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

When a reportable conduct allegation arises, one of the first practical decisions is who should investigate. That choice affects legality, credibility, timeliness and fairness. In child-related matters, regulators expect investigations to be prompt, proportionate and procedurally fair. They also expect organisations to understand the difference between an internal fact-finding process and an externally commissioned investigation that may trigger private investigator licensing requirements. For organisations operating across jurisdictions, NSW, Victoria and Western Australia are particularly important because the rules around investigators, independence and regulator expectations need to be built into response plans from the outset.

Start with the purpose of the investigation

A reportable conduct investigation is not a criminal trial. Its purpose is to establish facts, assess risk, determine whether reportable conduct is substantiated on the civil standard of proof, and support decisions about child safety, disciplinary action and regulatory reporting. The relevant standard is the balance of probabilities, applied with appropriate caution where allegations are serious.

That matters because organisations sometimes overcomplicate straightforward matters, or under-resource serious ones. The better approach is to match the investigator to the issues in dispute.

Internal investigators are often sufficient where:

• the allegations are relatively contained and factually clear
• there is no obvious conflict of interest
• the organisation has suitably trained staff
• the matter can be handled promptly without compromising fairness
• children’s safety can be managed while the inquiry proceeds.

An internal investigator will usually be someone from HR, employee relations, safeguarding, integrity or another governance function. As a general rule, internal employees acting within the scope of their employment are exempt from private investigator licensing requirements. That is a practical advantage, but it does not remove the need for competence. Regulators expect investigators to be appropriately qualified and capable of managing child-related allegations, witness evidence, recordkeeping and procedural fairness. A common benchmark is Certificate IV in Government Investigations, ideally combined with trauma-informed interviewing experience.

When an external investigator is the better option

Even where an internal investigator is legally able to conduct the matter, that does not mean they should. Independence becomes especially important where the allegation is serious, senior staff are involved, or there may be criticism of organisational culture or supervision.

External investigators are often preferable where:

• the respondent is a principal, executive, director or other senior decision-maker
• the allegations involve sexual misconduct, significant violence, significant emotional or psychological harm, or significant neglect
• there are multiple complainants or historical allegations
• there is likely to be parallel scrutiny by a regulator, police or another oversight body
• internal staff are too close to the events, the people involved, or the workplace politics
• the matter is likely to be challenged on fairness or bias grounds.

An external investigator can bring perceived neutrality, specialist interviewing skills and a disciplined approach to evidence. That can be critical in preserving confidence in the outcome, particularly where findings may affect employment, registration, reputation or future child safety decisions.

However, once an organisation engages an external commercial investigator, licensing questions become central.

Licensing rules in NSW and WA, and the practical position in Victoria

In New South Wales, external investigators conducting this kind of work generally require a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW). Internal employees are exempt when acting within the scope of their employment. For NSW organisations, this means procurement processes should verify licensing before appointment, not after the investigation has started.

In Western Australia, external investigators generally must be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. Again, the practical distinction is between internal staff performing employment-related functions and external providers conducting investigative services for reward.

These licensing requirements are not technicalities. Using an unlicensed external investigator can undermine confidence in the process and create avoidable compliance risk. Organisations should check the investigator’s licence status, relevant child-safeguarding experience, interviewing capability and understanding of reportable conduct frameworks before engagement.

In Victoria, the key compliance focus from the reportable conduct perspective is less about a specific scheme rule on investigator licensing and more about suitability, independence and procedural fairness. Victoria’s reportable conduct scheme sits under the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, and since 23 February 2026 the scheme has been administered by the Social Services Regulator. Victorian organisations should still carefully assess whether an external investigator is appropriately qualified and whether the proposed investigation model is defensible if later reviewed by the regulator.

Independence is not just about using someone external

A common mistake is to assume that “external” automatically means “independent”, or that “internal” automatically means compromised. True independence is about whether the investigator can approach the matter with an open mind and make findings free from actual or perceived pressure.

Questions to test independence include:

• Does the investigator have any prior involvement in the incident, the respondent or the complainant?
• Do they report to someone implicated in the issues?
• Are they being asked to defend an earlier management decision?
• Could their role create a reasonable apprehension of bias?
• Do they have the authority and support to gather evidence properly?

In some matters, an internal investigator from a different business unit or group entity may be sufficiently independent. In others, only an external appointment will be credible. The decision should be documented. If the matter later comes under regulatory scrutiny, a contemporaneous record showing why the organisation chose an internal or external investigator can be very helpful.

Procedural fairness must shape the process from the start

In serious child-related matters, procedural fairness is not an optional refinement. It is a core part of a sound investigation. This is particularly important in Victoria, where there is a strong emphasis on procedural fairness in scheme administration, but the principle is relevant across all jurisdictions.

At a practical level, procedural fairness usually requires that the respondent:

• is told the substance of the allegations in a fair and usable way
• is given a reasonable opportunity to respond
• has their response genuinely considered before findings are made
• is assessed by an impartial decision-maker.

Fairness also extends to children and other witnesses. Interviews should be planned carefully, with attention to trauma-informed practice, minimising repeated questioning and avoiding unnecessary distress. Organisations should coordinate with police or child protection where required so that workplace inquiries do not prejudice other processes.

Good process also means separating immediate risk action from final findings. A worker may be stood aside, redeployed or subject to conditions while inquiries proceed, but those precautionary steps should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing.

Finally, reporting deadlines under each scheme still apply while the investigation is underway. The need to notify the regulator promptly does not depend on having completed the investigation or reached final findings.

Key takeaways

• Internal investigators are often appropriate if they are competent, available, and free from conflicts.
• External investigators are usually the safer option for serious, complex, senior-level or culturally sensitive matters.
• In NSW, external investigators generally need a Class 2E private investigator licence; in WA, external investigators generally need the relevant WA licence.
• In Victoria, organisations should focus on investigator suitability, independence and strong procedural fairness.
• Procedural fairness requires clear allegations, a real opportunity to respond, impartial fact-finding and careful handling of child witnesses.
• The investigator choice should be deliberate, documented and aligned with both child safety and regulatory expectations.