It looks like we are not the only people who have been analyzing the EPMU accounts. We received a detailed spreadsheet from a former Chartered Accountant who has been following the stories on here and decided to do his own analysis since 2003.
The information he provided was unsolicited and anyone who follows the Owl’s writing knows I only use information freely available in the public domain. This is the first time the Owl has used someone else’s research so I spent time verifying their information.
Because it came from a former Chartered Accountant you can appreciate the detail provided is quite magnificent and a very interesting read. He made a number of notations which he has followed up with a letter to the lawyers at the Companies Office which we have seen.
If you make a submission to Parliament you need to be very accurate with your information. A submission provided to Parliament by the EPMU said they represent nearly 50,000 workers (Electoral Finance Bill submission).
Their website says they represent 43,000 workers.
Their Department of Labour return says they have 37,000 members.
As they wrote to Parliament (the highest law in the land) and said they had 50,000 members and their membership fee is $7.30 per week this totals $18,980,000.00 in annual subscriptions but only $11,000,000.00 has been filed in their financial returns.
Which number is correct – 50,000 or 43,000 or 37,000?
If 37,000 then the parliamentary submission and website is incorrect.
If 43,000 then the parliamentary submission and Department of Labour file and financials are incorrect.
If 50,000 then website, DOL file and the revenue in financials are incorrect.
More to come on this analysis.