Who Can Investigate Reportable Conduct Allegations in 2026? Licensing, Independence and Procedural Fairness

When a reportable conduct allegation arises, one of the first practical questions is who should investigate. In 2026, that decision is not just an operational matter. In New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, the choice of investigator can affect legal compliance, regulator confidence, timeliness, procedural fairness and the quality of findings. Organisations need a defensible framework for deciding when an internal investigator is appropriate, when independence requires an external appointment, and when licensing rules apply.

Start with the regulator’s expectation: appropriate, fair and defensible

Across reportable conduct schemes, the head of an in-scope organisation remains responsible for ensuring allegations are notified and investigated properly. Appointing an investigator does not transfer that accountability. Regulators will expect the organisation to be able to explain why the chosen investigator was suitable for the matter, how conflicts were managed, and how the process protected both children and the subject employee or volunteer.

A sound appointment decision usually turns on five questions:

1. Does the investigator have the capability to investigate child-related allegations?
   Regulators generally expect an appropriately qualified investigator. A common benchmark is Certificate IV in Government Investigations, supported by experience in trauma-informed interviewing and child-safe practice.

2. Is the investigator sufficiently independent of the events and people involved?
   Independence does not always require an external provider, but it does require freedom from actual or perceived bias.

3. Are there any licensing requirements?
   This is especially important where an external investigator is being engaged in NSW or WA.

4. Can the matter be handled in a procedurally fair way?
   This includes giving the respondent a fair opportunity to respond, avoiding prejudgment, and making findings on the civil standard of proof.

5. Will the appointment inspire regulator confidence?
   Even technically compliant investigations can attract scrutiny if the investigator appears conflicted, inexperienced or too closely connected to the organisation’s leadership.

In all three jurisdictions, findings in reportable conduct matters are made on the balance of probabilities, with the Briginshaw principle guiding the level of care taken in assessing serious allegations. This is not the criminal standard.

When internal investigators are appropriate

Internal investigators can be entirely appropriate in many reportable conduct matters, particularly where the organisation has mature safeguarding, HR and investigation capability. In general, internal employees conducting investigations within the scope of their employment are exempt from private investigator licensing requirements. That makes an internal appointment a practical option where the risk profile is manageable.

An internal investigator will often be suitable where:

• the allegation is serious but not unusually complex
• there is no apparent conflict of interest
• the investigator has had no involvement in the events
• the investigator is senior enough to conduct interviews and assess evidence impartially
• the organisation can maintain separation between safeguarding, HR advice and decision-making
• the matter can be progressed within regulator timeframes.

In Victoria, this assessment should be made carefully because the scheme places strong emphasis on procedural fairness, and from 23 February 2026 the scheme sits with the Social Services Regulator. Victoria’s expanded definition of employee also means allegations may involve labour-hire workers, secondees, or individual business directors and owners. That can increase the likelihood that an internal investigator has some operational connection to the respondent or work area, which may undermine perceived independence.

In NSW, internal appointments are common where the organisation has trained child safety or employee conduct investigators and can still meet the 7 business day notification timeframe and 30 calendar day final report expectation under the Office of the Children’s Guardian framework.

In WA, internal investigators may also be suitable, provided the organisation can notify Ombudsman WA within 7 working days and complete a fair investigation to finalisation.

Internal does not mean informal. If an organisation investigates in-house, it should still document the appointment rationale, scope, evidence plan, interview strategy and conflict checks.

When you should consider an external investigator

An external investigator is often the better option where independence is likely to be challenged or the matter requires specialist skill. The most common triggers are:

• allegations against a senior executive, principal, director or head of entity
• allegations involving multiple children, multiple respondents or systemic issues
• parallel criminal, child protection or employment processes
• prior complaints suggesting a pattern of behaviour
• a highly contested factual dispute
• substantial media, parent or stakeholder sensitivity
• limited internal expertise in trauma-informed interviewing or child-safe investigations.

External appointments can also be prudent where the organisation’s internal culture is part of the allegation. If staff or families are likely to perceive the process as protective of management, regulator confidence may be stronger if the investigation is conducted independently.

However, external does not simply mean “better”. The organisation still needs to test capability, safeguarding literacy, procedural fairness skills and understanding of the reportable conduct framework. A workplace investigator with general HR experience may not be enough if they lack experience interviewing children or assessing child harm allegations.

Licensing in NSW and WA: a critical threshold issue

Licensing is a key compliance issue when engaging an external investigator.

In NSW, an external investigator engaged commercially will generally need a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW). Internal employees acting within the scope of their employment are exempt. This means an organisation should not assume that any consultant, HR adviser or former police officer can lawfully take on the matter. Licensing should be checked before appointment, and records of that check should be retained.

In WA, external investigators usually need to be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. Again, organisations should verify that requirement at the outset rather than after the investigation has commenced.

For Victoria, the factual issue is less about a reportable-conduct-specific licensing rule and more about whether the investigator is appropriately qualified, independent and able to deliver procedural fairness in a regulator-ready process. Even where a formal PI licence is not the central question, organisations should still conduct due diligence on credentials, safeguarding competence and prior experience.

As a practical measure, procurement or legal teams should build a standing panel of vetted investigators for child-related matters, rather than sourcing reactively once an allegation is received.

Preserving procedural fairness and regulator confidence

The credibility of an investigation depends as much on process as on outcome. In reportable conduct matters, procedural fairness should be visible from the beginning.

Key controls include:

• Clear terms of reference: define the allegation, issues to be determined, reporting lines and the standard of proof.
• Conflict checks: confirm the investigator has no prior involvement, personal relationship or reporting dependency that could affect impartiality.
• Trauma-informed interviewing: plan carefully where a child may be interviewed, and avoid unnecessary repetition of accounts. This is particularly important in any child-safe investigation.
• Fair opportunity to respond: the respondent should be told the substance of the allegation and given a meaningful chance to respond before adverse findings are made.
• Evidence-based findings: avoid assumptions, character reasoning and language that suggests a criminal standard.
• Separation of roles: the investigator should gather and assess facts; disciplinary decision-makers should remain distinct where possible.
• Timely reporting to the regulator: delay can damage confidence even where the investigation itself is sound.

Regulators are not only interested in whether the allegation was substantiated. They are also concerned with whether the organisation acted promptly, took risk management steps, and handled the matter in a way that was fair to all parties and protective of children.

For NSW, VIC and WA organisations alike, the strongest position in 2026 will come from having a documented decision framework: when internal investigators may be used, when external independence is mandatory, how licensing is checked, and how procedural fairness is built into every matter.

Key takeaways

• Internal investigators can be appropriate if they are capable, impartial and acting within their employment scope.
• External investigators are often preferable for senior, complex, sensitive or highly contested matters.
• In NSW, external investigators generally need a Class 2E (Private Investigator) licence.
• In WA, external investigators usually need a licence under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996.
• In Victoria, regulator confidence will turn heavily on independence, qualifications and procedural fairness.
• Findings are made on the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard.
• A documented appointment rationale, conflict check and fair process are essential to regulator confidence.