Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit carried out in accordance with the Auditor-General’s Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements are differences or omissions of amounts or disclosures, and can arise from fraud or error. Misstatements are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the decisions of readers, taken on the basis of these financial statements and the performance information. For the budget information reported in the financial statements and the performance information, our procedures were limited to checking that the information agreed to the Human Rights Commission’s statement of performance expectations. We did not evaluate the security and controls over the electronic publication of the financial statements and the performance information. As part of an audit in accordance with the Auditor-General’s Auditing Standards, we exercise professional judgement and maintain professional scepticism throughout the audit. Also: • We identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and the performance information, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. • We obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Human Rights Commission’s internal control. • We evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by the Board. • We evaluate the appropriateness of the reported performance information within the Human Rights Commission’s framework for reporting its performance. • We conclude on the appropriateness of the use of the going concern basis of accounting by the Board and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Human Rights Commission’s ability to continue as a going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditor’s report to the related disclosures in the financial statements and the performance information or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditor’s report. However, future events or conditions may cause the Human Rights Commission to cease to continue as a going concern. • We evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements and the performance information, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements and the performance information represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. We communicate with the Board regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit. Our responsibilities arise from the Public Audit Act 2001. 61