Foreword

This inquiry is examining procurement issues at Services Australia and the NDIA related to consulting firm Synergy 360 and former Minister the Hon Stuart Robert.

While the Watt Report examined some of these issues, its scope waslimitedandrelatedsolelytotheconductofAustralianPublicService(APS)staff. Ongoing investigations by Services Australia related to Synergy 360 and Infosys are similarly limited.

TheCommittee’sinquirycomplements the Watt review by examining the conduct of all parties involved in the relevant procurements, including Ministers, lobbyists, consultants, and vendors.

Concerning evidence has been received raising serious allegations and questions about financial impropriety, improper relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest with parties receivingcontractsfromtheCommonwealth. Some matters raised in the allegations were established in public hearings and corroborated by other evidence though many remain unresolved.

Previously undisclosed meetings were revealed between former Minister Stuart Robert, Synergy 360 and Infosys including during a tender process and when Infosys was being performance managed by Services Australia. Thereisnoevidenceofprobityadvisors or public servants being present at 11 meetings, no contemporaneous notes or records of what was discussed made available, no apparent declaration of any conflicts of interest being made, and no evidence that other bidders or vendors unrelatedtoSynergy360wereaccordedsimilartreatmentoraccess.Thesematters are of concern and may be considered further in the Committee’s final report.

Rebutting these allegations, Mr Robert, his longtime friend, business partner and political fundraiser Mr John Margerison, Synergy 360 principal Mr David Milo and others strongly deny any improper conduct. TheCommitteehasnotbeen provided with direct evidence of financial liabilities owed or payments occurring from Synergy 360 to the Australian Property Trust or other entities to the benefit of Mr Robert. Efforts in this direction have been frustrated though as despite multiple requestsbeingmadefordocumentswitnesseshaverefusedtorespondtoquestions in full or provide documents and Mr Margerison claims to have left Australia.

The evidence before this inquiry in relation to these issues is therefore both directly conflicting and mutually incompatible. Inthesecircumstancesthis Committee is not able, given the resources available to it including a lack of forensic accounting expertise, to make clear findings in relation to the truth or otherwise of the allegations raised.

TheCommitteethereforeconsidersthat,inlightoftheseriousandsystemicnatureof the allegations, an agency with compulsory questioning and document gathering and investigatory powers should take up the matter so that these questions may be properly assessed.

A referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) by a Parliamentary Committee should never be made lightly and certainly is not done so here. In these circumstances, however, there appears no other appropriate course of action.

The report recommends that the NACC examine all of the evidence gathered by the JCPAA to date to inform its decision as to whether a fuller investigation of the matter is warranted to establish the substance of these claims.

Questions have also arisen regarding the nature of the Committee’s statutory powers under sections 13-15 of the Public Accounts and AuditCommitteeAct1951.The Committee recommends that the Speaker approve the commissioning of legal advice which can guide this and future Committees when necessary, including but not limited to situations in which a person claims to be resident overseas.

The Committee acknowledges in this Interim Report the difficult personal circumstances that sit alongside this inquiry and the Committee has studiously avoided referringtoorpublishingmattersrelatingtoFamilyCourtproceedingsortheprivate information of witnesses.

Given the high public interest in these matters some have sought to conflate the Committee’s proper acquittal of its responsibilities with politics, however accusations of partisanship are 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.

I acknowledge the work and professionalism of the Committee Secretariat.

The Committee’s inquiry is ongoing and a final report will be tabled as soon as possible.

Julian Hill MPChair