Who Can Investigate a Reportable Conduct Matter in 2026? Licensing, Independence and Procedural Fairness in NSW, Victoria and WA

Choosing who should investigate a reportable conduct matter is now a core governance decision, not just an operational one. In 2026, organisations in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia need to think beyond subject-matter expertise. The right investigator must be lawfully appointed, sufficiently independent, able to handle child-centred evidence properly, and capable of delivering a procedurally fair process for the respondent. Getting that mix wrong can create regulatory risk, undermine findings, and expose children and staff to avoidable harm.

Start with the threshold question: internal or external?

A reportable conduct investigation does not automatically need an external investigator. In many matters, an internal investigator can lawfully and appropriately do the work, particularly where the organisation has trained people with investigation capability, good safeguarding knowledge, and enough separation from the allegations.

An internal investigator will often be suitable where:

• the allegations are relatively contained
• there is no apparent conflict of interest
• the investigator is senior enough to manage the matter, but not involved in the events
• the organisation can maintain confidentiality and secure records
• the investigator understands child-safe practice and procedural fairness.

An external investigator may be the better option where:

• the allegations are serious, complex or highly contested
• senior leaders are implicated
• there are multiple respondents or multiple children involved
• there is likely to be regulatory, media or community scrutiny
• the organisation lacks in-house capability
• there is a real or perceived independence problem.

The key point is that regulators generally expect the investigator to be appropriately qualified and capable of conducting a sound investigation. A common benchmark is Certificate IV in Government Investigations, paired with practical experience in trauma-informed interviewing and child-safe processes. That benchmark is not a substitute for judgement, but it is a useful indicator when assessing capability.

Licensing rules matter in NSW and WA

One of the most common mistakes is assuming that any experienced HR consultant or workplace investigator can be brought in to investigate reportable conduct. That is not always correct.

In NSW, external investigators need a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW). Internal employees are generally exempt when acting within the scope of their employment. That means a school, charity or care provider may use a trained employee investigator without private investigator licensing, but if it engages an outside consultant to conduct the investigation, licensing must be checked before appointment.

In Western Australia, the position is similar in substance. External investigators must be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. Again, organisations should not assume that a workplace investigator, consultant or former regulator can lawfully take on the matter without the required licence.

These licensing issues are not mere technicalities. If an organisation appoints an external investigator who is not properly licensed, it may create problems with the integrity of the process and confidence in the outcome.

Victoria is different in the factual brief provided here because the focus is not on private investigator licensing in the same way. Instead, organisations should concentrate on suitability, independence and procedural fairness under the Victorian reportable conduct framework. In 2026, the scheme is administered by the Social Services Regulator, and organisations should be particularly attentive to the broadened definition of employee, which captures labour-hire workers, secondees, and individual business directors or owners. That broader coverage affects who may be the subject of a reportable conduct investigation.

Independence is practical, not just formal

Independence does not always mean external. It means the investigator can approach the matter without bias, pre-judgment or divided loyalties.

An internal investigator may still be independent if they:

• are outside the reporting line of the respondent
• have had no prior involvement in the allegations
• are not advising on disciplinary outcomes
• can gather and assess evidence objectively.

By contrast, an external investigator is not automatically independent simply because they are external. If they have an existing advisory relationship with the organisation, unclear terms of engagement, or pressure to reach a quick outcome, independence may still be questioned.

A sensible selection process should test:

• actual conflicts of interest
• perceived conflicts of interest
• role clarity between investigator, decision-maker and safeguarding lead
• whether the investigator has the authority and time to complete the work properly.

This separation of roles matters. The investigator should usually gather evidence and make findings on the balance of probabilities, guided by the Briginshaw principle for serious allegations. A separate organisational decision-maker should then determine employment, volunteer or risk-management consequences.

Procedural fairness must be built into the investigation design

Procedural fairness is especially important in Victoria, where there is strong emphasis on it, but it is essential across all jurisdictions. A child-safe process does not displace fairness to the respondent. Both must be preserved.

At a minimum, procedural fairness usually requires that the respondent:

• is told the substance of the allegation at the right time
• is given a fair opportunity to respond
• is assessed by an impartial investigator
• has relevant evidence considered before findings are made.

At the same time, fairness to children and witnesses requires careful planning. That includes:

• minimising repeated interviews
• avoiding leading or coercive questions
• considering whether police or child protection involvement affects timing
• protecting confidentiality as far as practicable
• using trauma-informed communication.

The sequencing of interviews is often critical. In some matters, it may be inappropriate to approach the respondent before initial safeguarding steps are taken or before external agencies have been consulted. In others, unnecessary delay can become unfair. There is no single formula, which is why investigator competence matters so much.

Organisations should also remember that reportable conduct findings are made to the civil standard, not the criminal standard. The question is whether the conduct is established on the balance of probabilities, with appropriate caution for serious allegations.

A practical selection checklist for 2026

For organisations operating nationally, it helps to use a structured decision-making process before appointing an investigator.

Ask:

1. Is this matter suitable for internal investigation, or does seriousness or perceived conflict require an external appointment?
2. If external in NSW, does the investigator hold a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence?
3. If external in WA, are they licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996?
4. Does the investigator have reportable conduct experience, not just general workplace investigation experience?
5. Can they interview children and vulnerable witnesses in a trauma-informed way?
6. Are they demonstrably separate from the alleged events and any later disciplinary decision?
7. Do they understand the relevant regulator’s expectations and reporting timeframes?

In NSW, those timeframes include initial notification within 7 business days and a final report within 30 calendar days. In Victoria, initial notification is required within 3 days via the SSR secure webform, with the final report provided as soon as practicable. In WA, initial notification is required within 7 working days, with the final report on conclusion. Investigation planning should be aligned with those deadlines from day one.

Key takeaways

• Internal investigators can be appropriate if they are capable, impartial and acting within their employment role.
• External investigators in NSW need a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence.
• External investigators in WA must be licensed under the relevant WA security legislation.
• In Victoria, focus closely on procedural fairness and the broader definition of employee under the scheme.
• Independence is about actual and perceived impartiality, not simply whether the investigator is internal or external.
• Child-safe practice and procedural fairness must operate together throughout the investigation.
• Build the investigation model early so it can meet regulator notification and reporting timeframes.