Robert denies any wrongdoing. “At no time have I ever been paid for any advice or guidance in any form,” he said this week. “At no time did I lobby to assist any firm in such a manner. I also reiterate that Mr Margerison and Milo have both said publicly that no payments were ever made,nor sought.”
Loading
Margerison cut all ties with Synergy 360 last year and told the parliamentary inquiry that the consulting firm never paid him any money. The challenge for any future investigator is the pattern of behaviour between Robert and Milo with Synergy 360 clients such as tech giants Infosys and Unisys. The parliamentary committee has looked into these events. As a backbencher,Robert arranged for Unisys to brief a parliamentary committee. As a minister,Robert met Infosys before it had finalised a federal contract ultimately worth $190 million in his own portfolio.
Time and again,Robert went out of his way to help Milo. The question in parliament has been simple:why? Only this week dida former insider at Synergy 360 put his name to a public statement on this key question. Anthony Daly alleged,in a sworn statement to parliament,that Margerison and his company,United Marketing,had a stake in the consulting firm that could benefit Robert.
“Ultimately,this arrangement was designed to facilitate the flow of funds through United Marketing and onward to Stuart Robert,” Daly wrote in a statement given to the joint committee of public accounts and audit. Robert rejects these claims as “wild allegations” with no evidence. Margerison and Milo did not respond to a request for comment.
The allegation is explosive – too big to ignore. It must be investigated. But Government Services Minister Bill Shorten did something unusual on Wednesday. He did not declare he would refer the matter to the NACC and instead said he would ask his department for its legal advice. Ministers appear to be avoiding public calls for the NACC to act.
Greens senator David Shoebridge,on the other hand,has issued a “top 10” list of matters to refer to the NACC,such as PwC,Robodebt,the “sports rorts” affair,Morrison’s secret ministries,as well as Robert. Do all of these really have to go to the new watchdog? The Robodebt royal commission has not even finished its work. The secret ministries were examined by a former High Court judge.
The claims against former federal minister Stuart Robert are too explosive to ignore.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen
On Robert,however,the grounds for an investigation are reasonable. First,the public statement from Daly makes an allegation that must be tested,but it is about private financial affairs that a parliamentary inquiry would struggle to uncover.
Second,the inquiries so far have not had the power to look at ministerial behaviour. Services Australia and the National Disability Insurance Agency asked former public service chief Ian Watt to look into the contracts worth $374 million,and his comprehensive report explained the decisions within the agencies. He could not,however,get answers from Robert or his friends. Robert claimed that Watt found “zero misconduct” when Watt did not look at the minister’s conduct at all.
Loading
Third,and most important,is the great power of the new commission to compel witnesses to produce evidence,seek search warrants,punish witnesses who provide misleading evidence and send investigators into almost any federal agency. It will be able to hold private hearings where people can give evidence in confidence. It will have the power to check financial arrangements that are opaque to others.
Brereton has taken up his new commission with a reputation for strictly applying the law. “Laws are pointless if they are not enforced,” he said last year. “And a law which is not enforced soon becomes a dead letter.”
Only the commission has the power to dig where others cannot go.
David Crowe is chief political correspondent.