I write to express concern regarding a significant and unresolved inconsistency between ASIC’s current application of the “supervised audits of companies” requirement and the interpretation endorsed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Birdseye v ASIC [2006].

The central issue in Birdseye was the interpretation of the phrase “supervising audits.” Although the legislative framework has since been amended to include more prescriptive hour-based requirements, Regulation 9.2.01(a)(ii) continues to use the same key language: “supervising audits of companies.”

The Birdseye decision addressed the meaning of this phrase, concluding that “supervision” did not require the applicant to have supervised staff, but could instead include substantive oversight of audit engagements—such as determining audit scope, reviewing documentation, evaluating findings, and ensuring compliance with audit standards.

Similarly, in Murphy v ASIC [2013] AATA 810, the Tribunal reinforced that the key consideration is whether the applicant genuinely supervised audits—not merely participated in them or performed review tasks. Importantly, neither decision required supervision of employees or the employment of staff. The focus was, and remains, on the nature and substance of the applicant’s role in overseeing audit engagements.

Since the introduction of the revised Auditing Competency Standard in 2015 and ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 180 in 2016, however, ASIC’s application of this requirement appears to have shifted. The current approach routinely demands evidence of direct staff supervision—a position that is not supported by legislation or case law, including Birdseye and Murphy.

I bring over 20 years of diverse audit experience, including audits of large proprietary companies, public companies, AFSL holders, small proprietary entities, and self-managed superannuation funds. Yet, despite satisfying both the legislative intent and the practical experience requirements of s1280(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, my application has not progressed due to ASIC’s narrow interpretation of “supervision.”

With Australia facing growing demand for registered auditors—particularly with the emergence of sustainability and ESG assurance—the current licensing approach risks unnecessarily excluding competent professionals. I respectfully suggest that reform is urgently needed to ensure that the registration process aligns with both the legal framework and the practical realities of modern auditing.