On 15 February 2012 the General Manager of Fair Work Australia Bernadett O'Neill appeared before the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee.

In her opening address to the Committee Ms O'Neill reported that she had commissioned an Independent Review of the Thomson investigation by KPMG:

The HSU investigations are unprecedented in terms of size and complexity, with the national office investigation significantly bigger than the branch investigation. Given this, there is little doubt in my mind that there are significant lessons to be learned and improvements to be made as to the conduct of inquiries and investigations under the Registered Organisations Act. Accordingly, I have decided to undertake an independent review of the conduct of the investigations. The review will be undertaken by KPMG and I will make the outcome of the review public. Before commencing the review, KPMG will undertake a detailed scoping exercise, which is expected to take approximately one week. That work will commence shortly. The substantive review will commence after the conclusion of the national office investigation so that the review can encompass both investigations. In my view, it would be inappropriate to commence such a review when the national office investigation has not been concluded.

I am aware of the allegations that there has been political interference in the investigations. I take them very seriously. I have absolutely no reason to conclude that there has been any such interference in the investigations. As the conduct of the investigations has been the responsibility of the delegate from commencement, had there been any interference of any kind, it would appear to me that it would have to have been manifested in some way to the delegate, such as the withholding of resources. I have asked Mr Nassios whether there has been any attempt to interfere, or any actual interference, in the conduct of his investigations and he has advised that there has not. This is in relation to both his role as the general manager's delegate and also the extended period in 2010 whilst acting general manager whilst Mr Lee was undergoing cancer treatment. I have also asked the former general manager, Mr Lee, whether there has been any attempt to interfere or any actual interference in relation to the investigations whilst he was general manager. He has assured me that there was not.

I and all Fair Work Australia officers will continue to try to assist this committee with any questions that you may have without prejudicing the current investigation. My overriding concern at all times has been to maintain the integrity of the investigations and any proceedings that may ensue. It is paramount that organisations or individuals are held to account for any offences or contraventions that may have occurred. I will continue to be cautious in providing detail about the investigations as I will not allow, through inadvertent disclosures here, any proceedings to be jeopardised. Thank you, Chair.

Considerable coverage of the "independent" review followed - this Sydney Morning Herald headline is typical

Independent review ordered on Fair Work probe into HSU

So how independent was it and who chose KPMG?   This is as close to a Request for Tender for the review as they got.   An email from Bernadette O'Neill to Val Gostencnik on 24 January, 2012.

Mr Gostencnik's recommendation came back a few minutes later.

And that was it.   Job's right.   Independent and chosen after an exhaustive analysis of the market.

Simply breathtaking.

This email from Robin Tarr to Bernadette O'Neill dated Tuesday 31 January shows that Ms O'Neill met with KPMG within days of Mr Gostencnik's recommendation.

On the afternoon of Monday 13 February, just 2 days before her scheduled Estimates appearance - Bernadette O'Neill sent this email to Robin Tarr of KPMG.

Robin
 
Thank you for sending this revised proposal, and our brief discussion this afternoon.
 
As I indicated I am still awaiting one piece of advice before proceeding with the proposal, which
I anticipate receiving either late today or tomorrow morning.
 
In anticipation of being able to proceed, on Wednesday morning I would be intending to say:
 
The HSU investigations are unprecedented in terms of size and complexity with the
National Office investigation significantly bigger than the Branch investigation. Given
this, there is little doubt in my mind that there are significant lessons to be learned and
improvements to be made as to the conduct of inquiries and investigations under the
RO Act.
 
Accordingly, I have decided to undertake an independent review of the conduct of the
investigations. The review will be undertaken by KPMG and I will make the outcome of
the review public. The first phase of the review is a detailed scoping exercise which is
expected to take approximately one week. That work will commence shortly. The
substantive review will commence after the conclusion of the National Office
investigation so that the review can encompass both investigations. It would be
improper to commence a review of an investigation that has not been concluded

On Tuesday 14 February 2012 KPMG sent this letter to Bernadette O'Neill.   I'll publish the first page only, the complete letter is here.

And that was that.   Done.   The next morning Ms O'Neill gave her opening statement to the Senate Committee and told the world about the independent review.   And all thanks to the remarkably well-connected Val Gostencnik.