Stuart Robert stood to gain financially from friends’ company, inquiry told

Senior Liberal MP Stuart Robert stood to gain financially out of a consulting company called Synergy 360, which was part-owned by his business partner and chief political fundraiser, and which helped multinational companies win millions of dollars worth of government contracts.

The former government services minister’s friend and co-owner of the controversial firm, John Margerison, gave evidence before a parliamentary committee inquiry on Friday that Robert was a part-owner of a company that Margerison nominated to receive funds from Synergy 360.

Synergy 360part-owner David Milo, his friend Coalition MP Stuart Robert and another Synergy 360 co-owner John Margerison.Credit: Fairfax Media

The revelation that Margerison had sent an email in 2017 directing his accountant to send the earnings from Synergy 360 to a company called Australia Property Trust, which was part owned by Robert, is the first time in the scandal it’s been revealed that Robert stood to financially gain from Synergy’s operations.

The company received informal advice from Robert, both as a backbencher and a minister, about how to secure potential business deals for its corporate clients. The companies that used Synergy 360 were pursuing large technology contracts, property deals and consulting projects. The Age and the Herald have previously revealed that Robert advised Synergy 360 on business opportunities that he’d encountered in his capacity as a member of parliament.

Robert also met Synergy’s clients as they sought to win large contracts with the Federal government. One such meeting took place at Margerison’s Gold Coast home in late 2017 and was attended by Robert, Synergy 360’s majority owner David Milo, and one of Synergy’s clients, Unisys.

Robert has previously dismissed allegations that his support of Synergy 360 went further than the support he’d provided to other “stakeholders and constituents”, and he denied he was seeking to use his status as an MP to promote the commercial interests of his friends.

Margerison said he had never received any money from Synergy. “I’ve never received any dividend or other payment from Milo consulting [the trade name of Snergy]“, he told the inquiry.

Robert declared his shareholding in APT on his register of members interest in May, 2017.

Margerison told the committee he had a business relationship with Robert, which had finished towards the end of 2018. Robert became Assistant Treasurer in August that year and was minister for government services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme from May 2019.

In response to a question about whether he had received any benefit from Synergy via the property trust, Robert’s spokesman said he “again rejects any imputation or allegation of improper conduct you assert in your inquiry.

“From evidence provided to the Committee today, it is clear Bill Shorten, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have used stolen and allegedly tampered-with emails for political purposes and to write articles that have asserted improper conduct to which Mr Robert has strenuously and consistently rejected.

“This is something Bill Shorten, the Herald and The Age need to reflect on.”

Shorten said it was not the first time Robert has faced scrutiny about his financial interests.

“In light of Mr Margerison’s evidence today Mr Robert must now detail to the Australian public whether he ever directly or indirectly received a financial benefit from Synergy 360,” he said.

Synergy’s owner Milo asserted under questioning from the chairman of the parliament’s audit committee, Julian Hill, that the leaked emails that prompted inquiries into Synergy 360’s interactions had been stolen.

In other testimony before the committee a co-owner of Synergy 360, Kham Xaysavanh, revealed that a senior public servant linked to a contract given to her company was the brother of her best friend, and that she had known him for 20 years.

The public servant was Dr Damian West. Senior officials said in the inquiry that West had not disclosed his personal relationship with Xaysavanh. The chief financial officer of Services Australia, Angela Diamond, told the inquiry that under public service rules, any potential perceived or real conflict should be declared.

Kham Xaysavanh, a co-owner of Synergy 360, gave her testimony before the committee.

Committee chairman Hill said one of the contracts in question was for $9600 – just under the $10,000 threshold that requires more scrutiny. Once it was in place, the contract was varied to $29,000 – a process that is not subject to as much scrutiny. Another was worth $79,000, which is $1000 less than a threshold which requires a tender process.

West at the time was the general manager of business integrity at Services Australia. He met the owners of Synergy 360 for drinks at Xaysavanh’s home at the same time the consulting firm was being paid by its corporate clients to advise them on how to win contracts from Services Australia.

They also socialised with Milo on several occasions, including at a Canberra pub.

When asked about his relationship with Xaysavanh, West told The Age and the Herald recently: “She is a friend of mine.”

Earlier in the hearing, the chief executive of Services Australia, Rebecca Skinner, told a parliamentary committee inquiry that she would be “further investigating a number of matters as they are raised”.

Skinner told the committee that Services Australia had engaged an independent investigator to investigate the contracts involving West.

Asked by the chairman of the committee, Labor MP Julian Hill, if there would need to be a different, more thorough investigation “which has powers to compel evidence and witnesses”, Skinner said: “That’s correct”.

An independent inquiry run by Ian Watt, a former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, has already scrutinised documentation on the contracts held by Services Australia and the NDIA and found five of the 19 were subject to special concern.

The committee inquiry was called after Government Services Minister Bill Shorten wrote to it saying the issues needed investigation because the Watt review only looked at the actions of public service officials.

Every Friday, Please Explain’s expert panel brings you analysis and the inside take on the big political issues of the week. Subscribe here.