June 19, 2026 — 7:00pmWhen KPMG faced allegations of confidential client information being shared by some of its employees, it took several attempts for the firm to substantiate the whistleblower’s claims.The first investigation, conducted internally, found nothing amiss. It was, in hindsight, “not conducted with the necessary rigour required,” the firm said. When the whistleblower continued to push, KPMG appointed an external legal firm. But after reviewing the initial investigation, that investigation supported the initial findings.Adriana Orifici says there is no targeted and specific framework of legal rules, no mandatory requirement for procedural fairness, and no dedicated statutory code about investigations.Dion GeorgopoulosIt was only after yet another inquiry, this time by Allens, challenged the conclusions reached in the two prior investigations.KPMG is far from the only firm that has grappled with workplace investigations. There have also been high-profile investigations at AMP, the AFL and this masthead’s owner Nine, among numerous others.While some workplace investigations are flawed, others lead to findings which confirm serious cases of misconduct and prompt change.Anatomy of a workplace investigationSir Owen Dixon Chambers barrister Matthew Moir says an investigator’s role is to be independent, objective and impartial, with investigations sharing similarities with courts and tribunals.“Investigations can be more flexible and a lot less formal than courts or tribunals,” he says. “However, we still need to be fair and impartial, and also need to be seen to be fair and impartial.”Harmers Workplace Lawyers executive counsel Jenny Inness says there is no one-size-fits-all approach, but that there are fundamental steps that apply most of the time, beginning with a firm engaging an investigator over a concern, complaint or allegation.“We then need to plan and scope out the investigation, including the precise allegations, collect relevant documents, witnesses and confidentiality regimes, and stick to the facts without forming any pre-conceived views,” she says.Investigators then communicate with witnesses, often through interviews over the phone, video call or in person.“Some people want to remain anonymous and don’t want their identity disclosed to the company,” Inness says. “Others may want to share their responses in writing.”Not everyone needs to be spoken with, but Inness says individuals facing allegations are always given a “fair and fulsome” chance to respond.“If there are 20 people at a meeting where something is alleged to have happened, it doesn’t mean we interview them all,” Inness says. “We might only need to speak with people we think can shed light on the situation.”Moir says the method of communication depends on the importance or weight of the allegations. “If it involves needing to determine credibility or honesty for a serious allegation we would prefer to do a face-to-face chat,” he says.In some cases, especially in the private sector, there may be no clear rule book for how they should be conducted according to Monash University senior lecturer Dr Adriana Orifici, whose expertise includes workplace investigations.“Some organisations are required to follow a legally binding process for an investigation such as where the terms of an enterprise bargaining agreement set out the steps,” she says. “Other times, there may be a non-contractual policy or procedure that applies to a workplace investigation, or no policy at all.” Conflicts of interest and misaligned incentivesBecause workplace investigators are often paid by the employer who engages them, Moir says it is important to explain the investigator’s role to people involved, walk them through the process and reassure them the investigator is only there to find the facts.The cost of workplace investigations varies widely based on several factors including the size of the firm, the number of documents to be examined and the number of witnesses.“If we’re investigating a big firm with lots of people, it could cost tens of thousands of dollars or more,” Moir says. “But simple, straightforward investigations of a small workplace might only cost several thousands of dollars.”He makes it clear to employers that the investigator will be neutral and independent, and refuses to take on cases where a business does not accept this.“Employers generally respect and understand that, and I haven’t come across an employer who tells you what to find before the investigation starts, but it won’t stop some of them from making representations to you or suggesting who you should speak to,” he says.While employers are generally forthcoming about providing evidence such as CCTV, emails or text messages, Moir says if a firm refuses to provide relevant information and fails to explain why, that will be noted in the final report.Orifici points out that for internal investigations in particular, there is a tension in that firms must both oversee the workplace investigation process and respond to any findings when it has concluded.“A lot of the time, because these are internalised processes within the laws of a firm, it’s hard to discern the extent of any conflicts of interest,” she says. “But we have case law from the Fair Work Commission and the courts that highlight examples of an investigation being poorly conducted.”Moir says some of these cases involve lawyers conducting an investigation then acting in contested proceedings: a clear conflict of interest.“It’s also a role with no system of formal training,” he points out. “Mediators and arbitrators, for example, are typically accredited, but there’s no accreditation to become a workplace investigator despite it being a specialised role.”Inness says investigators know they have their reputation on the line and that most can be unbiased, forensically weighing up accounts and the credibility and reliability of witnesses.Daniel Victory, principal lawyer at Maurice Blackburn, however, says there’s a “real question” about the ability of investigators to maintain independence, and that some law firms may be told what to do by companies that pay them to conduct a workplace investigation.“There are situations where we think the outcome of an investigation is unfair, but we don’t always get to see exactly how those investigations were conducted, and whether or why the outcome was unfair,” he says. “That’s because these investigations are often covered by legal professional privilege.”There are, however, exceptions. Last year, Cohealth Limited was ordered by the Fair Work Commission to hand over a confidential investigation report to the employee it investigated and later dismissed. The company had failed to prove that obtaining legal advice was the dominant purpose of the investigation, and because the company had already disclosed the investigation findings to the employee.What needs to changeVictory says a key issue is whistleblowers often face is a “consistent pattern of retaliation”, such as trumped-up performance management, warnings, or termination of employment, and only having a “patchwork” system for protection.“What you’ll often find is that someone speaks out at considerable personal or professional risk and, rather than a good faith investigation, the organisation isolates the whistleblower and might implement disciplinary action against them.”That means whistleblowers are often forced to pursue their own civil claim and bear the financial risk of litigation. “They might face years of proceedings which is not realistic for someone who has lost their employment,” he says.Victory says a whistleblower program such as one in the US offering a cut of between 10 and 30 per cent of sanctions collected in enforcement actions exceeding $1 million to whistleblowers could “really incentivise people to speak up”.Orifici, meanwhile, who says whistleblower investigations fall under different rules to other workplace investigations, suggests several reforms to make workplace investigations better across the board.“There needs to be a consistent process for a workplace investigation articulated in an employer’s policy that is adopted and applied to each workplace investigation, and communicated to all employees,” she says. “It seems quite minimal, but at present, if there’s no contractually binding policy or enterprise bargaining agreement, employees may not know the detail of the process they are going to be involved in.”The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.Millie Muroi is the economics writer at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. She was formerly an economics correspondent based in Canberra’s Press Gallery and the banking writer based in Sydney.Connect via X or email.From our partners