ASIC deputy commissioner Greg Tanzer said the corporate regulator initially notified more than 800 auditors that they hadn’t met their annual statement requirement and would face cancellation of their registration for failing to do so.
“Of these, 600 headed our warning and complied,” he said.
Mr Tanzer said a final warning was sent to 185 auditors, giving them until the 22 July to comply or have their registration cancelled.
“Of that number, 133 have failed to comply and they have now had their registrations cancelled,” he said.
Mr Tanzer said many of the cancelled auditors were in “that small minority of auditors that really hadn’t issued any audit reports in the last couple of years” and, therefore, had less at stake.
“This perhaps illustrates that specialisation and commitment to standards is really important. We have fewer but we have more active auditors with more to lose from non-compliance.”
He also said it highlights the importance of updating contact details.
“Indeed, one of the reasons some of these went astray was because details had not been updated. People have 21 days of the change occurring to let us know.”
Mr Tanzer said the introduction of the auditor regime has played a critical role in raising the minimum standards of SMSF auditors.
“Under the eyes of both ASIC and the ATO, SMSF auditing has become a more specilised activity, requiring a greater commitment to raising standards, and I think that’s a good thing, especially given the growing importance of this sector,” he said.
Mr Tanzer said the number of auditors is now fairly stable, with the number of new auditors each year generally matching those leaving.
“So there’s nearly 6,700 SMSF auditors currently registered with us and the ATO information suggests about 6,300 of them are active in auditing funds,” he said.
“This is significantly less than the 11,500 professionals that were auditing SMSFs prior to the registration requirement.”
I would agree with Michael about documentation sent to street address and via email to agent and clients via agent. I was lead to believe this practice was going to be revised so ASIC agents could have notices sent direct to clients at a nominated address.
I wonder how many of the “disqualified” have their usual mail to a PO Box? ASIC consistently refuse to send mail to a PO Box and insist on using a street address regardless of the lack of security of a letter box in many commercial areas. We have an ongoing issue with ASIC documents having to be followed up that never show up as ASIC won’t use our PO Box and continue to try and have mail delivered to a non -existent letter box. A number of the disqualified probably are yet to receive the letter that tells them they have not complied and are continuing on unaware.
ASIC wins on all of the delayed responses as it is more late fees every time and no incentive to change.Sir Humphrey is some where in the background here.