Large variations in MUNZ Accounts

The Maritime Union of New Zealand are just starting file their correct financial statements and have released their 2005, 2006 and 2007 Accounts

A quick perusal shows that income received was actually $2.5M in 2007 against the original declaration of $ 573k

Operating expenses was $1.6M more than originally declared.

Full declaration of the consolidated accounts was requested by the Registrar of Incorporated Societies.

The Balance Sheet also shows an $11M increase in assets with $10.1M in fixed term investments.

The 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 Accounts are still to be filed.

More to follow….

  • owl

    Note 2 of the accounts shows the IRD have a claim against MUNZ – in the 2007 accounts for prior period liability -not declared in the original filed returns as well

    Will keep you all posted as the data comes through.

  • blokeintakapuna

    The revised accounts are kinda whiffy… They appear “manufactured”

    Why the huge variations in original filings and the latest?

    Surely in the real world, if any public company or any entity with public / social responsibilities were to file such variances in public accounts – surely the Auditor General would be wanting some detailed explanations?

    These financial accounts are like make-believe finance company ponzi schemes and surely lack the credibility to be even considered slightly legitimate?

    Where is the SFO and the Auditor General? Maybe even the ERA need to be involved – because millions of dollars worth of employee’s contributions are not being properly accounted for.

    Who is checking these accounts 7 years late?

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

      It’s a full time job being militant. Can’t spend much time on trivia like accounts.

  • Dave

    How on earth do you get a variation from $573K to $2.5 MILL……. any other incorporated society would be dealt to. Why isn’t the register asking them why they falsely declared and falsely filed their previous statements, and advising last chance, deregistered if any further breaches.

    • Mr Sackunkrak

      They keep losing it down the back of the couch Dave. I wonder if IRD would be good enough to look at MUNZ’s tax returns for those years?

      Edit: I see Owl is onto it.

  • thor42

    These shonky BASTARDS should be hauled through every court in the country.
    How the HELL can these pricks get away with filing their returns so late???
    I hope they get bloody deregistered.

  • http://twitter.com/WrightMinistry Ian Wright

    “All pigs are equal.. Some pigs are more equal that others.” George Orwell

  • Time For Accountability

    The original accounts were filed as incomplete because they did not publish
    all the pages such as the audit reports. Refer original 2006 and 2007
    accounts.

  • Time For Accountability

    What about the auditors?

    It is a mandadtory requirement of Auditing Standard 100 for an auditor who is a Chartered Accountant. To Abide by Paragraph 35 of AS-100 which states:

    “When expressing an audit opinion, the auditor must be, and appear to be, free of any interest which must be regarded, whatever its actual effect, as being incompatable with integrity, objectivity and independence.

    Independence for a CA is further defined in the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountant. code of ethics.

    These are published on the NZICA website.

    I suggest the MUNZ auditors are what is known as second or third tier accountants which may not have the backup resources to properly conduct an audit such as this.

    They are no independent and ought not to accepted the audit engagement because they prepare and receive fees for preparing accounts of associated entities

    They could be seen as tame auditors so as not to upset the master organization they audit so as to put at risk their fee base.

    They appear to have audited the original accounts which they clearly failed to do properly. The original accounts had significant information suppressed in them and did not comply to the accounting standards that an audit is supposed to take into account. They therefore did not conduct the original audit properly in accordance with NZICA rules.

    Despite that large conflict they produce a second audit report for the revised accounts. without any reference to the changes.

    This is a very serious disciplinary matter.
    .

    • blokeintakapuna

      Agree…

      Reading between the lines – looks like there’s enough room to drive a convoy of Labour Party MP’s down Corruption Drive. Could Owl or any CA comment?

      So the unions ā€œmanagement committeeā€ sets up and manages all the ā€œinternal
      controlsā€ and self-regulates / self manages the effectiveness of these controls
      with the unions financialsā€¦

      Then they get the auditors in where the auditors say

      ā€œNot for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entityā€™s internal controlā€

      ā€¦and 7 years later, MUNZ are only now just getting around to filing correct, altered accounts, still without any oversight into their internal controls.??

      Whatā€™s to say they donā€™t have a dodgy union official siphoning off money for
      prostitutes and cash withdrawals ā€“ like with Thomson in Aussie?

      If the ā€œmanagement committeeā€ were all colluding together to say hide millions of
      dollars worth of assets for instance ā€“ no one would know, because the auditors express no opinion, nor have they lookedā€¦ itā€™s outside their remit.

      So who does check? The 7 year late Registrar?

      Auditor General needs a multi-million dollar wake up rocketā€¦ or at least a HOTLINE to the SFO investigatorsā€¦

      Whiffy whiffy whiffy ā€“ but at least they can still fund the Labour Party!

      • Patrick

        You will more than likely find the dodgy withdrawals are not going on prostitutes etc – they go straight to the Labour Party around election time. Ask Trevor – he was mouthing off about dodgy bagmen funding the Nats – he knows all about how it works.

  • Time For Accountability

    What is NZICA’s role?

    It conducts regular practice reviews of CA firms and audit is part of that.
    There is clear failures in that practice review process.

    NZICA has a pattern of ignoring such shonky practices by its members. There are about 40 finance company failures and very few auditors have been subject to disciplinary procedures.

    Responsibility falls entirely at the NZICA director in charge of Quality Control and Practice Reviews.

    The reason why they turn a deliberate blind eye to this is because NZICA is the body that is supposed to enforce ethics, however, it also runs training course and conducts Practice reviews. If training is inadequate or more likely their practice review process then the last thing they want to do is to have their own inadequacies exposed.

    They are well aware of these deficiencies and want to hide all this by amalgamating with their equivalent Australian body which takes out of existence NZICA while at the same time preserving jobs for the executive.

    I believe there need to be an immediate investigation into NZICA and in particular the executive members that are responsible.

    Until that happens no one could have faith in the audit process.

  • Time For Accountability

    The IRD would only be interest in Wages, FBT, Entertainment tax, GST and income tax on rent and interest. They are not interested in Union fee income.

    • Mr Sackunkrak

      Err, what about profit? You know, the difference between income and expenditure?

  • Time For Accountability

    Should the Labour Party and CTU file consolidated accounts?

    Given the unions have been exposed for filing Financial Statement that were known to be incorrect – now is the time to direct attention on the flow of funds upwards into the CTU and Labour party.

    There are accounting standards covering consolidation. Their may well be an argument to consolidate the associated entities of these lower levels into their associated entities.

    If not then attention needs to be directed towards the funds taken from the lower level to see if they are spent on a proper purpose.

    It appears to me that union funds are being spent to further the political ambitions of individuals within the Union executives rather than for the betterment of Union members.

    Given Union representation in most workforces are low then if I was a member then I would be asking some serious questions about the benefit self promoting union executives get as opposed to the benefits members get.

    • blokeintakapuna

      Seems this topic and story would reach these union members if a seriously good paper such as The Truth was to expose all the nasty goings on to likely union members…

    • In Vino Veritas

      TfA, the other thing that should be looked into, is how the IRD are going to treat the misrepresentation of taxation. Will they lower the boom on MUNZ in terms of penalties for an abusive tax position?

  • Time For Accountability

    Take a lions club.

    They take dues from members and pay affiliation fees.

    That is not taxable.

    But what could cripple the unions is the IRD doing a complete FBT audit for benefits enjoyed by employees.

    Cullen tightened the FBT Rules in his last year of power.

    Challenge to IRD to conduct an FBT audit on Vehicles, entertainment and other benefits and watch the fur fly.

  • owl

    The Owl will be doing a full summary over the next few days

  • Local13

    In the mean time our union fess have gone up from a fixed amount to a percentage of income as they (thought) they needed the extra income

91%