Who Can Investigate a Reportable Conduct Matter? Licensing, Independence and Investigator Selection in NSW, VIC and WA

When a reportable conduct allegation is received, one of the first practical questions is who should investigate it. In New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, that decision is not just about availability or cost. It goes to legal compliance, the defensibility of findings, procedural fairness for the subject worker, and the organisation’s capacity to conduct a child-safe, trauma-informed process. In higher-risk matters, getting investigator selection wrong can undermine the entire response.

Start with the role, not the job title

A common mistake is assuming that any experienced HR practitioner, child safety lead or manager can investigate any reportable conduct matter. In practice, organisations should separate three issues:

1. whether the person can lawfully do the work;
2. whether they are sufficiently independent and appropriately qualified; and
3. whether they can conduct the investigation in a trauma-informed and procedurally fair way.

Under reportable conduct schemes, the head of the organisation remains responsible for notifying the regulator and ensuring the allegation is properly investigated. That does not mean every matter must be outsourced. Internal investigators are commonly used, particularly where the allegation is lower in complexity, the facts are relatively contained, and there is no obvious conflict of interest.

However, internal capability has limits. Where allegations involve sexual misconduct, serious physical violence, significant emotional or psychological harm, significant neglect, multiple complainants, senior staff, or possible systemic failures, organisations should test carefully whether an internal investigator is the right choice.

NSW and WA: when external investigators need a licence

In NSW and WA, the licensing position is especially important if the organisation is considering an external investigator.

In NSW, external investigators operating commercially 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. The practical effect is clear: a school, charity, sporting body or care provider may use an appropriately skilled employee to conduct an internal workplace investigation, but if it engages an outside consultant to investigate, it should confirm that the consultant holds the required licence where the licensing regime applies.

In WA, external investigators usually need to be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. As in NSW, this means organisations should not assume that a consultant with general HR, legal or safeguarding experience can automatically undertake a reportable conduct investigation as an external provider.

Licensing is only the starting point. A licence does not, by itself, demonstrate child protection expertise, trauma-informed interviewing ability, or familiarity with regulator expectations. But failing to address licensing where it is required can create immediate compliance risk.

Victoria: focus on capability, scope and fairness

Victoria’s reportable conduct scheme sits under the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, with the scheme transferred to the Social Services Regulator on 23 February 2026. The Victorian framework places strong emphasis on procedural fairness, which should shape investigator selection from the outset.

The factual brief does not identify a comparable reportable-conduct-specific private investigator licensing point for internal versus external investigators in Victoria in the same way as NSW and WA. For Victorian organisations, the sharper question is usually whether the investigator is suitable for the matter, free from conflict, and able to carry out a fair process.

That is particularly important given the expanded definition of “employee” in Victoria, which captures labour-hire workers, secondees, and individual business directors or owners. In practice, this can widen the range of people whose conduct may fall within scope and can complicate internal reporting lines. If the respondent is senior, closely connected to decision-makers, or part of a small executive team, an external investigator may be the safer choice even where an internal option is technically available.

When an internal investigator is usually appropriate

Internal investigators are typically most suitable where the matter is comparatively straightforward and the organisation can demonstrate genuine independence in the process. Indicators that an internal appointment may be appropriate include:

• the alleged conduct is confined to a discrete incident or limited fact pattern;
• the investigator has had no prior involvement in the allegation;
• there is no reporting line or personal relationship with the respondent or key witnesses;
• there is no reason to doubt the investigator’s impartiality;
• the organisation has staff with credible investigation training and interview capability; and
• the matter does not present unusual reputational, systemic or child-safety complexity.

A useful benchmark is an investigator with Certificate IV in Government Investigations or equivalent practical investigation capability, combined with experience in workplace or safeguarding matters. Regulators also expect investigators to be appropriately qualified, which should be understood in substance, not just by reference to formal credentials.

Even where an internal investigator is used, organisations should consider obtaining legal or specialist safeguarding advice on the investigation plan, interview sequencing, recordkeeping and final findings methodology.

Higher-risk matters: independence, trauma-informed practice and procedural fairness

The case for an external investigator becomes stronger as the risk profile rises. That is often the position where:

• the allegation involves sexual misconduct or serious violence;
• the child’s account is central and requires careful forensic handling;
• there are multiple children or families involved;
• police, child protection or other regulators may also be involved;
• the respondent is a principal, director, executive, owner or other influential leader;
• there are concerns about culture, previous complaints or systemic safeguarding gaps; or
• the matter is likely to be closely scrutinised by the regulator.

In those matters, organisations should assess not just independence, but demonstrable trauma-informed capability. That includes knowing how to minimise re-traumatisation, avoid repeated unnecessary interviewing, plan safe information-gathering, and coordinate appropriately with other processes. It also includes understanding the limits of an employment or safeguarding investigation where parallel criminal or child protection issues exist.

Procedural fairness must run alongside child safety. The respondent should be given a fair opportunity to respond to the substance of adverse allegations, and findings should be made on the balance of probabilities, applying the civil standard with appropriate care for serious allegations. A strong investigator will understand how to balance child-centred practice with fairness to the subject worker and disciplined evidence analysis.

Before appointing any investigator, ask practical questions:

• Are they internal or external, and if external, do licensing requirements apply?
• Have they investigated reportable conduct or comparable child-safeguarding matters before?
• Can they work in a trauma-informed way with children and families?
• Are they independent from the people and events in question?
• Can they produce a clear, evidence-based report that addresses regulator expectations?
• Do they understand procedural fairness and the standard of proof used in these matters?

Key takeaways

• In NSW and WA, external investigators will usually need the relevant private investigator licence; internal employees are generally exempt when acting within their employment scope.
• In VIC, the central issues are usually independence, capability and procedural fairness, especially in complex or senior-staff matters.
• A licence is not enough on its own; organisations should also assess investigation training, safeguarding experience and trauma-informed interviewing capability.
• Internal investigators can be suitable for lower-complexity matters where conflicts are absent and capability is credible.
• Higher-risk allegations often justify an external investigator, particularly where child evidence, senior respondents or systemic issues are involved.
• Findings in reportable conduct matters are made on the balance of probabilities, with careful handling of serious allegations and strong procedural fairness throughout.