Friday, October 16, 2026

Once We Repaired Things - Part 13: The Call I Couldn’t Answer

It was a Tuesday in March 2019. At about five or five-thirty that afternoon, I was driving home after a day that had brought grief painfully close again.

At 2pm that afternoon, we’d been informed that our colleague Dan had died. We learned that he had taken his life over the weekend.


A young man. A son, a brother, a friend, a colleague. Someone whose absence would reach far beyond the campus where we knew him.


For me, the news also brought back my father.


That’s something people don’t always understand about losing someone to suicide. Hearing of another death can return you to your own loss, even years later. You grieve for the person who has died, for the people who love them, and you find yourself remembering what happened to your own family.


That afternoon, I was carrying all of that home.


Then my phone rang.


It was Paul.


——


What had already happened that day


I have written about this day in Part 5 of my initial bullying, discrimination and harassment complaint.


Staff were gathering in the student centre for support. My manager told me to go there, then later criticised me for not finding a colleague who’d left the library in shock. She and Dan had been good friends and had studied together.


I had looked in rooms along the way. The campus minister was calling her mobile, and two other colleagues were searching further across campus.


Yet I was still criticised.


On a day when we were trying to absorb a colleague’s death, I found myself having to defend what I had done. I was distressed by the news and by the memories it brought back. The manager’s treatment added to that distress when I needed some room to breathe.


I remember wondering what she could possibly have expected from me.


——


Listening to grief, and experiencing it


I had spent time talking with the campus minister about what was happening in my private life and about my experience of losing my father.


I had said much less about what was happening at work. I was frightened that anything I disclosed would get back to my manager and bring more passive-aggressive treatment. That fear kept me quiet for a long time, even while the situation was affecting my health.


After Dan’s death, I remember Ann reflecting on how our conversations had given her some understanding of suicide bereavement before it affected someone she knew.


As I recall, his office was across the hallway from hers, or nearby. His death was suddenly part of her own working world.


There’s a difference between listening compassionately to someone’s experience and feeling that loss enter your own life. Listening matters enormously. But knowing the person, expecting to see them again, and then learning that they’ve died brings an understanding that can’t be acquired through listening alone.


And when the person is your parent, your child, your sibling or your partner, there are further layers.


How did I miss this? How did I not know?


Those questions can remain with a family. They don’t establish that anyone could have foreseen or prevented the death. But they can still be agonising.


Then there are the comments people make.


I’ve already written about the stigma and hurtful attitudes my family encountered in parts of the Greek Orthodox community. I will keep speaking about that. Faith should give bereaved families compassion, dignity and support. Judgement and ignorant commentary add suffering to people who are already trying to live with an unbearable loss.


Families remember those words too.


——


Before the phone rang


By March 2019, the stress in my working and personal life had become too much.


I had been diagnosed with hypertension. I was trying to keep functioning in a workplace where I felt frightened, undermined and worn down. At the same time, I had been trying for quite a while to communicate with Paul.


I needed him to listen. I needed a chance to explain what was happening to me and what his behaviour was doing to me.


Instead, I had experienced calls in which I felt blasted by anger and could barely get a word in. I experienced those calls as aggressive. Afterwards, I was left with everything I had been trying to say still trapped inside me, but with a layer of hurt and shame added that compounded the trauma.


That inability to communicate was crushing.


So when his name appeared on my phone while I was driving home that afternoon, I felt fear.


I can’t tell you what he intended to say in that particular call. I didn’t answer it. But I can tell you why I was afraid: I remembered the calls that had come before it.


I feared another encounter in which he would yell over me and I would have no space to explain anything.


On that day, I couldn’t bear it.


——


The call I couldn’t answer


I was driving. I had just learned that we had lost Dan to suicide. My father’s death was painfully present in my thoughts again. I had also endured my manager’s unfair and harmful criticism. Again.


Seeing Paul’s call brought another surge of distress.


I felt as though my blood pressure had shot up. I was frightened about what that level of stress could do to me, and about whether I could keep concentrating safely on the road if I answered on Bluetooth.


I remember thinking that I could have an accident. I feared a serious medical event. Those were the thoughts going through my mind as I tried to get home.


I didn’t answer.


I think he called twice. I also think he left a voicemail, although I can’t now be certain of those details.


I didn’t listen to a message, and I didn’t retain one.


That means I can’t describe its contents. What I remember clearly is the fear that stopped me from answering and the decision to protect myself from further distress while I was driving.


There was already more than enough happening inside that car.


——


What I wish Paul had understood


Paul, if you read this, I want you to understand the circumstances in which your call reached me.


We had just learned that a young colleague had died by suicide.


I was remembering my father.


I was already suffering under the strain of what was happening at work. I had hypertension. I had been trying to communicate with you, and previous calls had left me afraid of being shouted down again. I had a gut feeling about this call being the same too.


You may not have known what had happened on campus that day. But you did know how you’d spoken to me before.


Someone’s earlier behaviour shapes how their next call is received. An incoming call can bring fear before a single word is spoken.


I wish you’d stopped to consider how much hurt I was already carrying, and how much more I could possibly tolerate.


I needed you to listen and understand.


——


The harm kept compounding


The pressures were accumulating. There was no real space between them in which to recover.


The workplace harm continued. The personal distress continued. Bereavement could be brought back sharply by another loss. My health was already showing the strain.


In the years that followed, the consequences spread further into my finances, my home and my retirement savings. I’m documenting the alleged workers’ compensation fraud involving ACU and CCI elsewhere in this blog, together with the failures of the systems from which I sought protection.


My income and statutory benefits were withheld. The damage compounded while I kept reporting what was happening and asking for help.


I want that conduct independently investigated and those responsible held accountable. The full financial consequences also need to be properly calculated, including the investments and retirement plans disrupted along the way.


But this part of my story concerns something deeply personal.


What happened with Paul hurt me profoundly. I had wanted connection with him. I had kept trying to communicate, even while I was struggling to get through my working days.


On that Tuesday afternoon, his call reached someone who was grieving, frightened and exhausted.


——


Why I’m telling this story


I didn’t set out to spend years documenting harm or challenging powerful institutions. I wanted to do my work, live my life and be treated with respect by the people around me.


I tried to resolve things. I tried to explain. I tried to follow the appropriate processes.


Eventually, I needed to speak publicly because the harm had continued and so much of what I had said had gone unheard.


To understand how I got here has to acknowledge what happened before it.


That includes the afternoon I saw Paul’s name on my phone and felt afraid to answer.


We had lost Dan. I was remembering Dad. I was trying to drive home safely.


I had nothing left for another painful call.


That day, leaving the phone unanswered was how I got myself home.


To be continued…

Thursday, October 15, 2026

What I Told ACU Governance About My $30,000 Deposit—and the Losses That Followed - November 2022

The $30,000 Deposit Was a Warning. The Financial Damage Didn’t Stop.

On 21 November 2022, I wrote to the solicitor handling a property purchase I had planned to make outright through my self-managed superannuation fund. I explained that I could no longer proceed and would have to forfeit the $30,000 deposit.


I wrote:


“I was initially set up to purchase this property outright in my SMSF. I need to ensure it’s noted for the financial loss now and rental income it would’ve generated for my superannuation fund and retirement.”


The email shows governance@acu.edu.au in its Bcc field. I included ACU’s general governance address so the university would be informed of the financial damage as it was happening. This was a warning in November 2022, not an explanation I put together years later.


The $30,000 was only the deposit. I also lost the opportunity to own the property outright through my superannuation fund, receive its rental income and benefit from any future capital growth. Those potential losses require proper assessment, but they cannot be dismissed simply because they’re harder to put into a single figure.


This was part of a snowball effect, and it didn’t stop in November 2022. I’m still not receiving the weekly workers’ compensation payments owed to me. ACU and Catholic Church Insurance have still not cooperated to provide suitable duties and a safe path back to work at my HEW 8 level under the injury management arrangements. I haven’t resigned. I want to recover and return to my work in a safe environment.


Without that income or a safe path back to my duties, the financial pressure has continued to compound. It’s reached my superannuation and the ATO consequences I now face. I shouldn’t be left to bear the burden of institutional failures and then face further consequences for the steps I took to survive them.


The system failed me, and now the system is threatening to punish me for its own failures. To me, the continuing deprivation of income, the loss of financial security and the pressure created by institutional inaction amount to financial abuse and coercive control on a systemic scale. These are serious concerns involving a publicly funded university employer and its specialised insurer. They demand examination of the evidence, not another attempt to pass responsibility elsewhere.


ACU governance didn’t intervene to stop the damage after I brought it to their attention. The record now calls for answers: 

who received the email through the governance address, what did they do with my warning, and why were the financial and work consequences allowed to continue?

I’m calling for a thoroughly external and independent investigation. It must be independent of ACU’s Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, the lawyers involved, and anyone whose conduct or decisions may need to be examined. It must follow the evidence across ACU, Catholic Church Insurance and the regulatory responses. It must address not only the original conduct I reported, but what happened after the institutions involved were warned about the continuing harm.


The forfeited deposit is one documented point in a much longer chain of harm. 


By October 2026, the question was no longer just why I lost that investment. It was why the institutions I warned had still not brought the continuing damage to an end. That question remains unanswered.


Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 563.

——


Update — 12 October 2026


The ATO has now provided some relief. That gives me breathing space, but it doesn’t repair the financial damage or resolve the circumstances that brought me here. I still owe the ATO and face the challenge of arranging repayments while I’m still not receiving the weekly workers’ compensation payments legally owed to me under a statutory scheme. 


What’s the point of a statutory scheme if it doesn’t provide the safety net and protection by having an effective regulator who genuinely stops employers, insurers and their lawyers from engaging in unethical conduct, finding ways to manipulate the system and undermine a STATUTORY SCHEME! 


How am I meant to repay that debt, meet my living expenses and afford medical care while the income and safe return-to-work arrangements I have repeatedly sought, remain unresolved? I have exhausted every regulatory and legal avenue available in good faith and documented all the failures and loopholes that allow this harm to happen! 

I need a sustainable way forward, not temporary relief followed by the same financial pressure that drove me to use my superannuation to protect my home and meet basic living costs.


My concerns extend particularly to CCI’s conduct. Its own commissioned factual investigation recorded my request for protective no-contact measures in Incident 24. It issued the Injury Management Plan on 25 June 2020, yet I was left without a replacement case manager to coordinate its implementation after the original case manager departed. In my view, these failures require scrutiny in their own right, not treatment as merely an issue between me and my employer.


I allege workers’ compensation fraud and suspect collusion between ACU and CCI. Those allegations require a genuinely independent investigation, not assumptions in either direction. My records document governance awareness at both institutions. I’ve also provided APRA with evidence of the financial harm and the need for restoration.


The ATO’s relief doesn’t remove the need to establish how this happened, why regulatory intervention failed to stop it, and what must now be done to restore my financial security and support recovery in my job. 

One person shouldn’t have to carry the responsibility for making an entire statutory system operate as intended.

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

I asked for help to return safely to my work. Why was I still pleading in November 2022?

On 15 November 2022, I sent another account to both SIRA NSW and SafeWork NSW, of what had happened after I reported workplace psychosocial hazards and made a workers’ compensation claim. I also asked for something I had sought throughout: action that would allow me to recover and return safely to my work and my university community.

The document brought together correspondence from 2020 and 2021. Reading the dates in sequence raises questions about how my claim was handled, what happened to the insurer’s injury management plan, and why my repeated requests for help had still not produced a safe path back to work.


——


A plan issued, but where was the support?


Catholic Church Insurance (CCI) issued an Injury Management Plan on 25 June 2020. Its goal was a return to my pre-injury duties. I wanted to work with my treating professionals, a case manager, a return-to-work coordinator and rehabilitation support to make that possible. In my November 2022 account, I said the plan had never been implemented.


The claim form itself became another source of distress. I had reported my injury and submitted my first certificate of capacity in May 2020. Yet, as my 2 October 2020 email to CCI records, I had only learned about the claim form through WIRO on 1 October 2020. I sent the form to CCI the next day.


By then, I told the insurer, I had used my personal, annual and long service leave, was facing financial distress, and remained exposed to the employer conduct I had reported. I wrote:


“I request clear communication, updates and transparency with the next steps in the process from this moment on.”


CCI confirmed on 6 October 2020 that it had received my claim form. This claim form, and knowledge about its existence, had been withheld from me since the start of the claim in late May 2020. I continued to seek information about its requests to my doctor, the medical evidence it held and when it would make a decision. My 21 October 2020 response challenged several statements relayed by CCI, including whether it had requested clinical notes. CCI declined the claim on 22 October 2020, according to the chronology I compiled.


These exchanges deserve careful examination. A worker trying to recover should be able to find out what the insurer needs, what action it has taken and who is coordinating the return-to-work process.


——


The questions I kept asking


On 13 January 2021, I complained to WIRO about CCI’s handling of my claim. I said the insurer’s failure to communicate and cooperate had left me exposed to further distress while I was trying to return safely to work. After CCI responded, I asked why I hadn’t been assigned a case manager to carry forward the June 2020 plan.


I put that question directly to CCI through IRO on 18 October 2021:


“Why did CCI not assign a case manager to me from July 2020, to communicate with my GP and psychologist, and implement the injury management plan as agreed on 25 June 2020?”


I also asked why the psychologist’s return-to-work recommendations hadn’t led to action, why I had learned about the claim form months after reporting my injury, and how information from a factual investigation prepared for the insurer came to be proposed for use in an employer investigation. I had serious concerns about the handling of private information concerning me and my family.


Those were requests for specific explanations. I wanted the records checked and answers given in writing.


——


The cost of being passed between systems


My November 2022 account describes attempts to obtain help from the insurer, IRO, SIRA, SafeWork NSW and others. I reported the conduct I experienced as harassment and adverse action, and I asked for it to stop. I remained concerned that responsibility for my safety and recovery was being passed around while the harm continued.


In correspondence from August 2021, I wrote to CCI about what workers’ compensation was meant to achieve: helping an injured worker recover safely at work. I asked the insurer to act on its injury management plan, address my lost leave and help me return to my substantive role. By October 2021, my request through IRO was painfully simple:


“Give us the start of good news, transparency and positive action.”


On 15 November 2022, I was still asking for my entitlements, my workplace support network and a safe return to the work I had done for two decades. I described being frightened, financially strained and distressed by the continuing “process”. And I still didn’t receive answers to my questions about CCI’s obligations or restore the workplace support I sought and needed for my recovery.


I have raised allegations of serious misconduct and possible fraud. Those allegations require an independent examination of the evidence and fair responses from the organisations concerned. They should neither be accepted nor dismissed without that work being done.


The question remains: 


What happened to the 25 June 2020 Injury Management Plan, and why did I have to keep pleading for clear communication, protection and a safe way to recover in my work?


Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 562.

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Two More Emails to ACU Governance: Who Was Listening? - November 2022

On 9 November 2022, I wrote to ACU governance because I couldn’t get the communication, cooperation or action I had been seeking. On 15 November 2022, I followed up with direct questions about the Associate Director of HR, privacy violations, adverse action and ACU’s responsibilities as an employer.

As my story shows, these were not my first attempts to raise concerns. I had reported psychosocial hazards affecting my health and safety on 2 July 2019. By November 2022, I had also provided the Fair Work Ombudsman with a timeline and records. I was asking the people above the Associate Director of HR to examine what had happened and act.


——


9 November 2022: I asked governance to intervene


In my first email, I told governance that I had gone elsewhere to be heard. I questioned why ACU’s policies for complaints about serious misconduct by executive staff didn’t appear to be protecting me. As I put it:


“Policies like complaints about serious misconduct of executive staff are not required only for show. They are meant to be applied and enforced.”


I raised the conduct I had reported within HR, the privacy violations that had occurred, and my concerns about the actions of ACU and Catholic Church Insurance. I told governance that payments and support were being withheld while I was trying to recover safely and return to the job I had performed for twenty years.


I also explained that an insurer case manager had provided an injury management plan to me and my health professionals. After she left, I couldn’t obtain the communication and cooperation needed to put that plan into effect. I had repeatedly tried to get the employer and insurer to work with me. Why did it seem that I was the only party expected to keep trying?


Meanwhile, I was using my personal, annual and long service leave. I had a mortgage and bills to pay. I was frightened about what would happen to me and my family if those with the power to act continued to leave these matters unresolved.


I addressed Professor Zlatko Skrbis and Professor Ramsay by name. I asked them to listen. I also asked that my friend and colleague in the Directorate of Identity and Mission be “allowed” to call me. It should not have required permission. The forced isolation I am STILL experiencing is causing me SERIOUS HARM. It’s forseeable harm that’s continuing by those governing the university! I wrote:


“I’m alone and I’m frightened and governance are responsible for this.”


That was a direct appeal for human contact as well as action. I needed a safe path back to my workplace and the community I still belonged to.


——


15 November 2022: Questions I asked again


Six days later, I wrote to governance again. I asked whether its leaders were aware of the privacy violations, discrimination and adverse action I had reported concerning the Associate Director of HR. I said that I had raised these concerns within ACU and with the Fair Work Ombudsman, providing a timeline and records.


I asked:


“How is this aligned to the mission and values of ACU?”


I also asked how tolerating the psychosocial hazards and financial harm I was reporting could be reconciled with being a responsible employer. 


I questioned what ACU’s staff code of conduct and commitments to dignity and ethics meant if governance did not examine serious complaints about its own executive staff.


My email asked:


“Where is the zero tolerance regarding discrimination and serious privacy breaches?”


And I described the isolation I was experiencing:


“Stop the psychological abuse of workplace mobbing. It’s like forcing someone to be in solitary confinement.”


I’ve worked honourably for the university community for twenty years. I was seeking protection for my health and safety, and cooperation with an injury management plan. I’ve continually pleaded to remain connected to my workplace. 


ACU senior leaders had legal obligations. Their lack of due diligence has caused harm that was foreseeable. 


And it’s continuing. ACU governance have been fully aware for years. 


——


What did ACU governance do with these warnings?


The sequence matters. On 9 November 2022, I gave governance a detailed account of the injury management plan, my efforts to obtain cooperation, the loss of leave and my fear. On 15 November 2022, I pressed it again with questions about the Associate Director of HR and the standards ACU says it upholds.


What did Vice Chancellor Professor Skrbis, DVC Professor Ramsay and ACU governance do with those emails? 


Who examined the timeline and records I had provided? 


Who investigated the privacy and adverse action concerns? 


Who checked whether ACU and its insurer were cooperating to implement the injury management plan? 


Who considered the harm of leaving me isolated while I was asking for help?


I asked for a safe work environment. I asked for the injury management plan to be implemented. I asked for human contact and a way to recover in the university community I’ve been part of and served for twenty years.


Those requests deserved a serious, accountable response. 


Why was no response forthcoming yet again?


See also posts like:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-decision-maker-now-vice-chancellor.html


http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/04/vice-chancellor-on-notice-delivered.html


http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/05/on-noticeagain-what-leadership-knew.html


Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents 557-558.

Monday, October 12, 2026

Clayton Utz’s Past Conduct — Part 3: AMP, an “Independent” Report and the Records ASIC Sought

In Part 2, I wrote about an expert witness whose independence was examined in the Kazaa case. This final part turns to a different kind of independence: an investigation commissioned by an organisation into its own conduct. 

I have written about my family’s experience of an investigation arranged by my university and about the questions we were left asking when the people who made the complaint were not interviewed. The AMP matter is separate from ours. I’m examining it because the word “independent” was also central to what the public and a regulator were told.

——


The report commissioned by AMP


In June 2017, AMP appointed Clayton Utz to investigate matters connected with its practice of charging some customers ongoing service fees when the services hadn’t been provided. The letter appointing Clayton Utz called for an external and independent investigation and said it would be independent of the business being examined.


Clayton Utz prepared a report for AMP. In its September 2018 interim report, the Financial Services Royal Commission examined the report’s drafting and AMP’s subsequent presentation of it to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC.


The Commissioner proceeded on the basis that there had been 22 different drafts. He recorded that AMP made many suggestions about their content, including marked-up drafts and proposed amendments. Some proposed changes appeared to concern what the report said about senior executives’ knowledge and involvement. (https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2020-09/volume-2.pdf).


A signed report was sent to AMP on 6 October 2017. The Royal Commission recorded a further request for changes after that, including a proposed statement concerning what AMP’s then chief executive knew. Another signed report was supplied on 16 October. AMP then presented the report and Clayton Utz’s letter of instructions to ASIC.


I find that sequence difficult to pass over. If an investigation is described to a regulator as independent, the regulator needs to understand the nature and extent of the commissioning organisation’s involvement in its final report.


——


What the Royal Commission said—and did not say


The Commissioner considered that AMP may have made false representations to ASIC about the character of the Clayton Utz report. He said it might be open to conclude, given the number and nature of the changes to drafts, that AMP knew the report was not independent. He also said that such conduct, if established, might amount to misconduct.


Those are carefully qualified conclusions. The Commissioner didn’t make a finding of misconduct against a Clayton Utz partner in connection with the report. He expressly noted that he hadn’t heard evidence from the relevant AMP leaders or from a Clayton Utz partner and made no findings about their individual conduct.


Clayton Utz’s position was also reported at the time. A report in The Australian said the firm rejected the suggestion that its investigation or report to AMP’s board had been compromised. The firm’s position distinguished independence from the AMP business unit under investigation from independence of AMP as the client commissioning the work.


That distinction is at the heart of my question. 

When an institution says an investigation is “independent”, independent of whom, in what respects, and with what limits on the institution’s ability to influence the report?


——


The interview notes ASIC sought


The story didn’t end with the Royal Commission.


In October 2018, ASIC issued a notice requiring Clayton Utz to produce records connected with interviews the firm had conducted with current and former AMP personnel. AMP claimed the records were protected by legal professional privilege. Clayton Utz didn’t produce them on that basis, and ASIC disputed the privilege claim.


In December 2018, ASIC applied to the Federal Court for orders concerning the records. On 7 March 2019, Clayton Utz produced the interview notes sought by ASIC without AMP maintaining a privilege claim over them. AMP agreed to pay ASIC’s costs, and the proceedings were dismissed by consent the following day. (https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2018-releases/18-379mr-asic-challenges-amp-and-clayton-utz-over-failure-to-produce-documents, https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2019-releases/19-052mr-amp-and-clayton-utz-surrender-in-asic-court-battle-over-failure-to-produce-documents)


That outcome should be described accurately. The court didn’t decide that Clayton Utz had unlawfully withheld the notes. They were produced before that question was determined. ASIC nevertheless said it was disappointed that the matter hadn’t been resolved sooner and explained why access to records matters to its investigations.


——


Why I’m writing about this


I have described in earlier posts how an investigation arranged by my employer affected my family.


I’m asking a question that applies to any organisation using the language of “independence” to “reassure” people affected by its conduct. 


Who chooses the investigator? 

Who sets the terms? 

Who is interviewed? 

Who sees the drafts? 

Who can suggest changes? 

And what records can be examined if the description of the investigation is challenged?


Those questions are not answered by placing the word “independent” on a report. They’re answered by a “process” that can withstand scrutiny.


That’s why the AMP matter belongs in this series. The Royal Commission examined what happened between the commissioning organisation and the report’s authors. ASIC then sought the underlying interview notes. 


Independence was tested against the records, not accepted as a label.


People asked to “trust” an investigation deserve the same seriousness about how it was conducted.


Sources

  • Merritt, C., “Banking royal commission: Clayton Utz ready for ‘real story’ on AMP report,” The Australian, 26 April 2018.
  • Thomson, J., “AMP may have misled ASIC on amended Clayton Utz report,” The Australian Financial Review, 29 September 2018.