and ongoing costs for new professional bodies to obtain the regulatory infrastructure required by the Auditor Regulation Act?

16. Do you agree that new professional bodies will incur much higher costs than professional bodies already accredited under the Auditor Regulation Act to become accredited under a new co-regulatory model for CRD assurance practitioners?

17. Do you agree with our analysis of the efficiency criterion? If not, why not?

18. Do you agree with our assessment of the 3 options? If not, why not?

19. Which option do you prefer and why?

Expanding the scope of assurance

20. Have we described the status quo and problem definition correctly? If not, why not?

21. Do you have any suggestions for non-regulatory options government should support?

22. What comments do you have on the proposal to require full assurance of the climate statement for accounting periods ending on or after October 2028?

23. Do you agree with the criteria we are using to assess the options? Do you consider that the effectiveness criterion should have the most weight or should they all have equal weight?

24. What level of trust and confidence do you think users will have in the climate statements under the status quo?

25. Do you agree with our assessment of the effectiveness criterion? If not, why not?

26. Do you agree with our analysis of the flexibility criterion? If not, why not?

27. Do you have any estimates of cost for obtaining full assurance over a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures based report?

28. Do you have any estimates of cost for obtaining assurance over GHG emissions only?

29. Do you agree with our analysis of the efficiency criterion? If not, why not?

30. Do you have any comments on potential cost impacts of the preferred option and who would be impacted?

31. Do you agree with our assessment of the 4 options? If not, why not?

32. Should there be mandatory assurance requirements in relation to the whole climate statement?

33. What are your views about a staggered implementation of assurance requirements prior to assurance in relation to the whole climate statement?

34. Should the XRB be empowered to stagger assurance requirements?

< Chapter 5: Options for expanding the scope of assurance | Glossary >