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.

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

• Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, Interim Report, Volume 2, 28 September 2018, “Fees for no service: AMP”, particularly section 1.10.2.

• 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. 

• ASIC, “ASIC challenges AMP and Clayton Utz over failure to produce documents,” 17 December 2018.

• ASIC, “AMP and Clayton Utz surrender in ASIC court battle over failure to produce documents,” 11 March 2019.

Clayton Utz’s Past Conduct — Part 2: The Kazaa Case and the Independence of an Expert Witness

In Part 1, I looked at the Rolah McCabe tobacco litigation and the ethics review Clayton Utz announced after the original trial judgement. The next case in the references I previously published on this blog concerns something different: the preparation of an expert witness’s evidence.

An expert is called to assist a court with matters outside ordinary knowledge. In the Kazaa copyright case, one of those matters was how the music sharing technology worked. Professor Keith Ross, a computer scientist, gave evidence for parties represented by Clayton Utz.

The question raised by his evidence was one I find deeply troubling: 

if lawyers help prepare an expert’s report, how can the court be sure the opinions remain the expert’s own?

——

What the court saw

On 5 September 2005, Justice Murray Wilcox delivered judgement in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd. During the hearing, Professor Ross had been questioned about exchanges with a Clayton Utz solicitor concerning a draft of his expert report.

The judge described one exchange in particular. Professor Ross had written a sentence about how parts of the Kazaa system worked. A solicitor crossed it out and suggested a different technical explanation. Professor Ross responded that he had not been aware of that explanation, even after testing, but accepted it on the solicitor’s say-so. (See https://www.steptoe.com/a/web/1235/2051.pdf). 

That suggested wording didn’t simply appear unchanged in the final report. The correspondence showed a further exchange, and Professor Ross told the court that he would have needed more evidence before adopting the earlier suggestion. Justice Wilcox didn’t accept his explanation of what he had meant in the email.

The judge concluded that Professor Ross had been prepared to seriously compromise his independence and intellectual integrity. He considered it potentially unsafe to rely on Professor Ross’s evidence about a controversial matter, while expressly saying that his evidence shouldn’t be disregarded altogether. That was a finding about the expert witness’s reliability. It wasn’t a finding that Clayton Utz’s lawyers had fabricated evidence or committed professional misconduct (https://www.steptoe.com/a/web/1235/2051.pdf). 

That distinction matters, but so does the fact that the exchange happened at all.

——

What was reported about the lawyers

On 9 September 2005, Garth Montgomery reported in The Australian on the correspondence between Professor Ross and Clayton Utz. The article described lawyers supplying a starting draft, suggesting changes and discussing technical descriptions in the proposed evidence. It also reported Clayton Utz’s position that its suggestions were requests rather than directives, and that the firm denied wrongdoing.

On 16 September, The Australian reported that complaints concerning three Clayton Utz lawyers had been lodged with legal professional bodies and police over the preparation of Professor Ross’s evidence. The article also reported Clayton Utz’s response that the judgement contained no adverse finding about the firm’s conduct.

A further article in The Australian Financial Review on 23 September examined the email trail and the difference between testing an expert’s assumptions and improperly shaping an expert’s opinion. It noted that the disputed suggestion hadn’t made it into the final report and that Justice Wilcox’s adverse finding was directed at Professor Ross, not the firm.

Taken together, the reports raise a serious question while also showing why it can’t be answered by selecting only the most alarming email. The drafts, the final report, the expert’s own testing, the court’s reasoning and the firm’s response all matter.

——

Why this question stays with me

I have written about my own experiences with medico-legal “assessments” and reports. The Kazaa case is not evidence that the same thing happened in my circumstances, and I’m not suggesting the people involved in that case had any connection.

But it explains why the “independence” of a person presented as an expert matters so much to me. A report can carry authority because of the qualifications of the person whose name is on it. The court, the parties and the person affected need to be able to understand where that person’s own observations and conclusions end, and where suggestions from those instructing them begin.

Justice Wilcox was able to examine the correspondence and question Professor Ross about it in open court. That scrutiny exposed a problem with the expert’s willingness to accept a suggested technical assertion. It also allowed the court to make a careful distinction about what it had, and had not, found.

That’s the question I take from this case: 

when an expert report is used to influence a consequential decision, what access does the person affected have to the instructions, drafts and exchanges needed to assess whether the opinion is genuinely “independent”?

——

Sources

• Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 1242, Federal Court of Australia, 5 September 2005, especially paragraphs 226–231.

• Montgomery, G., “Clayton Utz in hot water over witness,” The Australian, 9 September 2005.

• Montgomery, G., “Clayton Utz trio facing inquiry,” The Australian, 16 September 2005.

• Priest, M., “Clayton Utz treads witness tightrope,” The Australian Financial Review, 23 September 2005.

Clayton Utz’s Past Conduct - Part 1: Destroyed Documents and the Promised Ethics Review

I have already written about what my family and I experienced when Clayton Utz became involved in our complaints to my university. In that post, I listed reports about other matters involving the firm. I want to look more closely at those reports now, beginning with the case of Rolah McCabe.

Mrs McCabe was dying of lung cancer when she sued British American Tobacco Australia. Her case raised a question that reaches far beyond tobacco litigation: what chance does a person have of receiving a fair hearing if documents that may matter to their case have been destroyed? 

Clayton Utz acted for British American Tobacco. On 22 March 2002, Justice Geoffrey Eames of the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled on Mrs McCabe’s application to strike out the company’s defence. His judgement examined the destruction of documents, the company’s document retention policy, and the role of its lawyers. He concluded that Mrs McCabe had been denied a fair trial and ordered that the defence be struck out. A jury subsequently assessed damages at $700,000.

The findings concerning Clayton Utz were serious. They were reported widely, and the firm disputed allegations that it had overseen document destruction or conspired to withhold evidence. One lawyer named in the judgement said he hadn’t been given an opportunity to answer adverse findings about him.

(NOTE: My family and I had no say in our complaints to ACU. Clayton Utz and their lawyers’ unethical interference played a role in that. What a double standard.)

On 6 December 2002, the Victorian Court of Appeal overturned the order striking out British American Tobacco’s defence and set aside the damages judgement. It directed that the case be sent back for a new trial. Mrs McCabe had died before that appeal judgement was delivered.

I don’t want to repeat the original findings as though they remained the final court ruling. Equally, I don’t want the appeal to erase the public questions that arose about document handling, legal advice and access to justice. Both stages belong in an honest account of this case.

——

What happened to the promised ethics review?

On 24 April 2002, The Australian Financial Review reported that Clayton Utz’s board had begun a broad internal review following Justice Eames’ judgement. The firm’s chief executive partner, David Fagan, said it would examine the judgement and the conduct of the case against the firm’s standards. He indicated that adverse findings could lead to internal action.

That was a consequential public assurance. When an organisation announces an ethics review in response to a judgement of this gravity, it’s reasonable to ask what the review examined, what it concluded and what action followed.

On 18 July 2002, Clayton Utz announced that it would close its tobacco claims litigation practice. Its own statement described this as a business strategy decision. It also said the internal review was continuing and that it would be inappropriate to finalise it before the appeal and the NSW Legal Services Commissioner’s investigation. Closing a practice and completing an ethics review are different things. What became of the review? 

The matter returned to public attention in December 2006. The ABC and The Australian Financial Review reported on leaked material said to come from a Clayton Utz internal inquiry. They reported allegations of serious professional misconduct concerning two former partners and an allegation that evidence given by one was potentially perjurious. The Victorian Attorney-General referred the material to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether criminal charges were warranted, and to legal services regulators to consider possible professional misconduct.

A referral isn’t a criminal finding. A leaked account of an internal inquiry isn’t a published disciplinary decision. Clayton Utz said the leaked material concerned a preliminary review that had been superseded, and maintained that the appeal and legal regulator reviews had exonerated the firm and its lawyers. The reports I’ve compiled don’t establish the final outcome of the later DPP referral. (See also: https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/appendix-16-1-mccabe).

But the questions don’t disappear. If an ethics review was announced publicly, what findings, if any, were ultimately reached? How could the public understand the relationship between that announced review, the later leaked material, and the firm’s statement that it had been exonerated?

In a 4 August 2002 interview with Margaret Simons for the Sunday Age, Clayton Utz chief executive David Fagan set out how he saw the firm’s ethical responsibilities. He said lawyers must act within their professional duties, particularly their duty to the court, but that “we don’t take a moral stance” on behalf of a client. He described the decision to leave tobacco claims litigation as a business decision. At the same time, he said the firm’s core values were “honesty and integrity” and that it had carefully reviewed the McCabe judgement, although it wouldn’t finalise or discuss the review’s results while the appeal and regulatory investigation continued. The article also reported that Clayton Utz had established a professional excellence committee. I’m left asking: what did the promised review ultimately conclude, and what changed in the firm’s practice as a result?

——

Why I’m revisiting this

Rolah McCabe’s case isn’t my case, and the reports about it don’t prove what happened to my family or me. I’m revisiting it because I have experienced the imbalance that arises when an individual seeking answers faces an institution and its lawyers.

My own account is already on this blog. My family and I have described the communications we received and the effect they had on us. Here, I’m asking readers to look at a documented public case, its appeal, and the questions raised by a promised internal ethics review.

Mrs McCabe’s case deserves to be described with care. She was a person trying to have her claim heard while gravely ill. The trial judgement, the successful appeal, the firm’s responses and the later reports must all be part of the story.

For me, the question left by this first part is simple: 

when a powerful firm publicly promises to examine its own conduct, how can the people affected know what was learned and what changed?

——

Sources

• McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd [2002] VSC 73, trial judgement⁠, 22 March 2002. https://assets.tobaccocontrollaws.org/uploads/litigation/Australia/AU_McCabe-v.-British-American-Tob.pdf 

• British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Cowell [2002] VSCA 197, appeal judgement⁠, 6 December 2002. https://d3vqfzrrx1ccvd.cloudfront.net/uploads/litigation/Australia/AU_British-American-Tobacco-Austr.pdf

• Pheasant, B., “Clayton Utz to run ethics audit,” The Australian Financial Review, 24 April 2002.

• Clayton Utz, “Clayton Utz to close tobacco claims litigation practice⁠,” 18 July 2002.

• Simons, M., “Lawyers not moral judges – Clayton Utz chief,” Sunday Age, 4 August 2002. 

• Alberici, E., “Law firm Clayton Utz faces criminal investigation,” ABC, 21 December 2006.

• Drummond, M. and Moran, S., “Clayton Utz faces criminal probe,” The Australian Financial Review, 21 December 2006. 

Where Was the Boundary? My Emails About Clayton Utz, My Family and SafeWork NSW - November 2022

On 9 November 2022, I sent a long email setting out a chronology of my attempts to obtain workplace protection, communicate with my colleagues and return safely to my work. I described the effect that correspondence from Clayton Utz, unethically acting “on behalf of the university”, had on me and my family.

On 10 November 2022, I followed up with selected records, an annotated workplace safety strategy and references to reporting about Clayton Utz’s earlier conduct.

I sent these emails to SafeWork NSW and SIRA, and I included journalists because I felt that my repeated requests for help hadn’t stopped the harm. I asked the journalists to protect my identity, my family’s identity and the university’s identity at the time. I also copied in the two lawyers from Clayton Utz involved in these unethical communication practices. What I wanted was an investigation and a safe return to the work I had done for two decades.

The two emails belong together. The first explains the history and why I was so distressed. The second identifies some of the records I sent to support what I had said.

——

I asked for a safe workplace

This began with a request to address bullying, harassment and psychosocial hazards at work. I needed the problems resolved so that I could continue doing my job safely and well. I also had temporary carer responsibilities, and I was entitled to keep my family’s privacy private.

By 20 May 2020, I was responding to false statements made in a 13 May 2020 letter from a HR executive to my employment lawyer. I wrote about the scrutiny I had experienced when taking leave (ie. harassment), and about the way my family had been drawn into questions about my work. I was trying to explain that using my leave entitlements when I needed them was not a special accommodation or a failure of commitment to my job.

I had worked hard for the university. I wanted to remain part of it. In the November 2022 chronology, I returned repeatedly to the same point: I had asked for a safe work environment, not for my family’s privacy to be unlawfully involved or for my connection with colleagues to be cut off.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/04/dangerous-psychopathic-letter-2020-part.html

——

My family’s complaint came before Clayton Utz’s emails

My family didn’t suddenly appear in this story when Clayton Utz unlawfully “contacted” them.

In my 9 November 2022 chronology email, I explained that my family’s privacy had become an issue during a 9 March 2020 meeting about my workplace matters. Family members later made their own formal complaint about what had happened to them. I described the Clayton Utz emails that followed as threatening and intended to intimidate my family into silence.

My family’s privacy was violated by HR senior executives. They chose to violate privacy laws and entangling my family in what began as my request for a safe workplace. They had every reason and a right to raise concerns about their own privacy. They should never have become targets because I reported bullying, harassment and psychosocial hazards at work.

These events caused distress within a family that was already dealing with serious grief and trauma.

That’s the boundary I keep coming back to:

How did a workplace safety complaint reach the point where my family was receiving a frightening letter from my employer’s lawyers at Clayton Utz? 

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/02/introducing-corporate-psychopath.html

——

An email address created for recovery

On 2 July 2020, after making a workers’ compensation claim caused by the employer’s unsafe and intimidating conduct as retaliation, I told Catholic Church Insurance’s case manager about a new email address. I had created it on my psychologist’s recommendation for communication about injury management and my return to work. It was intended for contact with my treating professionals, the case manager and those coordinating that return, including ACU’s Return to Work coordinator. 

In my November 2022 chronology, I said that the address later reached Matthew Condello of Clayton Utz. To me, that was another example of something intended to support my recovery becoming a channel for sending communication I experienced as intimidating.

The broader return to work process was also a central part of my 9 November 2022 email. I wrote that by 6 October 2020, I was writing to the university’s work health and safety manager because almost five months had passed without the communication or return to work plan I needed. I was asking the employer and insurer to cooperate with my treating professionals and help me return safely.

I wrote to Catholic Church Insurance at the same time about the financial consequences of delay:

“The income stops, but the bills don’t.”

That was why the absence of a RTW plan mattered so much. I was dealing with a continuing workplace safety concern, a need for contact and support, and growing financial pressure. My concern about these lawyers’ involvement cannot be separated from that situation.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/06/email-address-created-strictly-for.html

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/08/whs-and-wellbeing-manager-negligence.html

——

The letters to my family and me

In the 9 November 2022 email, I told SafeWork NSW that Clayton Utz must never contact me and my family again. I was angry, frightened and exhausted. The firm’s communications had crossed a boundary that should NEVER have been crossed.

I described the Clayton Utz communication to my family as a scare tactic. I also described receiving a letter from Matthew Condello of Clayton Utz on 4 February 2021. I understood that communication as an attempt to stop me contacting colleagues and members of the university community who mattered to me. I was seeking support, a safe return to work and an end to the isolation.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/07/intimidating-family-as-community.html

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/clayton-utz-isolation-intimidation.html

This sequence was important, because on 18 January 2021, I had complained to SafeWork NSW and asked for help with the continuing workplace risks and my isolation. I including three colleagues as witnesses, including the WHS and Wellbeing manager. Then came that lawyers’ correspondence to me. Instead of feeling protected after raising my concerns, I felt more frightened to open my email.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/safework-nsw-my-experience-when.html

I had told my workers’ compensation solicitor:

“Can you inform this bully law firm to never contact me again. I want to return to my work and I demand the offenders in HR to leave me alone. I need a colleague to contact me as a support.”

I was trying to establish a boundary because the contact had become another source of distress.

I also responded to Mr Condello of Clayton Utz directly, informing him that I hadn’t viewed his attachment because of its effect on my wellbeing. I wrote:

“All I asked for in return was a safe work environment, so I can continue to provide excellent service without collapsing from stress and burnout.”

I had waited until a GP telehealth appointment to open that email account because I was afraid of what I might find. I expected another distressing response from SafeWork NSW; I didn’t expect the kind of lawyers’ correspondence my family had already experienced to reach me too. I recorded at the time that my GP was shocked and said they shouldn’t be harassing me. I made a workers compensation claim because of this very unsafe conduct by university representatives in HR.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/when-cry-for-safety-is-answered-by.html

My family had made a formal complaint to the university about their own privacy. They had every right to do that. This had nothing to do with Clayton Utz. It was a direct legal obligation from my nationally registered, publicly funded university employer, with a VC on a $1 million salary that’s extremely responsible for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of staff, students and the community members who were being relentlessly harassed by staff and lawyer representatives of the university. The now VC, Zlatko Skrbis, was also the decision maker of these complaints. It’s all on record. 

See:

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

Yet correspondence from Clayton Utz came to my family, and the to me, in response. We experienced those letters as threatening and intimidating, beyond disrespectful. It definitely didn’t display a commitment to the dignity of the human person, as stated in ACU’s mission. I want the university leaders and Clayton Utz to understand that involving my family in this way caused real distress.

I want Clayton Utz to never again contact me or my family. I want ACU to stop conduct that I experience as threatening or intimidating and to address my workplace safety concerns so I can return to my work with appropriate safeguards. Those were the boundaries I was trying to establish then, and they remain important to me.

Lawyers are paid to act for their clients. That doesn’t answer the ethical question I raised then and raise again now: what responsibility do they have when their communications may cause further harm to an injured worker and her family? Who examines the substance, the tone and the consequences of those communications, especially when the person receiving them has repeatedly said that contact is causing distress?

I was under a statutory scheme that should have protected me! 

——

What I asked SafeWork NSW to see

My 9 November email set out repeated attempts to get SafeWork NSW to examine the workplace risks I was reporting.

In October 2020, I had contacted SafeWork NSW while seeking protection from conduct I that was continuing during my workers’ compensation claim. I recalled an inspector saying, “I’m not here to do he said she said.” That was a shock to me when I was asking for the records and the continuing conduct to be examined.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/08/enter-unsafework-nsw-that-rtw-plan-i.html

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/08/unmanaged-psychosocial-hazards-october.html

On 9 March 2021, I responded to SafeWork NSW again. I asked it to take seriously my lack of contact with colleagues and the distress this was causing. I needed a support network among the people I had worked with for so long. This was part of my safety and recovery, not a side issue.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/when-regulators-close-ranks-systemic_02001716617.html

My chronology continued through 2021 and into 2022. I described further approaches to SafeWork NSW, including correspondence about its response to my complaint, contact with its psychosocial health channel and a report submitted through its Speak Up process. I questioned how public commitments to mentally healthy workplaces were being put into practice when I was still asking for help with the risks I had reported.

I wasn’t asking for a stock response or a referral that sent me around another circle. I wanted the workplace conduct examined and the injury management and return to work arrangements addressed.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/06/injury-management-plan-legally-binding.html

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/09/injury-management-and-rehabilitation.html

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/03/when-government-mentally-healthy.html

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/04/safework-nsw-thank-you-for-speaking-up.html

——

The friend who tried to help

A friend of mine became involved because she was concerned for my safety and tried to advocate for me. She called the university’s work health and safety manager. My understanding is that the cause of my claim, the national manager of employment relations and SAFETY, called my friend back and directed her towards Matthew Condello of Clayton Utz. To me, that raised another boundary question: why was a concerned friend being pointed to a lawyer by my university employer, when she was trying to express concern about my wellbeing?

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/a-whs-turning-point-i-will-never-forget.html

The 9 November chronology records other ways she tried to help. In April 2021, I asked her to forward an email seeking assistance from a university discrimination and harassment adviser because I feared my own email might not get through. I reported that her contact details also appeared to have been blocked by this publicly funded university employer. 

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/02/discrimination-and-harassment-adviser-2.html

On 28 May 2021, she contacted the dean of the Strathfield campus because she was concerned about my emotional safety in attending a weekend event on campus. I recorded how distressing the response was for me and how concerned she became for my health. I also recorded that she received two calls from a private number soon afterward, with no message left. I don’t know who made those calls or why.

See:

http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/02/when-safety-is-denied-at-threshold-may.html

——

What I sent Safework NSW on 10 November 2022

The 10 November email followed the detailed account I’d sent the day before. This time, I identified selected records I was providing.

I explained that I hadn’t read one of the lawyers’ letters myself because doing so felt unsafe. That’s part of the record too. The distress was such that even opening correspondence required support.

The copy of the follow-up email includes an automated acknowledgement from SafeWork NSW shortly after the forwarded email’s timestamp. The acknowledgement shows that an automated response was sent; it doesn’t tell me what substantive assessment followed.* 

The email was an appeal for the conduct to stop and for someone with authority to look at what had happened. It was also a request to respect my family’s privacy. I shouldn’t have had to choose between seeking workplace protection and protecting the people close to me from being pulled into the consequences.

* Given the silence from SafeWork NSW that followed, the only conclusion is IGNORED AND ABANDONED IN MY FEAR BY SAFEWORK NSW AGAIN. 

——

The ethics audit question

The 9 November email ended by questioning Clayton Utz’s professional responsibilities and referring to reporting about earlier controversies involving the firm. I said I would provide the references. The 10 November material includes that reference list.

One citation has stayed with me: a 24 April 2002 Australian Financial Review article by B. Pheasant titled “Clayton Utz to run ethics audit.”

Where’s the outcome of that proposed audit? Was an audit completed? Was a report produced? What did it examine, what changes followed, and what standards guide the firm when its lawyers correspond with an injured worker or her family?

The article title in my reference list shows why I was asking these questions in 2022. It doesn’t tell me whether the audit was completed or what it found. I’d like to see the report, if there is one, or a clear account of the outcome.

The other articles I listed concerned separate events involving the firm over many years. They don’t prove what happened in my case. They explain why I wanted scrutiny of a firm whose lawyers’ communications had, in my experience, added to the harm. A public reputation for legal expertise should invite serious examination of professional conduct when someone raises a specific, documented concern.

——

The question that remains

My 9 November email was long because the experience had been long. It traced repeated requests for a safe return to work, contact with my colleagues and protection for my family. My 10 November email followed with selected records and references. Together, they show what I was asking people to examine and how urgently I needed them to listen. No one listened. 

The emails were raw because I was living through what I described. I was trying to protect my family, reach my colleagues, recover my health and return to the work I had done for two decades. I wanted SafeWork NSW to examine the workplace risks I had reported, and I wanted the lawyers’ contact with me and my family to stop.

There must be a boundary. A worker who asks for safety shouldn’t find that her family’s privacy becomes part of the pressure around her. A friend who tries to help shouldn’t be made to feel exposed. And a lawyer’s involvement shouldn’t leave the person seeking protection, to become even more frightened to open her email.

I’m still asking who will examine what happened, including the communications sent to my family and me, and who will take responsibility for the harm that followed. I’m also still asking Clayton Utz a straightforward question: what became of the ethics audit reported as planned in 2002?

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents 559-560.