Parliament’s audit committee has recommended the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Nacc) examine the Synergy 360 procurement controversy, the first such referral since the Nacc opened its doors in July.
In its interim report tabled on Wednesday, the audit committee said it had received “concerning evidence … raising serious allegations and questions about financial impropriety, improper relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest” with parties receiving government contracts.
The committee recommended the Nacc examine material gathered to determine whether to inquire into procurements “involving Milo Consulting (trading as Synergy 360), the Hon Stuart Robert, and John Margerison”.
“In making this recommendation the committee is not making any findings in relation to the conduct of any individuals,” it said.
In March a review found the government spent $374m on contracts deemed to be poor value for money, with deficiencies in 19 out of 95 contracts examined, including perceived conflicts of interest.
It sparked an audit inquiry into what the government services minister, Bill Shorten, described in parliament as newspaper reports “alleging … Robert used his status as a federal MP to help Canberra lobbying firm Synergy 360 sign up corporate clients” to navigate the federal bureaucracy.
In the audit committee report’s foreword, the Labor chair Julian Hill said the inquiry had revealed “previously undisclosed meetings between … former minister Stuart Robert, Synergy 360 and Infosys including during a tender process and when Infosys was being performance managed by Services Australia”.
“There is no evidence of probity advisers or public servants being present at 11 meetings, no contemporaneous notes or records of what was discussed … no apparent declaration of any conflicts of interest being made, and no evidence that other bidders or vendors unrelated to Synergy 360 were accorded similar treatment or access.”
Hill noted that Robert, “his longtime friend, business partner and political fundraiser” John Margerison, Synergy 360 principal David Milo and others “strongly deny any improper conduct”.
In June, Anthony Daly, the former personal and business partner of Synergy 360 former executive director Kham Xaysavanh, submitted a signed statement to the audit committee alleging the company’s co-owner, Milo, proposed a structure designed to allow Robert to profit from government contracts.
Robert immediately rejected the allegation “in the strongest possible terms”, noting it was made only under parliamentary privilege. He said there was “zero evidence” in the submission.
The audit committee report said that Daly’s evidence “brought about a concern that Mr Robert may have – whether directly or indirectly – held a beneficial interest in a company or trust that earned money from contracts awarded by the government of which he was a member, and at times a minister”.
“If true, this would represent significant financial impropriety on his part, and at the very least a serious conflict of interest that went undeclared.”
Margerison declined to front the audit committee because his lawyers explained he had “severed all ties” with Australia. Guardian Australia revealed in August he was still the director of at least 10 companies in Australia.
The report said it did not have “direct evidence” of payments from Synergy 360 to the Australian Property Trust or other entities to the benefit of Robert.
“Efforts in this direction have been frustrated though as despite multiple requests being made for documents witnesses have refused to respond to questions in full or provide documents and Mr Margerison claims to have left Australia.”
Given the evidence is “directly conflicting and mutually incompatible”, the committee is not able to make “clear findings in relation to the truth or otherwise of the allegations raised”.
The report said a referral to the Nacc “should never be made lightly” but “in these circumstances, however, there appears no other appropriate course of action”.
The committee also recommended that the speaker seek legal advice about the extent of its powers to summon witnesses and issue warrants. This would guide the committee in circumstances “including but not limited to situations in which a person claims to be resident overseas”, it said.
Lawyers representing Robert have described the release of allegations he received financial kickbacks from a lobbying firm as “egregious” and an “abuse of privilege”.
In additional comments, Coalition members of the committee said they support “in principle” referring the matter to the Nacc, but rejected the request for an investigation.
“The Nacc is an independent agency and consideration of an investigation is the responsibility of the Nacc commissioner,” they said.
They suggested “the language used in the chair’s recommendation seeks to instruct or influence the Nacc which is further evidence of the politicisation of the allegations”.
While tabling the report on Wednesday morning, Hill told the House of Representatives the “dissenting report” was “nonsense” because the committee had only requested the Nacc to consider the material not directed it to conduct an inquiry.
The chair’s foreword rejected “accusations of partisanship” against the committee as “unfair and unfounded”.
“Throughout this inquiry, the committee has sought procedural advice on sometimes complex questions and has sought to always act in the public interest.”
