“Don’t patronise me.”
That is how I responded.
Because by December 2021, this was no longer just about workplace harm or an insurer withholding statutory entitlements.
It had become something far more serious.
A regulator, with clear statutory functions, had been put on notice—and had failed to act.
⸻
I had received registered mail from SIRA NSW.
I didn’t open it. Not immediately.
 |
The unopened file — when the system meant to protect you has already made itself unsafe. |
So I asked a simple question:
“Is it safe to open?”
The reply came from a SIRA NSW Senior Complaints Manager.
“Although it is up to your interpretation of what is ‘safe’ for you to open, SIRA would not send you anything that we identify as unsafe.”
That response was not reassurance.
It was a deflection of responsibility.
It reframed safety as subjective—mine—while ignoring the context that had made that question necessary.
⸻
What followed escalated the situation.
I was informed that:
- my complaint had been “finalised”
- SIRA would not be engaging in further communication
- my continued contact constituted an “unreasonable demand”
- future correspondence may be filed without reply or restricted
And then, framed as concern, came the most revealing part.
An offer to contact my treating practitioners—not to assist with my recovery, not to facilitate return to work, but to ensure I “understand that [my] complaint has been finalised.”
⸻
How dare they.
That was not her place.
That was not SIRA’s role in that moment.
What SIRA was required to do—what it is legally empowered and obligated to do—was something entirely different.
They were meant to enforce compliance.
⸻
The insurer and the employer had clear statutory and work health and safety obligations.
They were required to:
- contact my nominating treating doctor
- engage with my treating health professionals
- implement the agreed Injury Management Plan
- develop a return-to-work plan aligned with that plan
- support my safe recovery in my substantive role
They did none of this.
⸻
And yet I did.
Before the system broke down completely, I engaged properly.
I worked with my treating practitioners.
I worked with the case manager.
We agreed on an Injury Management Plan.
A lawful, structured pathway back to work.
A return to my role—
a secure, full-time position I had held for over twenty years,
at HEW 8 Step 4,
in a highly specialised professional capacity,
with a clear career trajectory ahead of me.
⸻
And then—
the case manager disappeared.
No replacement.
No continuity.
No enforcement.
No intervention.
⸻
So when SIRA’s senior complaints manager offered to contact my treating practitioners, it was not just inappropriate.
It was indefensible.
Because the only parties who had failed to engage those practitioners—
were the very parties SIRA was supposed to regulate.
⸻
At the moment I needed stability the most—
when my income had been withheld,
when my home was at risk,
when everything I had worked for was under threat—
SIRA chose to:
- close the complaint
- return the evidence
- disengage from the substance
- and communicate in a way that was dismissive, patronising, and degrading
That has consequences.
⸻
That moment—that tone—escalated my psychological injury.
It reinforced fear.
It placed me in a constant state of self-protection.
Trying to seek help from a system that had the power to stop the harm—
while bracing for further harm from that same system.
⸻
At no point did SIRA:
- engage with the evidence I provided
- explain any investigative process
- outline findings
- or demonstrate enforcement action
Instead, the file was closed.
Without transparency.
Without procedural fairness.
Without accountability.
⸻
The NSW public sector is bound by the Code of Ethics and Conduct.
It requires:
- integrity
- accountability
- respect
- acting in the public interest
- fair and transparent decision-making
What I experienced was the opposite.
And it did not occur in isolation.
It occurred in the context of a regulator failing to perform its core function.
⸻
And then 2022 began.
Nothing reset.
Nothing improved.
The same regulator.
The same position.
The same absence of enforcement.
But the consequences for me continued.
No income I was legally entitled to rely on.
No enforced injury management.
No return-to-work pathway.
Only a system that had declared the matter “finalised,” while the underlying breaches remained.
⸻
I have recently lodged a formal complaint with the NSW Ombudsman.
That complaint addresses:
- the conduct of the Senior Complaints Manager
- and the broader maladministration of SIRA NSW
Because what occurred was not simply poor communication.
It raises serious questions about administrative conduct, regulatory failure, and accountability.
⸻
But as with all such processes—
it takes time.
And time is something injured workers do not have when:
- their income has been unlawfully cut or withheld
- their health is deteriorating
- and their stability is under threat
⸻
There has already been a “special inquiry” into SIRA complaints handling, that was tabled in NSW Parliament in August 2025.
And yet—
nothing changed.
The same conduct.
The same approach.
The same harm.
⸻
So the question must be asked:
Was that investigation about reform—or about containment?
Because from where I stand—
the harm did not stop.
It continued.
So now I, as one of the “other” complainants in that “report”, is speaking up, just as I had informed SIRA NSW that I would be doing, if they continued to refuse enforcing statutory compliance on ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS.
Earlier in 2021, I told SIRA NSW that I would find other ways to be heard.
⸻
WHS Duties vs Conduct — Legal Accountability Snapshot
Duties:
- Ensure psychological safety
- Prevent further harm where risk is known
- Enforce compliance with injury management and return-to-work obligations
- Act on credible evidence
- Uphold fair, transparent regulatory processes
Conduct:
- Failure to act on evidence
- Premature closure of complaint
- Return of records without explanation
- Patronising and dismissive communication
- No enforcement of insurer or employer obligations
- Conduct that escalated psychological harm
Impact:
- Aggravation of psychological injury
- Ongoing financial harm
- Loss of safety and trust in the system
- Prolonged exposure to unresolved workplace risk
Where risk is known—and harm is foreseeable—
failure to act is not neutral.
⸻
Ministerial Accountability — This Sits With Government
SIRA NSW operates under the authority of the NSW Government.
Responsibility therefore extends beyond the agency.
It sits with the Minister for Customer Service and Digital Government, Jihad Dib, and ultimately the Premier, Chris Minns.
Where a regulator fails to:
- act on evidence of statutory non-compliance
- enforce obligations
- uphold public sector standards
- and protect an injured worker’s legal entitlements
that is not an isolated failure.
It is a failure of governance.
⸻
I asked if it was safe to open the mail.
But the real issue was never the package.
It was whether the system responsible for enforcing the law—and protecting injured workers—was functioning at all.
On the evidence available to me—
it was not.
And the wage theft continued…
Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 233.
⸻
References & Frameworks
NSW Government Complaint Handling Policy
Summary:
This policy sets the standard for how complaints must be handled across NSW Government agencies. It requires that complaints are:
- Handled respectfully and fairly
- Assessed objectively and without bias
- Responded to in a timely and transparent manner
- Used as an opportunity to identify and address systemic issues
- Not dismissed or restricted without proper consideration and explanation
It also emphasises that complainants—particularly those in vulnerable circumstances—must not be treated in a way that discourages or penalises them for raising concerns.
Relevance to this post:
The premature closure of my complaint, the lack of transparency regarding any investigation, and the restriction of communication raise serious questions about compliance with this policy.
In addition, the conduct of the Senior Complaints Manager at SIRA NSW was degrading, dismissive, and unacceptable in the context in which I was engaging with the agency. Rather than responding with the care, objectivity, and professionalism required under the Complaint Handling Policy, the communication I received contributed to a heightened level of psychological distress at a time when I was already vulnerable.
This did not occur in isolation. It followed earlier interactions with SafeWork NSW that I experienced as dismissive and, at times, discriminatory from around September 2020. Instead of the complaint process acting as a safeguard against further harm, the manner in which my complaint was handled compounded that harm.
Taken together, these actions raise serious concerns as to whether the principles of respectful engagement, procedural fairness, and harm minimisation—central to the NSW Government Complaint Handling Policy—were upheld in practice.
NSW Ethical Framework & Code of Ethics and Conduct
Summary:
This framework governs the conduct of all NSW public sector employees. It requires:
- Integrity — acting honestly and in the public interest
- Trust — delivering on commitments and acting transparently
- Service — placing the public at the centre of decision-making
- Accountability — taking responsibility for decisions and actions
It also requires that public officials:
- Treat people with respect and dignity
- Exercise their functions without bias, prejudice, or improper purpose
- Avoid conduct that could cause harm or diminish public trust
Relevance to this post:
The tone, conduct, and handling of my complaint—particularly the dismissive and patronising communication, lack of engagement with evidence, and failure to act—raise serious concerns about adherence to these ethical obligations.
These frameworks exist to protect the public. The question is whether they are being applied—and enforced—when it matters most.
