Questions for Y0133609, Australian Skeptics Inc.

Arising from their Financial Reports, there are a number of serious questions the Office Bearers and 16 members of NSW Association Y0133609,  "Australian Skeptics Inc" need to answer:

• The Primary Activity of Y0133609 has been to publish the magazine, The Skeptic.
• The Primary Purpose of Y0133609 has been the activities and finances related to the magazine.
• Y0133609 has been carrying on a significant Commercial activity in selling the magazine to the Public.
• The Office Bearers of Y0133609 have been seriously remiss and derelict in their duties:
• The failure to lodge returns from 1996-1999. Once is an accident, more is not.
• The minimalist account data provided in the 1996-1999 returns, if presented to members, would not allow them to create a full and informed view of the Association activities or operations as can be shown by earlier and later accounts. If fuller accounts were presented to members, why would they not be filed?
• The failure to lodge returns for the following 10 years. This is negligence, incompetence or deliberate - any and all of which should be enough to dismiss the Committee and appoint an Administrator.
• The failure to lodge returns for the years GST was paid, 2001, 2002 and accounts must have been prepared for ATO filings.
• Failure to notify a change of Public Officer for 5 years.
• Trading using the Association name, bank accounts and credit card for the ~10mths De-Registered period, 25-May-2009 to 06-Apr-2010.
• The structure and name do not reflect the Association Activities.

The Primary Activity of Y0133609 has been to publish the magazine, The Skeptic.

The percentage of operating revenue directly attributed to Magazine Subscriptions was ~55% pre-1997, after which a full-time Editor/Executive Officer was appointed. It was then clearly their major financial activity and focus at the time, potentially their primary Activity.

The announcement of the appointment of a full-time paid Editor in The Skeptic, 1996 #4, very precisely outlines the reasons and expected outcomes, demonstrating precisely the Associations attitude to the Magazine: it was their primary activity. It also clearly annunciates that this publication is seen as a magazine of general interest, not a simple internal newsletter.

(p5) As indicated in the previous issue, changes are happening both to the Skeptic and in the organisation of Australian Skeptics. Partially as a result of the higher profile Australian Skeptics has achieved through its support of the Eureka Prizes, the Mt Stromlo Science Exploratory and other public activities encouraging critical and scientific thinking, and partly as the result of targeted advertising in New Scientist and other publications, we have achieved an increase in subscribers of almost 30% in the past four months.
I joined the newly formed Australian Skeptics in 1980. When the first magazine emerged as a four-page broadsheet, we had a few score of subscribers
This has been by far the largest increase we have achieved in our 17 years of existence, and it affords us a great deal of satisfaction.
It became apparent that, if the organisation was to continue to grow, then it was necessary for the Skeptics to employ a full-time executive officer and editor.
At a meeting on November 16, the committee of Australian Skeptics Inc considered and approved a proposition that a person be employed to carry out the administrative, public relations and editorial functions of Australian Skeptics. 

Included in the job description are:

• requirements to increase the frequency of the Skeptic (from the beginning of 1998) to six issues per year; 

• to increase our subscriber base to such an extent that the magazine can, in the future, be sold through newsagents;

• to act as a resource for the various state and regional committees; and

• to be available to provide information to the media and the public in furtherance of our aims.

The committee further agreed that the position should be offered to me and that I be employed as a full time officer of Australian Skeptics from January 1, 1997.  Any rumours that I held the committee at gunpoint until they agreed to offer me the position should be greeted with grave scepticism (it was the Semtex I strapped to their legs that did the job).
As a result of my acceptance of this office, the presidency of Australian Skeptics Inc became vacant and, in an election, Dr Richard Gordon was elected unopposed.
The number of subscribers continued to grow slowly and, by the end of 1990, was approaching 800.
In 1990, personal circumstances forced Tim to give up editing the magazine and he asked me to take over. I agreed, just for one issue, but something happened and this issue is my 26th.
Since 1990, the magazine has grown to a regular 68 pages and subscriptions have increased to almost 2000, with the increase this year being the largest in our history.
I am proud of the fact that the Skeptic is now one of the three largest Skeptical publications in the world, and is widely regarded as one of the best. Our renewal rate of better than 85%, is comparable with the best for any magazine.

In 2003/2004, well into the full-time Editor era, subscriptions were around 75% of revenue, rising to near 80% in 200/2010, despite income from a State events, National Conference, Eureka Prizes, "TAM", DVD sales and other merchandise.
The 2011 figures are around 40%. Is this an aberration of a long-overdue correction? We can't know yet.
[The 92% of 2005 has to be regarded as an anomaly]

The appointment of the same individual to Editor and Executive Officer does not necessarily conflate the two, nor imply that the publication is the Principal Activity.

We can see the mind and intent of the Editor/Executive Officer and those who appointed him, and to whom he reported as an employee, in both the financial results over the years (the increasing percentage of operating revenues) and the emphasis and focus on the magazine, not other activities, in the 1996 announcement.

This same emphasis on the magazine and the number of subscribers, to the near exclusion of all other activities, is followed in all Editorials until the end of 2008 when the inaugural paid Editor left.

The Primary Purpose of Y0133609 has been the magazine and the activities and finances related to it.

This is an argument about a Primary, not Sole, purpose. After 25 years of publishing, there should be a good deal of evidence, in the form of words and actions, to demonstrate what they do, not just say they do or intended to do as stated in their Aims and Objects.

What is the difference between Activity and Purpose?
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Their purposes: intention, aim, object,objective, goal, end, plan, scheme, target; ambition, aspiration.
Activity: a thing that a person or group does or has done.

Is there anything on the public record that gives us a good indication?
Yes. the official publication of Y0133609, the Skeptic, which since 2009 self-describes as the "Quarterly Organ of Australian Skeptics Inc" qualifies. There are currently 81 full copies on-line (1990-2010 + 2011 #1)

There are six areas to examine :

• Capability: Just what can an Association of 16 volunteers, with one full-time employee do? Purpose is suggested by where they choose to bring their limited effort and resources to bear.  A largish quarterly magazine with good production values by itself would tax their resources.
• Nomenclature: Very particular language is used to describe those paying a fee to Y0133609, whom might  ordinarily think they are part of a general membership: 'subscribers' not 'members', 'sceptics' (individuals not Sceptics, the Collective), 'fellow sceptics' or 'critical thinkers', 'comrades' or 'compatriots'.
• Financial activity: Whilst there are some projects like "TAM", the (rotating) national conference and a couple of "World Congresses", most of Y0133609's revenue is spent on its Primary Activity: the magazine. The flip side of this is that local groups charge their own membership fees. The accounts show only sparodic, variable "grants" to the local groups - indicating that subscription fees to the Skeptic constitute nothing more than a fee for the magazine.
• Editorial Content: There was a lot of content, often around renewal time, dedicated to drumming up more subscriptions and renewals. For a time they were pushing half-price "Gift Subscriptions". Subscription matters has been a consistent focus of editorials.
• Editorial Space: I found one of 81 editorial focussing on activities that regional groups could undertake to keep themselves going and invigorated.
• Space allocated elsewhere: What other activities of Y0133609 or the other groups were reported?  For a time there were regular "Branch News" reports, but never a NSW report. There were reports on large projects as well, like "TAM" or the "World Congress". What seemed to be the most advertised and reported non-publishing activity of Y0133609  was the "NSW Dinners". But I saw exceedingly little space dedicated to other activities apart from the occasional large project run by Y0133609 or not. Projects not run by Y0133609 cannot be considered part of their activities and hence are not their purpose.
• Promoting membership of the related groups: This is almost non-existent.

The most surprising thing are the omissions, the sorts of things you'd expect in a magazine meant for the members of an Association, especially a national body implicit in the name "Australian Skeptics Inc", rather than what you'd expect for a general circulation niche publication:

• The "From the President" column was discontinued in 1995 after 4 years when the Editor became the full-time Editor/Executive Officer and issued "Editorials" instead. The only pieces from Office Bearers had nothing to do with Association matters or members interests.
• A column published entitled "Getting Involved" was published once. A national body with local groups trying to build and sustain an active membership, not a subscriber base for a magazine, would have this as a regular feature.
• The absence of Association procedural items, like notices of AGM's and Elections, mandated reports (President, Secretary, Treasurer) and lists of Office Bearers. These may have been included as separate inserts, but this whilst some inserts are mentioned, these never are.

Contrast this with the amount of editorial comment on subscriptions, increasing the subscriber base and renewal rates. All these are prime interests of a public magazine, and merely important to an Association members-only publication.

Subscribers, not Members.

You have to remember that Y0133609 declares 16 members, versus the website claim of "Australian Skeptics" [not Y0133609] having "4000 members". Whereas in the magazine, I could only find one reference to the general membership as "members", otherwise they've been consistently called "subscribers". The phrase "committee member" or "member(s) of the committee" is also consistently used, indicating there is no confusion between the meaning of the two words.

In 1990 #3, the editor writes: "I wish to thank all those members of the Skeptics [italics added] who have been so kind with their condolences.", which is the only reference to potentially the general membership, not just committees, which didn't use the term "subscribers".

That this term has been used by the editors so consistently for so long, with only one early slip, suggests a very clear world view: the people who read the Skeptic, for whom it is produced and are its target audience, are subscribers in the true publishing sense and have always been so in the minds of the editors and publishers.

The use of the term subscribers is so pervasive that it shows up in Letters to self-describe correspondents whom would be calling themselves members of other Associations.

There is also the curiously low turnover of Office Bearers, highlighted by "all four individuals who have presided over NSW Skeptics in its 25 years". Many Associations, especially for National Committees, have strictly limited terms for Office Bearers to prevent individuals or groups 'capturing' the organisation.

1994 # 1: "A Statement of Purpose", Editorial.

 It is, of course, the right of any Skeptic to be concerned about these issues and the magazine provides a forum for the airing of these concerns.
        As both the president of the national committee and as the editor of the Skeptic, I feel it is important to make it clear how I see the role of the organisation and the publishing policy of the Skeptic.
        Australian Skeptics is an organisation which chooses, as the Aims make clear, “to investigate paranormal, pseudoscientific and similarly anomalous phenomena from a responsible, scientific point of view”.
        Included in this definition is the right to challenge the use of genuine science to draw unwarranted conclusions.
        However, while Australian Skeptics approaches these issues using the tools of science and critical enquiry, it is not a learned scientific society with a narrow focus on any particular scientific area.
        It is an organisation whose audience comprises those sections of the professional and lay public who are interested in scientific matters and who question claims or assertions which rely on dogmatic explanations.
        While scepticism is an essential tool for the scientist, a comprehensive knowledge of science is not essential for a sceptic.
        The organisation does not involve itself in political, social, religious or other issues, unless they exhibit a paranormal or pseudoscientific dimension.
        Australian Skeptics has no dogma; it is not politically correct; nor does it prescribe moral stances, for such attitudes are the very antithesis of scepticism.
        It does not take positions on issues, it only asks that any position that is taken be supported by evidence.
        Australian Skeptics is an organisation for sceptics, not for ideologues.

1994 #3: "A Brief History of the Australian Skeptics"

Editorship passed to Janet de Silva in 1983, followed by Anne Tuohy in 1985 and moved to Sydney under the pen of Tim Mendham in November 1986. At this time, Mark Plummer went to the USA to become CSICOP’s Executive Director, and the New South Wales branch committee became the National Committee with Barry Williams at the helm.  By late 1987, Tim, who was wearing five hats - editor, secretary, archivist, treasurer and shouldering the responsibility for back issues, wilted under the strain.

1996 #3: "New Subscribers"

I can tell you that Barry Williams [our redoubtable editor and NSW president] and Kathy Butler [Victorian president] are just about bursting with joy at the number of new subscriptions that have been arriving via the Internet. At least 28 individual email requests to join the Australian Skeptics have arrived, and Barry informs me that many more have been arriving from people who have used their own PC to print the subscription form directly from the Web page.
With this many new subscribers, the Internet domain has almost paid for itself.

1996 # 4: "Time for a Change", Editorial.

 I am proud of the fact that the Skeptic is now one of the three largest Skeptical publications in the world, and is widely regarded as one of the best. Our renewal rate of better than 85%, is comparable with the best for any magazine.  In my new role, it is my aim to continue the improv ments in both the quality and the appearance of the magazine, and, with your continuing support, I expect to succeed.

2006 #1: "NSW Skeptics Dinner Meetings"

The occasion, incidentally, was one at which all four individuals who have presided over NSW Skeptics in its 25 years, were present. The photo of this curious conjunction, above, given the expressions on the faces of Messrs (L to R) Gordon, Hadley, Saunders and Williams, possibly has something to say about the burdens of incumbency compared with the relief that comes from retirement.

"A Statment of Purpose" [sic], Editorial 1994 #1
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/1994/1.pdf

"A Brief History of the Australian Skeptics" 1994 # 3, by Harry Edwards, Life Member, now ex-communicated.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/1994/3.pdf

"Time for a Change", Editoral 1996 #4. p5
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/1996/4.pdf

"To be a Skeptic", Editorial 2007 #1.  Outlines their position
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2007/1.pdf

And the top/tail Editorials of the editorial change-over: the departure of the 20+ year President/Editor/Executive Officer ("the only Professional Skeptic in Australia." ie. paid)
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2008/1.pdf
http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2008/4.pdf


In summary, the term 'subscriber' not 'member' is used consistently in the magazine produced as the main activity of Y0133609 quite intentionally, and it appears, correctly. The 99+% of non-member subscribers were just paying for a magazine, nothing more, despite the small, random 'grants' to other groups.  The small membership of Y0133609, and the even smaller cohort who've been Office Bearers, do not have the resources, time or staff to undertake any other major activity besides producing the magazine. The on-going content and Editorial statements reinforces this view.

Y0133609 has been carrying on a significant Commercial activity in selling the magazine to the Public.

From the 2010 and 2011 returns (15 and 16 members declared), we now know that the assertion made in Reasons to be Skeptical, Subscribers are not Members, is true.

From the current website, they are "a loose confederation of groups across Australia", not a federated group of Associations with a system of representatives reporting to a notional National Body, like the Australian Computer Society Inc. (ABN: 53 156 305 487) who since the late 1960's have operated as a set of related Associations, not under ASIC as a Company Limited by Guarantee (as does the ACS's related Foundation).

The A.C.S. is an important comparison for two reasons: the length of time they've operated as a set of State Branches with a National body, and that a number of Y0133609's Office Bearers, including Presidents, were members and/or Office Bearers of the A.C.S.
Y0133609 had a perfect model for Branches+National Body+representative processes that was very well understood by their Office Bearers, yet they chose not to implement it.

If Y0133609 claims "all members of sister groups/associations are notional members of our Association", they need to explain both their website "loose confederation" statement and the lack of registration and administrative structures similar to the A.C.S., hence selling to Y0133609 and members of 'sister bodies' could be construed as providing a magazine to only members, and as such, is not a Commercial activity.
But how do they explain for 25-years years not allowing those other members any representation Nationally? Would such a public statement allow the notional branches to sue for lack of access?

If Y0133609 claims "there is no branch structure" and they have no suits to answer, then they can only claim their members (16 of 4000 subscribers) as non-Commercial subscribers. Or 99.6% of subscriptions are sold to non-members, who under the Act are the General Public.
A clear Commercial Activity and directly against the Objects of the Act.

If the NSW Associations Registrar grants that Y0133609 notionally represents all members of Sceptics groups around Australia, then they still have a real problem:

To what group do non-member subscribers in New South Wales belong? We know from the filings that Y0133609 only has 15-16 members, yet 4000 subscribers are claimed now, and is consistent with numbers released over 20 years in The Skeptic.

Under the Act and the default model Rules and now Constitution that apply to Y0133609, there is no provision for "non-member subscribers", they can only be counted as members of the General Public. The point of allowing Associations to Incorporate is that individuals have to explicitly join, they are not, and cannot be, automatically included because they self-identify as sympathisers or groups that can be identified as sharing characteristics. Formal membership, not sympathisers, is enshrined in the legislation in many ways (elections and voting rights, AGM attendance, member register, rights to examine records/registers, standing as Office Bearers, admittance and disciplinary/expulsion processes, ...).

Without access to the members register of Y0133609 and The Skeptic's subscriber list, we cannot know the precise count of non-member subscribers in New South Wales. This group of members of the General Public will not naturally join any of the other Associations (maybe one of the two informal groups in the Hunter or NSW-VIC border regions).

Extrapolating from ABS population data, you'd expect around 40% of National subscribers to be from New South Wales. If there were "network effects" present, they may be over-represented as a group because of the major events held in Sydney over the years would attract more locals who'd bring in their families, friends and acquaintances.

A reasonable estimate is 25-35% of the 4000 subscribers to The Skeptic are residents of New South Wales who could reasonably expect to be members of Y0133609, but are not, and are not members of any of the other registered Associations. [1996 base of ~30% +/- 5%]

Intentionally selling 25-35% (1,000-1,500) of the magazine subscriptions to members of the General Public must constitute a Commercial Activity. It was both deliberate and large-scale, not incidental or, like selling to libraries or 'gift subscriptions', incidental.

Even more so when coupled with the public statements in support of a full-time paid Editor in The Skeptic, 1996 #4 of increasing to 6 issues a year and selling through Newsagents.

This was a clearly articulated strategy, presumably backed by a business plan and continuing reporting to the Committee of Y0133609.
This is irrefutable and unambiguous evidence that the Committee, Office Bearers and paid Editor/Executive Officer all concurred and all considered the magazine to be on sale to the General Public and its was at least revenue-neutral, if not a profit-centre : i.e. it was a Commercial Activity.

The magazine advertised the sale of merchandise and events by Y0133609 as well as accepted advertisements for goods and services by third parties, in the style of fully commercial magazines, not mere member publications.

Taken together, these three arguments (no State Branches, NSW subscribers, sell through Newsagents) make a powerful case for the deliberate, long-term running of a significant Commercial Activity, the promotion and publishing/sale of The Skeptic to non-members, in direct contravention of the objects of the NSW Associations Incorporation Act (1984 and 2009).

The Office Bearers of Y0133609 have been seriously remiss and derelict in their duties.

There is a very clear and disturbing pattern of behaviour beginning in 1996, a very cavalier approach to their duties and jobs.

The duties of the Public Officer and Office Bearers towards the NSW Associations Registrar have not been fulfilled. The failure to lodge any documents for 10 years should seen as an egregious act and outrageous behaviour.

Y0133609 has only had two Public Officers:

• start to 21-July-1997: Timothy Mendham
• 21-July-1997 to 10-Dec-2009: Richard Lead
• 10-Dec-2009 to current: Timothy Mendham

The only problem is that Mr Lead was prominent in The Skeptic, even being described as 'Treasurer and a Treasure' until the end of 2003, then is never mentioned again. Like other ejectees before him that we know were formally expelled expelled (Harry Edwards), we know nothing of Mr Lead after 2003, expect that he failed to perform his duties as Public Officer.

Trading for the better part of a year whilst the Association did not exist, seems like systematic misrepresentation at best or at worst fraud to me. From the financial records of those two years, we see no mention of two sets of accounts or bank accounts/credit card facilities, as would be necessary if the Association did cease to trade and other arrangements were made.

We know that the Editors and Office Bearers/Committee were complicit and involved in these actions because of two things on public record:

• There is no mention of these rather dire organisational events within The Skeptic, rather the reverse, the Association name, ABN and address are still used to formally identify the publisher and for payments.
• An act of commission, not omission: For two issues, the (bogus) association name, "NSW Skeptics Inc", was used to identify the group to contact if in New South Wales. This term, still bogus, was only used once previously, in issue #4 of 1996 , in reporting grants from the ASS&EF Foundation to the various bodies.

This is negligence, incompetence or deliberate malfeasance - any and all of which should be cause for the NSW Association Registrar to at least dismiss the Committee and appoint an Administrator.

• The failure to lodge returns from 1996-1999. Once is an accident, more is not.
• The minimalist account data provided in the 1996-1999 returns, if presented to members, would not allow them to create a full and informed view of the Association activities or operations as can be shown by earlier and later accounts. If fuller accounts were presented to members, why would they not filed? That inadequate accounts were presented to members and the Committee is supported by the 1995 statement of Steve Roberts questioning the competence of the Treasurer and labelling the accounts presented as "a farce". 
• The failure to lodge returns for the following 10 years. This can't have been accident.
• The failure to lodge returns for the years GST was paid, 2001, 2002 and accounts must have been prepared for ATO filings.
• Failure to notify a change of Public Officer for 5 years.
• Trading using the Association name, bank accounts and credit card for the ~10mths De-Registered period, 25-May-2009 to 06-Apr-2010.

The structure and name do not reflect the Association Activities.

Restating and expanding the arguments from the section above,  "carrying on a significant Commercial activity".

From the 2010 and 2011 returns (15 and 16 members declared), we now know that the assertion made in Reasons to be Skeptical, Subscribers are not Members, is true. Since 2002, this has been generally published on the Internet and not refuted or challenged by Y0133609, its Office Bearers or any of the individuals involved.

Doubly strange because of the very strongly worded email response to the editor of the Australian Rationalist, and the law suit(s) that were undertaken within the group.

Was not pursuing the matter at all, let alone vigorously as promised an oversight, a tacit admission of fact or a loss of interest? Does this lack of action reflect on the thinking and intentions of Y0133609, its Office Bearers, Committee and employees? That's a question for others to consider.

From the current website, they are "a loose confederation of groups across Australia", not a federated group of Associations with a system of representatives reporting to a notional National Body, like the Australian Computer Society Inc. (ABN: 53 156 305 487) who since the late 1960's have operated as a set of related Associations, not under ASIC as a Company Limited by Guarantee (as does the ACS's related Foundation).

The A.C.S. is an important comparison for Y0133609 for two reasons:

• the length of time they've operated as a set of State Branches with a National body, and
•  that a number of Y0133609's Office Bearers, including Presidents, were members and/or Office Bearers of the A.C.S. 

Y0133609 had a perfect model to follow in the A.C.S. for Branches + National Body + "representative processes" that was very well understood by their Office Bearers, yet they chose not to implement it. They cannot claim ignorance, especially with the number of highly qualified legal experts in the controlling group, explicitly or as known associates.

Further evidence of not just poor co-operation, but potentially mutual ambivalence and/or antagonism is the lack of sub-domains on the website/DNS name.
Since the website started, circa 1996, with the first webmaster/content creator from Victoria, they have setup the natural state-based sub-domains (e.g. qld.skeptics.com.au, vic.skeptics.com.au, ...). A sub-domain costs nothing extra and commits them to running nothing on their webserver.  For the small groups with no website, the sub-domain could point to a free hosting service, even Google.

Of the 10 groups listed on the contacts page, these are the websites noted on their individual pages:

• Victoria: vicskeptics.wordpress.com
• South Australia: www.skepticssa.org.au
• Canberra: www.canberraskeptics.org.au
• Western Australia: www.undeceivingourselves.org

If Y0133609 claims "all members of sister groups/associations are notional members of our Association", they need to explain both their website "loose confederation" statement and the lack of registration and administrative structures similar to the A.C.S.

How do they explain that for 25-years years they have not allowed members of notionally related Association any representation Nationally, as you'd expect from an organisation named "Australian Skeptics Inc", not "NSW Sketpics Inc"?

We have as evidence from about 1995, in the Steve Roberts questions, two items:

• "National committee is confused with NSW committee" and
• a seeming quote of:  "declining to send me the full membership list (which had at least two Victorian members with wrong postcodes) on the grounds that I hold another post in another Society." [italics added]

If Y0133609 claims "there is no branch structure" then they have to explain why their name, "Australian Skeptics Inc" should not reflect its actual membership and operations, "NSW Skeptics Inc", especially as this was how they publicly referred to themselves in The Skeptic in 1996 and in two issues in 2009, whilst de-registered.

If the NSW Associations Registrar grants that Y0133609 notionally represents all members of Sceptics groups around Australia, then they still have a real problem:

To what group do non-member subscribers in New South Wales belong? We know from the filings that Y0133609 only has 15-16 members, yet 4000 subscribers are claimed now, and is consistent with numbers released over 20 years in The Skeptic.

Under the Act and the default model Rules and now Constitution that apply to Y0133609, there is no provision for "non-member subscribers", they can only be counted as members of the General Public. The point of allowing Associations to Incorporate is that individuals have to explicitly join, they are not, and cannot be, automatically included because they self-identify as sympathisers or groups that can be identified as sharing characteristics. Formal membership, not sympathisers, is enshrined in the legislation in many ways (elections and voting rights, AGM attendance, member register, rights to examine records/registers, standing as Office Bearers, admittance and disciplinary/expulsion processes, ...).

If residents of New South Wales follow the "How to Join" instructions on the website ("subscribe to The Skeptic" or contact ... one of the groups), the link, with full contact details and Office Bearers/Committee members listed, asserts it is the Association based in New South Wales, by implication, the natural Association for those residents to join:

The NSW group is known as Australian Skeptics, Inc. Australian Skeptics, Inc publishes this website and a quarterly magazine ...

An Ordinary Reasonable Reader, without being advised of the closed membership or history, would presume that by subscribing to The Skeptic, or perhaps explicitly contacting the group using the listed details, they had joined Y0133609, not just subscribed to the magazine as a someone from the General Public.

The 16 declared members vs 1,000-1,500 NSW subscribers without representation and the decade old, uncontested disclosure "subscribers are not members", the lack of any representative process of the same-interest Associations that you'd expect would be "Branches",  sustain the argument that both the structure and name of Y0133609 are not that of a national body, "Australian Skeptics", but a very small group in New South Wales dedicated to publishing a magazine and website and are more aptly named as they have self-described at times: "NSW Skeptics Inc".