Who Should Investigate? Licensing, Independence and Procedural Fairness in Victorian and Western Australian Cases

Choosing the right investigator is one of the most important early decisions in a reportable conduct matter. In Victoria and Western Australia, that decision is not only about capability and workload. It also turns on licensing, independence, procedural fairness and the regulator’s likely expectations about the quality of the process. An organisation that appoints the wrong person, or gives them the wrong brief, can create avoidable risk for the child, the respondent, and the organisation itself.

Start with suitability, not convenience

When an allegation of reportable conduct is received, many organisations first ask whether HR, a principal, a safeguarding lead or an external consultant can “do the investigation”. That is often too narrow a question. The better question is whether the proposed investigator is appropriate for this matter.

In both Victoria and Western Australia, appointment decisions should be made against a few practical criteria:

the seriousness and complexity of the allegation
the risk of actual or perceived bias
whether children will need to be interviewed
whether there are parallel processes, such as police, child protection, disciplinary or employment action
whether the proposed investigator has the skills to gather and assess evidence fairly
whether the appointment creates any licensing issue if the investigator is external.

Internal investigators may be entirely appropriate in lower-complexity matters, particularly where the investigator is senior enough, has had no prior involvement, understands workplace investigation practice, and can maintain objectivity. In many organisations, internal investigators also know the policies, reporting lines and operational context, which can help move a matter forward promptly.

But convenience should never override independence. If the proposed internal investigator is closely connected to the respondent, involved in earlier decisions, or likely to be a witness, that person should not investigate. The same caution applies where the organisation’s culture, hierarchy or local relationships may make impartial fact-finding difficult in practice.

When an internal investigator may be the better option

An internal investigator can be suitable where the matter is relatively contained and the organisation can demonstrate a fair process. Examples may include allegations with limited factual dispute, straightforward witness pools, and no significant concerns about internal conflict or influence.

In Victoria, this choice should be shaped by the scheme’s strong emphasis on procedural fairness. That means the organisation must be able to show that the respondent was informed of the substance of the allegations at the appropriate time, given a proper opportunity to respond, and assessed by an impartial decision-maker. An internal appointment is more defensible where there is a clear separation between investigator, decision-maker and any welfare or disciplinary functions.

In practice, internal investigations are more likely to work well where the organisation can provide:

a written terms of reference
a conflict check before appointment
documented evidence handling and interview protocols
secure recordkeeping
a clear pathway for reviewing findings before reporting to the regulator.

The fact that internal employees are generally exempt from private investigator licensing requirements is also relevant. If the investigation is conducted by an employee within the scope of their role, the licensing issue that can arise for external providers may not apply. That can make internal appointment administratively simpler, but it does not lower the standard expected of the investigation.

Regulators still expect investigators to be appropriately qualified. A common benchmark is training such as Certificate IV in Government Investigations, combined with experience in trauma-informed interviewing and workplace fact-finding. In child-related matters, technical skill matters as much as subject matter knowledge.

When external appointment is safer or necessary

External investigators are often preferable where independence is likely to be challenged, the allegations are serious, senior staff are involved, or the matter may later be scrutinised by a regulator, tribunal or court. An external investigator may also be appropriate where the organisation lacks internal capability or where interviewing children or vulnerable witnesses requires specialist skill.

That said, outsourcing is not a cure-all. The organisation remains responsible for the quality of the process and for meeting its reporting obligations. A poorly briefed external investigator can create delay, overreach into matters that should be left to police or child protection, or apply methods unsuited to child-safe investigations.

In Western Australia, there is an additional threshold issue: external investigators must be licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. This should be checked before appointment, not after the investigation has begun. If a commercial provider does not hold the necessary licence, the organisation risks appointing someone who is not lawfully positioned to perform that work.

For WA organisations, a sound procurement and appointment process should include:

confirming whether the investigator is external or internal
verifying any required licence before engagement
checking relevant child-safe and workplace investigation experience
clarifying who will make findings and who will make employment or risk decisions
ensuring the brief addresses trauma-informed practice and confidentiality.

Even where no equivalent licensing point is highlighted in Victoria in the same way, independence and competence remain central. External investigators should not be appointed solely for appearance. They should bring genuine expertise and a process that can withstand regulatory review.

Procedural fairness in Victoria should shape the appointment brief

Victoria’s framework places strong emphasis on procedural fairness, and that expectation should influence not just how the investigation runs, but who is chosen to run it.

Procedural fairness is not a formula. It is a set of practical obligations that usually includes giving the respondent enough information to understand the allegation, a real chance to respond, and a process free from prejudgment. In reportable conduct matters, this must be balanced carefully with child safety, confidentiality and the need to avoid compromising parallel investigations.

This has several implications for investigator selection in Victoria:

First, the investigator must understand the difference between gathering facts and deciding outcomes. If the same person is investigating, advising management and making disciplinary recommendations without clear boundaries, fairness concerns can arise quickly.

Second, the investigator must know how to test evidence without adopting a prosecutorial mindset. Reportable conduct findings are assessed on the civil standard of proof, using the balance of probabilities, with appropriate caution for serious allegations. That requires disciplined analysis, not assumption.

Third, where children are involved, interview planning must be careful and proportionate. Not every matter requires direct interviewing of a child by the organisation, especially where police or child protection involvement is possible or likely. The investigator must know when to proceed, when to pause and when specialist support is needed.

Finally, procedural fairness is strengthened by visible independence. In a school, care service or community organisation, even a technically competent internal investigator may be a poor choice if staff or families would reasonably doubt their neutrality.

A practical decision framework for VIC and WA organisations

For safeguarding leads and executives, the appointment decision should be structured and documented. A simple decision record can help show why the chosen investigator was suitable.

Questions worth asking at the outset include:

Is there any actual or perceived conflict if we appoint internally?
Does the matter involve senior personnel, multiple complainants, or significant reputational risk?
Will children need to be interviewed, and do we have the capability to do this safely?
Are police, child protection or other agencies involved?
If we appoint externally in WA, have we verified the required licence?
Can the proposed investigator deliver a procedurally fair process, particularly in a Victorian matter?

In many cases, a hybrid model works well: an internal lead manages notifications, welfare and regulator liaison, while an appropriately qualified investigator conducts fact-finding. That can preserve organisational oversight while improving independence and quality.

The most defensible approach is usually the one that can be explained clearly: this investigator was chosen because they were independent, suitably skilled, lawfully able to act, and capable of delivering a fair process for everyone involved.

Key takeaways

Internal investigators may be appropriate where the matter is manageable, conflicts are absent, and the organisation can ensure objectivity and skill.
External investigators are often preferable for serious, complex or sensitive matters, especially where independence may be questioned.
In WA, external investigators must be properly licensed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996.
In Victoria, procedural fairness expectations should strongly influence both investigator selection and the structure of the investigation.
Internal employee investigators are generally exempt from private investigator licensing requirements, but they still need appropriate qualifications and child-safe investigation capability.
Appointment decisions should be documented and based on independence, competence, legal compliance and the needs of the specific matter.