Who Can Investigate a Reportable Conduct Allegation? Internal Investigators, PI Licensing and Procedural Fairness in NSW, VIC and WA

When a reportable conduct allegation arises, one of the first operational questions is who should investigate it. In many matters, an organisation can use a suitably skilled internal employee. In others, independence, complexity or capability issues point to an external investigator. The legal and regulatory position is not identical across Australia, and in some jurisdictions the use of an external investigator may trigger private investigator licensing requirements. For organisations operating across New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, the safest approach is to treat investigator selection as a compliance decision, not just a resourcing decision.

Start with scope, capability and independence

A reportable conduct investigation is not a criminal prosecution. The organisation and regulator are generally working to the civil standard of proof — the balance of probabilities, applied with appropriate caution for serious allegations in line with the Briginshaw principle. That means the investigator’s role is to gather evidence fairly, test competing accounts and reach defensible findings based on the available material.

The first question is whether the matter can properly be investigated internally. Internal investigators are often appropriate where:

• the allegations are relatively contained
• the facts are not heavily disputed
• the organisation has trained people with investigation skills
• there is no actual or perceived conflict of interest
• the investigator can maintain appropriate separation from line management and decision-makers.

An internal appointment can also support timeliness. That matters under reportable conduct schemes, where notification and reporting deadlines are tight. In NSW, heads of relevant entities must give an initial notification within 7 business days and provide the final report within 30 calendar days. In Victoria, the initial notification is due within 3 days via the Social Services Regulator secure webform, with the final report due as soon as practicable. In WA, notification is required within 7 working days, with a final report on conclusion.

However, “internal” should never mean informal. Regulators expect a structured investigation process, clear records, properly framed allegations, procedural fairness, and a rational basis for findings. If an internal investigator lacks training, safeguarding literacy or trauma-informed interviewing capability, using them may create more risk than it saves.

When internal staff can investigate

As a general operational rule, internal employees conducting investigations within the scope of their employment are usually exempt from private investigator licensing requirements. This is especially important in NSW, where external investigators need a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW), but internal employees are exempt when acting within their employment scope.

That exemption does not remove the need for competence. Regulators expect investigators to be appropriately qualified. A common benchmark is Certificate IV in Government Investigations, combined with practical experience in evidence gathering, witness interviewing, record analysis and report writing. In child-related matters, trauma-informed practice is also important, particularly where children may be interviewed or where the investigation may affect child safety planning.

Internal investigators should generally not be used where they:

• manage the respondent directly
• have had prior involvement in the events
• are likely to be a witness
• have a close relationship with any key party
• lack authority to access records or compel internal cooperation
• are not capable of running a procedurally fair process.

For larger organisations, a dedicated investigations, integrity, safeguarding or employee relations function may be well placed to do this work. For smaller organisations, an internal investigator may still be appropriate, but only if the person is demonstrably independent from the subject matter and has the required skill set.

When external investigators may need a PI licence

The position becomes more technical when an organisation wants to appoint an external or commercial investigator.

In NSW, an external investigator will generally require a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence. That is a practical threshold issue. If an organisation engages an outside consultant to conduct witness interviews, gather evidence and prepare findings, it should confirm the licensing position before appointment. A well-written terms of reference will not cure a licensing problem.

In WA, external investigators must be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. Again, this is not a mere procurement detail. If the organisation intends to outsource the investigative function, it should verify licensing, child-safeguarding experience and the investigator’s familiarity with reportable conduct expectations.

Victoria is different in the factual brief provided because the critical regulatory emphasis is less about investigator licensing and more about process integrity and procedural fairness. Since the scheme transferred to the Social Services Regulator on 23 February 2026, organisations should be especially careful to appoint investigators who understand the Victorian reportable conduct framework, including the expanded concept of “employee”, which now captures labour-hire workers, secondees, and individual business directors or owners.

Even where licensing is not the headline issue, external appointment should be considered where:

• the allegation is serious or complex
• senior personnel are implicated
• there is a real or perceived lack of internal independence
• the matter is likely to attract regulator scrutiny
• there are multiple affected children, staff or sites
• the organisation has limited internal investigation capability.

Procedural fairness is not optional

Across NSW, Victoria and WA, regulator confidence depends heavily on whether the process was fair. Procedural fairness is not a technical add-on at the end of an investigation. It should shape the investigation from the beginning.

At a minimum, that usually means:

• clearly identifying the allegations to be investigated
• separating child safety risk management from the fact-finding process
• giving the respondent a fair opportunity to respond to the substance of adverse material
• avoiding prejudgment
• keeping an accurate record of evidence considered
• making findings that are linked to evidence, not assumption
• documenting why particular witnesses were interviewed or not interviewed
• maintaining confidentiality to the extent possible.

Victoria places strong emphasis on procedural fairness. In practice, that means Victorian organisations should be especially disciplined about allegation formulation, disclosure of relevant particulars to the respondent, and giving adequate opportunity to answer before findings are made. The same discipline is prudent in NSW and WA, even if the regulatory messaging is framed differently.

Procedural fairness also includes choosing an investigator who is, and appears to be, impartial. If a matter is likely to be challenged, independence will often be as important as technical competence.

Preserving regulator confidence in practice

A regulator is more likely to have confidence in an investigation where the organisation can explain, in a structured way, why the investigator was chosen and how the process was managed.

Practical steps include:

• conducting a short conflict check before appointing any investigator
• recording whether the investigator is internal or external, and why that model was selected
• verifying any required PI licence for external appointments in NSW and WA
• confirming the investigator’s qualifications and child-safe investigation experience
• issuing written terms of reference
• maintaining a clear evidence trail and decision log
• seeking legal advice where parallel employment, disciplinary, police or child protection issues are in play.

Organisations should also remember that regulator timeframes continue to run while investigator selection is being worked through. The need for an appropriately qualified investigator does not displace the obligation to notify on time. If the investigation cannot be completed within the relevant reporting period, the organisation should still comply with the required initial notification and any interim or final reporting requirements for the jurisdiction.

The most defensible model is usually the one that best balances timeliness, competence, independence and fairness. Internal investigators are often lawful and practical. External investigators can add credibility and specialist skill, but in NSW and WA they may also need the correct private investigator licence. In every case, the appointment decision should be made with the regulator in mind.

Key takeaways

• Internal employees can often investigate reportable conduct allegations if they are acting within their employment scope, are competent, and have no conflict of interest.
• In NSW, external investigators generally need a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW).
• In WA, external investigators must be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996.
• In Victoria, organisations should focus closely on investigator competence, independence and procedural fairness, particularly under the SSR framework.
• Procedural fairness should be built into the investigation from the start, not treated as a final review step.
• Regulator confidence depends on a well-documented appointment decision, a fair process, and findings that are clearly supported by evidence.