RCS INvestigations - internal vs external investigator?

I've been thinking about the fact that in skilled hands, fire is a cleanser rather than a destroyer. Permitting new growth and clearing out the weeds. It has a bit in common with the Reportable Conduct Scheme here in Queensland. Because an investigation into a reportable allegation is a bit like a controlled burn. It's a necessary, careful, deliberate process — and when it's handled by someone with the right skill, the right independence, and the right temperament, it protects children, restores trust, and leaves the organisation stronger. But put the wrong person holding the matches, and the whole thing escapes. And with the QFCC watching — and yes, they genuinely are watching — an escaped burn can cost you far more than the original complaint ever would.

Preserve first. If there's CCTV, lock it down. Emails, messages, images on school devices — issue a litigation hold immediately. Don't let well-meaning IT staff "clean up" anything. 

Get advice next. Your lawyer is your next phone call, and consider whether you need to notify your insurer.

Then choose your investigator.
This is where I see schools come unstuck. Budget is an issue, and the question I'm asked most often is: can we do this ourselves, or do we need to bring someone in? The honest answer is that sometimes you can — and sometimes you absolutely shouldn't. We operate on a fixed fee basis, so if cost is the worry, ask us what a matter is likely to run to. Clarity beats guessing.

An internal investigator is sometimes a great choice. For a low to medium complexity matter — recent, contained, a small cast of characters — someone who is trained, has the time, and is genuinely arms-length from the situation can do a good job. But support them well: these matters are time consuming to do properly, and vicarious trauma is a real WHS risk for your people doing investigations, not just the parties.
If your team aren't trained, don't have the time, or aren't at arm's length — send it out. Beyond that, be honest with yourself about these:

Complex or historical matters. Allegations stretching across years or multiple sites demand an investigative stamina most internal teams simply don't have the bandwidth for alongside their usual roles.
Broken trust. If a parent is deeply unhappy or the community is watching, an internal investigation can look like the organisation marking its own homework — no matter how competently it's done. Perception matters as much as reality.
Key people involved. If the head of entity or senior leadership are implicated — or responsible for how the allegation was initially handled — an internal investigator is compromised before they're even briefed. Natural justice starts with an impartial investigator.
Doubtful impartiality.  If your investigator has supervised the accused, dealt with the family before, or already formed a view, the entire investigation can fail on that fact alone — however good the evidence. No personal stake, no close relationships with anyone involved (including witnesses!), a genuinely open mind. Sometimes the safest pair of hands is the one that has never touched the matter before.

Independence isn't enough — competency counts too. Even setting conflicts aside, this work is genuinely specialised. The QFCC is looking for thoroughness, impartiality, proper documentation, procedural fairness, and findings genuinely supported by evidence in final reports. That's a professional's checklist, and it should be your benchmark too — whoever holds the pen.

Finally, many of you lead schools where community trust is sacred ground. Bringing in an external investigator isn't an admission of failure — it's stewardship. It says the safety of children, the fairness owed to the accused, and the integrity of this community matter more than our comfort or our budget line. That's not weakness. That's us living out our calling to serve the community we've been entrusted with.