I'm very much in Sandi's debt.   We've published quite a bit of material from Sandi and it's always spot on for accuracy.

Sandi has experience in the business of registering and incorporating associations in Western Australia, particularly in the early to mid 1990s.

If you've read Mark Latham's series of thought bubbles about hypothetical motivations in the thoughts of a corrupt union official and his lawyer/lover - then get ready to come back to earth where real people and real actions live.

Mark Latham may come from a world in which brown paper bags and cash is an unremarkable medium of valuable exchange -- for the rest of us there's the 100 point ID test and a bank account.   Unless, that is, we're fortunate enough to have acquired a slush fund creator along the way.

And keep in mind that for the AWU-WRA scheme to prosper, it had to pass muster with Thiess's external auditors and presumably in the presentation of an acquittal to  the BCITF for its $516,000.

Latham's entire argument is based on a false premise.

From his article:

"Under Western Australian law, associations such as the AWUWRA "enter into a regulated system with formal accountability requirements". They are expected to formulate rules of governance, hold meetings and keep minutes, compile annual reports, keep detailed financial records, audit accounts, and develop risk management procedures. That's a long list of bureaucratic requirements, leaving behind a lengthy paper trail for identifying corrupt behaviour."

What a load of tosh! In my experience, what incorporated associations are "expected" to do (under the legislation) and what they actually do is, in the vast majority of cases, chalk and cheese.

The AWU WRA was registered under the Associations Incorporation Act 1987, administered by the (then) Department for Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP). While there are financial penalties scattered throughout the Act for breaches of its provisions, there is no mechanism for appeal to any authority if an association member or group of members wants to charge other members, its treasurer, president or even the whole commmittee, with breaching the Act.

A phone call to the department to seek guidance for such action brought absolutely no assistance at all then, and won't today. Disaffected members are simply told that the power lies with the members and it isn't the department's role to play any part in bringing offenders to account.

From the current department responsible for the Act (Department of Commerce) Associations info sheet 15:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumerprotection/PDF/Associations/AssocInfoSheet5.pdf

"Associations are traditionally community-based organisations which are largely independent of government intervention. Therefore members in particular have a crucial role in ensuring that their association conducts itself in a way that is acceptable to them.
The Department of Commerce (“the department”) can only intervene in the limited circumstances allowed under the Associations Incorporation Act (1987) (“the Act”), and then generally only to ensure that association members are able to contact one another and to make informed decisions."

Latham's reliance on the unsourced quote "enter into a regulated system with formal accountability requirements" sounds rather imposing but is, in fact, meaningless. The reddest of red herrings.

The Act requires five inaugural members' names and contact details on the application forms. To date we have heard of only two - Wilson and Blewitt. Who were the other three? Were the names and contact details made up? Were they real people whose names were used without their knowledge?  If so, how would they feel about that today? If they did know, what more do they know?