Wasn't the query from the FT Commissioner of WA about whether...

Wasn't the query from the FT Commissioner of WA about whether the AWU-WRA was a union or not, and the response in Gillard's letter was that it wasn't a union, and therefore was suitable for registration. (This was also covered at the RC when Gillard was questioned.)

At the time there were concerns about the name (AWU-WRA), but obviously it was still allowed.

The FT Commissioner of WA ultimately decides one way or the other whether the AWU-WRA was allowed or not.

If the FT Commissioner of WA believes they were misled, then I'm sure the FT Commissioner of WA has the power to prosecute those who misled them.


When the fraud came to light, the union and police were aware of the AWU-WRA, so in the context of what is being discussed on this thread, and the fact that it was a legal entity, I'm not sure how you see it fits into the discussion.