PART 12: industry 2020
CHAPTER 12
industry 2020, hsu no 1 branch elections and david asmar
1. In 2014 the Commission held hearings into a number of relevant entities, including generic funds and fighting funds. A summary of the Commission’s activities in 2014 is contained in Volume 1 of this Report.
2. In particular, Chapter 3.3 of the Interim Report examined Industry 2020 Pty Ltd (Industry 2020). As appears in the Interim Report, Industry 2020 was owned and controlled by officers of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Workers Union (AWU). It raised money by holding fundraising events attended by employers, officials from other unions, and other participants in the building industry, trading off the fact that its directors were senior officials of the AWU and using the name, influence and resources of the AWU.
3. Chapter 4.7 of the Interim Report examined the funding of the HSU No1 Branch Election campaigns in 2009 and 2012.
4. These two investigations were connected in the following way: David Asmar is the husband of Diana Asmar and was her campaign manager in the HSU No 1 Branch elections; David Asmar is also associated with Cesar Melhem and appears to have been the recipient of significant funds from Industry 2020.
5. One issue the Commission has been considering is what Industry 2020 funds were used for, including those funds supplied to David Asmar.
6. As was noted in the Interim Report, David Asmar did not give evidence at a public hearing in 2014, which inhibited the ability to make concluded findings on some issues related to this matter.[1]
7. In 2014 Commission staff tried to make arrangements for David Asmar to give evidence in a public hearing in October 2014. However at that time the Commission was advised by David Asmar’s solicitor that he had travelled to Lebanon, and was therefore not available to give evidence.
8. In 2015 further attempts were made to resume and complete these investigations, in part by having David Asmar give evidence at a public hearing.
9. In particular, on 15 September 2015, Commission staff were advised by David Asmar’s solicitor that he did not have instructions to accept service of a summons on David Asmar. Consequently David Asmar had to be served personally.
10. On 18 September David Asmar arranged to depart Australian for Lebanon, after making a series of changes to his travel arrangements. When he endeavoured to pass through customs at Melbourne Airport he was served with the summons by Australian Federal Police officers.
11. The summons required David Asmar to appear at the Commission to give evidence at a public hearing on 21 October 2015.
12. After receiving the summons, David Asmar departed Australia by boarding a flight to Lebanon. At that stage David Asmar was scheduled to return to Australia on 27 October 2015, a date after the date on which he was required to appear in the Commission pursuant to the summons.
13. On 19 and 20 October 2015 Commission staff and David Asmar’s solicitor exchanged communications concerning his compliance with the summons.
14. These communications culminated in the date for David Asmar’s public hearing being further fixed for 5 November 2015.
15. On Monday 2 November 2015 the Commission was advised that David Asmar was still in Lebanon and for medical reasons would not be in Australia on 5 November. A medical certificate was attached his solicitor’s communications. On Wednesday 25 November 2015 the Commission was advised that David Asmar was still in Lebanon and his solicitor provided a further medical certificate.
16. The practical result of all this was that it was not be possible to proceed with or complete David Asmar’s public examination.
17. The purpose of these observations is to put on public record the reason why a public examination which was foreshadowed in the Interim Report did not proceed and why this issue has not been finalised.
[1] Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Interim Report (2014), Vol 1, ch 4.7, paras 99-100.