Sunday, February 22, 2026

SIRA NSW Closed My Complaint — The Phone Never Rang - July 2021

“Anything is better than lies and deceit!” 

― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

It was on 9 July 2021 that I received an email from the manager of enforcement and prosecutions at the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) advising that my complaint had been reviewed by Enforcement & Prosecutions — and closed.

Just like that.


After months of providing documents.

After setting out detailed allegations.

After asking for transparency in a system that had already left me injured, financially destabilised, and unheard.


The outcome letter stated:


“On the information provided… there is insufficient evidence that demonstrate a possible breach of the workers compensation legislation to a standard required at law.”  

Did they view the evidence? I’m rightly suspicious that SIRA NSW did not legitimately review my evidence. 

It goes on to say negligence is not within scope, corruption is for ICAC, liability is for the Personal Injury Commission, and anything else falls outside SIRA’s jurisdiction.  

And with that:

“SIRA is unable to take this matter any further… SIRA has now closed your complaint.”  

Closed.

But what stayed with me that day was not only the substance of the decision.

It was the phone call that never happened.


“I tried to call you…”


In the email, I was told by the SIRA NSW manager that my phone “rang out.”  

Shortly after, I was told my mobile had been “switched off.”  


Except it hadn’t.


And hereby lies the deception from the very regulator. The public have a right to know why. 


I had the phone with me.

I was waiting.


I included the call log in my records and wrote a note:


“No phone call heard or received – I had the phone with me waiting – how can we in society seek justice and procedural fairness when the deceit is in the very government departments meant to protect workers and enforce the law on organisations?”  


The screenshot of my call log that day shows no missed call from SIRA at the relevant time.  


It may seem small to some.


A technicality.

A crossed wire.

A telecommunications glitch.


It definitely wasn’t. 


When you are a worker navigating a system that holds all the power — insurers, employers, regulators — small inconsistencies are not small.


They are everything.


Because trust is everything.


Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction


Yet the same poster SIRA publishes — the one summarising obligations under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act — makes clear that SIRA regulates workers compensation insurance in NSW.  


And the University’s own webpage outlines the workers compensation process for injured staff.  


So I asked a simple question in my email that afternoon:


“It does come under your jurisdiction. Otherwise explain the attached to me.”  


I was asking for clarity.



What I Was Never Told


There is something else that must be said.


Critical information was withheld from me — by both my employer and the insurer.


I was abandoned to navigate a complex statutory scheme blind.


No one explained the pathway.

No one explained the consequences.

No one explained what I was agreeing to.


I did not know what I was doing.


I did not know what entitlements I was supposed to be receiving.


I told the workers compensation solicitor that I did not want a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) assessment. I wanted the agreed injury management plan implemented.


The response from the paralegal was that they do both WPI and medical expenses together “to save time.”


To save time.


Whose time?


Because while processes were being streamlined administratively, I was being denied my statutory entitlements and rights.


I was trying to recover.


Instead, I found myself in an adversarial system I never chose to enter.


I had no voice.


I was further degraded, patronised, and discriminated against in a process that felt designed to exhaust rather than support.


And that is the confronting truth.


I found myself in this situation because my employer took bullying, harassment, and discrimination to a whole new level — adverse action that triggered injury — and then I was left to fight inside a system that treats injured workers as file numbers.


No one should have to learn the architecture of regulatory law just to access their own entitlements.


No one should be left blind inside a statutory maze.


The Timing


The letter also noted my workers compensation matter was listed for hearing at the Personal Injury Commission.  


Three days after the complaint was closed.


Three days.


What message does that send to an injured worker?


That regulatory concerns are “insufficient” just before a liability hearing?


That procedural issues are compartmentalised away from the lived impact they create?


I had provided extensive material. Records. Evidence. Chronology.


Yet the conclusion was that there was “insufficient evidence” to demonstrate a possible breach to the required standard at law.  


No further explanation.

No breakdown of analysis.

No engagement with the substance beyond scope limitations.


Just closure.


The Human Cost


I left an angry voicemail that day.


I was tired.

I was scared.

I felt cornered.


When regulators close files, they close them administratively.


When workers receive those letters, something else closes too.


Hope.


We do not expect perfection.

But we do expect independence.

We expect transparency.

We expect procedural fairness.


If the body tasked with regulating insurers says it has no scope…

If the safety regulator says it has already sent an outcome…

If the tribunal says it only deals with liability…


Where does systemic accountability sit?


Who holds the centre?


Indifference


There is something more dangerous than incompetence.


Indifference.


Indifference to the human being behind the claim number.

Indifference to the power imbalance.

Indifference to the emotional, financial and psychological toll of procedural opacity.


Indifference is the biggest disease of our time.


It is at crisis level.


When institutions become indifferent, justice becomes theoretical.


And workers become collateral.


An Issue Bigger Than Me


This is not only about my claim number.


It is about the architecture of oversight in New South Wales.


The system is designed so that:


Employers notify insurers within 48 hours.  

Insurers manage liability decisions.

SIRA regulates the scheme.  

The PIC determines disputes.  

On paper, it is neat.

In lived experience, it is fragmentation.

If each body says “not us,” the worker is left holding the weight.


I Am Not Closing This


The email from SIRA concluded:


“If you remain dissatisfied… you can escalate your complaint to the NSW Ombudsman.”  


Another avenue.

Another form.

Another process.


And so the cycle continues.


But here is what I know:


Procedural fairness is not a technicality.

Trust in regulators is not optional in a functioning democracy.

And when injured workers begin to believe the watchdogs do not bark, something far deeper is damaged.


On that Friday in July 2021, the regulator closed my complaint.


But the phone never rang.


And I am still asking the same question written in document 176 of my evidentiary documents:


How can we seek justice when the very departments meant to protect workers and enforce the law appear unwilling — or unable — to see what is in front of them?


This is my story.


My voice.


And I will not let it be closed.

——


Reviewing Document 176


When I review Document 176 now, something else stands out.


In my reply to the SIRA Manager of Enforcement and Prosecutions, I included a screenshot from my employer’s website explaining the workers compensation process.


The page clearly states that injured staff should obtain a certificate of capacity and complete an Employee Claim Form obtained from Human Resources or the WHS team to commence the claims process.


So here is the question that will not go away:


If the employer’s own webpage states the claim form is to be obtained from the WHS team — why did the assigned Return to Work Coordinator, as set out in my Injury Management Plan dated 25 June 2020, not provide me with that form?  


Why was I left to discover its existence myself?


On 2 October 2020 — months into the claim — I had to email Catholic Church Insurance asking why I had not been informed about the claim form and why there had been so much delay in communicating with me.  


I was only told about the form the day before — via WIRO — not by my employer, not by the Return to Work Coordinator, not by the insurer.  


Even prior to that, I was emailing for updates in September 2020, asking simply what the next steps were and asking who my replacement contact (ie. the case manager) would be.  


Silence.

Delay.

Fragmented communication.


And what does the Injury Management Plan say insurers must do?


They must establish the injury management plan, consult with the worker, provide information about the plan, liaise with all parties, and monitor compliance.  


Yet two months into the claim, there was no effective case manager enforcing compliance on all parties and keeping the claim moving.


No one provided the claim form.


No one ensured statutory steps were followed.


No one ensured the Injury Management Plan was properly implemented.


Instead, I was left blind inside a statutory system that carries serious financial and legal consequences.


And when a claim form is not provided, when communication is withheld, when an insurer delays assigning or maintaining a case manager, when statutory obligations are not enforced — that is not a minor administrative oversight.


That is non-compliance with statutory obligations.


It is the denial of access to entitlements.


It is systemic failure.


So I ask again:


If an employer does not provide the claim form as required.


If an insurer fails to ensure compliance with the Injury Management Plan and statutory processes.


If a worker is left to discover fundamental procedural requirements through WIRO rather than through the parties responsible.


Is that not within SIRA NSW’s regulatory jurisdiction?


Because if it is not — then what, exactly, is?


Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 176.


SIRA NSW Jurisdiction

HR senior executive staff were the stressors that triggered the claim - I required guarding from certain individuals - but what about the RTW Co-ordinator and the WHS & Wellbeing manager?

See also:

Injury Management Plan - A Legally Binding Agreement - June 2020 

Email address created strictly for Return to Work communication - July 2020  

Enter IRO - September 2020

CCI - October 2020

Enter unSafeWork NSW & “that” RTW plan I drafted - October 2020

The WHS turning point I will never forget - March 2021

Friday, February 20, 2026

“Please Don’t Neglect Us”: What I Asked of SIRA NSW — In My Own Words - June 2021

When my matter was escalated, at my demand, to the Enforcement & Prosecutions Unit of the NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority, I did not write as a litigant trying to score points.

I wrote as a worker trying to survive a system that had already overwhelmed me.


The record matters because what I asked for was not extraordinary.


It was enforcement.


When a Regulator Says “We Acknowledge” — and Then Says “Not Our Jurisdiction”


In June 2021, I demanded that my complaint be escalated to the Enforcement & Prosecutions Unit of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority.


After two years of raising workplace health and safety concerns, navigating workers compensation disputes, and documenting alleged statutory non-compliance, I finally received formal acknowledgment that my material had been received, logged, and would be reviewed within 14 business days.


On paper, it looked like progress.


In reality, what followed exposed a deeper problem — the gap between acknowledgment and action, and the destabilising effect of jurisdictional withdrawal after escalation.


The Escalation and my Expectations 


On 31 May 2021, I was informed that my claim was recorded as “CLOSED – LIABILITY DENIED.”  


Within days, I:


Sent 13 attachments by email

Sent a USB of indexed records via registered post

Left voicemail messages

Requested enforcement of compliance by the insurer

Raised concerns about a withheld IME report

Asked for clarity about investigative steps and jurisdiction

On 21 June 2021, SIRA formally acknowledged receipt of:

My 13-attachment email

The registered USB

My voicemail

Further written correspondence

The matter was escalated to the Manager of Enforcement & Prosecutions, who confirmed four steps:

1. Review information on hand

2. Review material submitted

3. Identify applicable legislation within jurisdiction

4. Respond with an outcome

The timeframe: 14 business days.

That acknowledgment gave me something I hadn’t had in a long time — hope.

I wrote at the time:

“I need this to speed up to the Commission now, but balanced with ensuring a proper, legitimate and transparent investigation is conducted this time, with my evidence for true impartiality.”


I was not asking for preferential treatment.


I was asking for regulatory scrutiny.


What I Asked For — In My Own Words


On 20 June 2021, as my health deteriorated and financial pressure mounted, I wrote plainly:


“While the investigation progresses — I need support ASAP — it’s a matter of respect and human dignity.”

But the “support” I was requesting was not counselling.

It was enforcement.

“I need you to enforce compliance immediately by the insurer CC Insurance.”

And:

“I need you to enforce cooperation, collaboration and communication by employer and insurer immediately… Go straight to the VC and ensure HR are kept away from me, as you continue this investigation.”

I also wrote:

“Can you please advise me who I can send this entire file of records to, so I can finally have a legitimate and transparent investigation and my entitlements and rights that were stolen… assessed and accounted for.”

And, when the personal toll became unbearable:

“I’m alone and afraid and suffering financially.”


“Don’t neglect us until it’s too late. I’ve given you all the evidence, and annotated, to help you. Help me now too. Please.”

Those words are uncomfortable to revisit.

But they show exactly what I was seeking: lawful intervention while harm was ongoing.

The Parallel Track: The Personal Injury Commission


At the same time, my matter was proceeding before the Personal Injury Commission.


From a worker’s perspective, the system felt fragmented:


The Commission handling dispute resolution.

The regulator handling enforcement.

Neither halting the deterioration in real time.

Procedural silos may make sense administratively.

They are devastating experientially.

The Jurisdiction Shift


After escalation, acknowledgment, and review undertakings, engagement shifted.


Calls did not occur.

Communication became indirect.

And ultimately, the position was communicated that my matter was not within SIRA’s jurisdiction.


Jurisdiction is not a casual word.


In administrative law, it defines authority.


But when:

Evidence has been formally logged,

The matter has been escalated internally,

A review timeframe has been set,

a subsequent jurisdictional withdrawal — without detailed statutory reasoning — raises serious governance questions.

A regulator declining jurisdiction should provide:


1. Clear written reasons.

2. Specific legislative references.

3. Explanation of enforcement thresholds.

4. Identification of the body that does have authority.

5. Confirmation whether any aspect remains within scope.

Anything less creates opacity.

Opacity breeds suspicion.

These were not abstract complaints.

They were requests for regulatory intervention while harm was ongoing.

The Broader Question and Structural Issue


This is bigger than my case.


When a worker:


Submits extensive documentary evidence,

Is told their matter is escalated,

Is given a review timeframe,

Is actively deteriorating while waiting,


and then receives a jurisdictional distancing without transparent reasoning —


what safeguards ensure regulatory accountability?


What interim protections exist when enforcement review is ongoing?

Can regulators compel document production swiftly?

Can they direct compliance during investigation?

Should jurisdictional boundaries be explained transparently and promptly?

How do we prevent “quiet exits” from enforcement scrutiny?


Regulatory legitimacy depends on visible, reasoned decision-making.


When a regulator later says a matter is outside jurisdiction — after reviewing evidence, escalating internally, and setting timelines — the human impact of that withdrawal is profound. 


Silence creates suspicion.

Ambiguity erodes trust.

Opacity damages credibility.


Referral Is Not Regulation


Alongside enforcement acknowledgment, I was provided:


Psychologist contact details

Financial counselling services

Lifeline and Beyond Blue numbers

Advice to contact my GP

Those services are essential in crisis contexts.

But I was not asking the regulator for emotional support.

I was asking it to regulate.

There is a fundamental difference.

When distress arises from alleged systemic non-compliance, the appropriate primary response is compliance action — not referral sheets.

Dignity is not a crisis hotline.

The Human Cost of Administrative Avoidance


I could have accepted a reasoned refusal.


I could have accepted statutory limits clearly explained.


What I struggled with was avoidance followed by withdrawal.


When someone writes:


“Help me now too. Please.”

and the system responds with distance rather than clarity, it compounds the harm.

Why This Matters


Many injured workers describe the same pattern:


1. Raise WHS concerns.

2. Injury occurs.

3. Compensation dispute follows.

4. Regulatory complaint is lodged.

5. Acknowledgment is issued.

6. Time passes.

7. The worker deteriorates.

The system may not intend harm. But if it cannot respond proportionately and transparently when harm is ongoing, reform is necessary.

Not optional.

Grounded Close


If you are navigating a similar regulatory maze:


Document everything.

Quote your own words.

Request written reasons.

Ask for statutory references.


Transparency is not hostility.


It is a basic requirement of lawful administration.


And dignity in law must show up in practice — especially when someone has already said, clearly and without theatrics:


“Don’t neglect us until it’s too late.”


Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 173. 


Further reading 


Marschall, A. (2024, 12 December). ‘How Trauma-Informed Practices Can Create a Safe and Supportive Workplace.’ Spring Health. [Online blog]: https://www.springhealth.com/blog/how-trauma-informed-practices-can-create-a-safe-and-supportive-workplace