Quoting Lev Lafayette (lev@levlafayette.com):
In an unincorporated association individual members are liable for debts of the organisation, and can be sued etc for actions of the association.
{sigh} So can the individual members of an incorporated association, except that finanicial liability is in the _general_ case limited to the net assets of the corporation. The important thing to note about the 'corporate liability shield'[1] is that it covers _only_ liability arising -merely- from ownership. It offers no protection whatsoever from liability for deeds in which one has taken part (or is alleged to have take part). I stress that point because I've noticed there's a very common (and, I would say, pernicious) misconception about incorporation being a magic talisman against legal liability. It is widely believed -- in error -- that the same deeds under a corporate umbrella are somehow rendered safer. This is a dangerously false belief: Corporate entity or no corporate entity, people face potential liability arising from what they _do_ (or are alleged in court to have done). There is no way around that.
Incorporation (whether independently or as a subcommittee of a larger organisation) means that the association can sue, be sued, hold and be liable for property, etc., in its own right.
{sigh} Unincorporated associations can own property. (Provably. I've already covered this.) The principals of an unicorporated association can sue or be sued.
"Incorporation" makes an association a "legal person" in terms of contractual law.
That is correct. That fact is, however, often vastly overinterpreted.
IANAL, but I have studied business and organisation law at the postgrad level. FWIW.
Likewise. [1] Necessary disclaimer: I am very conversant with USA and UK law on these matters, but not specifically with Australian law. The general nature of limited liability corporations, however, is broadly similar in many countries for obvious reasons of legal convergence and borrowings.