“We Take Complaints Seriously”, SIRA NSW — The Sentence That Should Never Have Been Written - January 2022

By January 2022, I was exhausted from trying to communicate with regulators who were supposed to ensure compliance with the workers compensation laws of New South Wales, not contribute to the harm.

I had already spent months documenting what had happened to me.

I had repeatedly explained that there was a legally agreed Injury Management Plan that had never been implemented.

I had explained that my attempts to return to work had failed because the employer and the insurer were not complying with their statutory obligations.

I had explained the financial harm, the deterioration of my health, the collapse of safety, the intimidation, the abandonment, and the complete lack of meaningful intervention from the very bodies the public are told exist to protect workers.

And still, the responses kept coming back in the same cold administrative language.

Processed. Closed. Finalised.

Not resolved.

Finalised.

⸻

6 January 2022 — The Questions I Asked SIRA

On 6 January 2022, I wrote directly to a Senior Complaints Advisor at NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA NSW). 

I asked two direct questions:

• Why do you not take complaints seriously and deceive and abuse your customers?
• What is the email address of Adam Dent, CEO of SIRA?

Those questions came after repeated attempts to obtain help regarding:

• a legally binding Injury Management Plan that had not been implemented
• withheld entitlements
• failure of return-to-work obligations
• ongoing harm from workplace conduct
• and what I believed was complete regulatory indifference to clear statutory non-compliance

I made it clear in that email that the distress I was experiencing was not simply because of what had happened at work.

It was because of what happened afterwards.

It was because of the conduct of the regulators.

It was because of what happens when the bodies meant to stop harm instead become part of the harm itself.

⸻

14 January 2022 — SIRA’s Response

On 14 January 2022, the response arrived from the Senior Complaints Manager.

And buried within that response is a sentence that has stayed with me ever since:

“We do take complaints seriously…”  

“Finalised. Not resolved. A closed case file that documents a complaint—but not accountability.”

That sentence needs to be read carefully.

Because by the time it was written, I had already repeatedly raised concerns regarding:

• a legally agreed Injury Management Plan not being implemented
• a specialised insurer — Catholic Church Insurance — allegedly failing to comply with statutory obligations
• the withholding of entitlements
• failed return-to-work coordination
• and the absence of meaningful regulatory enforcement

Yet the response I received was not one focused on enforcement.

It was focused on administrative closure.

⸻

“We Consider Your Complaint Finalised”

The same response also stated:

“We do consider your complaint finalised.”  

There is a difference between:

• resolving a problem

    and

• closing a file.

The complaint may have been administratively finalised, but the issues themselves were not resolved.

The Injury Management Plan still had not been implemented.

The return-to-work failures still existed.

The financial harm continued.

The psychological harm continued.

And the regulator responsible for oversight was effectively telling me the matter was over.

⸻

The Questions That Were Never Properly Answered

What I kept trying to understand was simple:

How could a regulator responsible for oversight of the workers compensation scheme say it took complaints seriously while simultaneously failing to meaningfully intervene in circumstances involving alleged non-compliance with injury management obligations?

How could repeated complaints result in closure without enforcement?

How could the system continue treating a worker in distress as the problem to be managed rather than examining the conduct being reported?

Those questions were never genuinely answered.

Instead, the responses increasingly became about process management.

Referral pathways.

Complaint handling mechanisms.

The NSW Ombudsman.

Customer complaints.

Everything except the underlying conduct itself.

⸻

The Gap Between Public Statements and Reality

That sentence —

“We do take complaints seriously”

— now sits in the record beside years of evidence showing what actually happened afterwards.

No meaningful enforcement.

No restoration of safety.

No implementation of the agreed Injury Management Plan.

No coordinated pathway back to work.

No meaningful accountability for the conduct being raised.

And this is why documentation matters.

Because over time, the contrast between institutional language and lived reality becomes impossible to ignore.

⸻

Legal Accountability — Regulatory Function vs Conduct

Under the workers compensation framework in New South Wales, State Insurance Regulatory Authority has regulatory oversight responsibilities.

Those responsibilities include oversight of insurer conduct, including specialised insurers such as Catholic Church Insurance, as well as obligations connected to injury management and return-to-work processes under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW).

The concerns I was repeatedly raising involved:

• implementation failures regarding an agreed Injury Management Plan
• alleged failures in return-to-work coordination
• ongoing withholding of entitlements
• and broader concerns about regulatory inaction

Yet the response trajectory became increasingly focused on administrative finalisation rather than substantive intervention.

⸻

The Human Reality Behind These Records

By January 2022, I had reached the point where engaging with these responses itself had become distressing.

On 21 January 2022, I wrote that I could no longer safely read some of the responses myself because of the impact the ongoing process was having on me psychologically.  

That is the human reality sitting behind phrases like:

“We take complaints seriously.”

And that is why these records matter now.

They demonstrate the distance between what was said and what was done.

⸻

Final Reflection

Years later, what stands out to me most is not the bureaucratic wording itself.

It is the contradiction.

A regulator saying complaints are taken seriously while a worker continued to deteriorate under the weight of unresolved statutory failures, financial harm, procedural failures, and institutional abandonment.

That contradiction is now part of the documented record.

And documentation has a way of telling the truth long after institutions stop listening.

And the institutionalised wage theft continued…

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents 246, 247 and 249.

SafeWork NSW: One Month of Silence After a Speak Up Report - January 2022

The WHS regulator was notified of serious psychosocial hazards on 11 December 2021.

By 11 January 2022, it had done nothing. No response whatsoever. 

That is a matter of record.

On 11 January 2022, after waiting an entire month with no response, I followed up with SafeWork NSW regarding my Speak Up report (Reference: SUP-1112-130101).  

What followed was silence.

Silence, definitely in this context, is not neutral.

⸻

“I request an update…”

That email was written after prolonged harm, after being forced to navigate systems that were meant to protect me but did not, and after placing trust—again—in a regulator to act.

In that email, I said plainly:

• There had been no procedural fairness
• Psychosocial hazards were not being taken seriously
• The system had failed to act despite being formally notified

I also said something that should never need to be said to a safety regulator:

There are no innocent bystanders.

Because by that point, the silence was no longer passive.

It had become participation.

⸻

When “Speak Up” Leads to Nowhere

The Speak Up system is supposed to mean something.

It is supposed to signal that when a worker reports harm:

• someone will listen
• someone will assess
• someone will act

But one month of silence after a report of serious psychosocial hazards does not communicate safety.

It communicates:

• that harm can be reported—and ignored
• that evidence can be provided—and not examined
• that escalation does not lead to intervention

And when the worker follows up, still deteriorating, still asking for help, and instead the silence continues, at that point, silence is not a gap.

It is a position.

⸻

The Reality Behind “Mentally Healthy Workplaces”

SafeWork NSW promotes mentally healthy workplace strategies.

But systems are not measured by what they publish.

They are measured by what they do when tested.

In my case, the test was simple:

A worker reported serious psychosocial harm.

The regulator was notified.

And nothing happened.

That is not a breakdown in communication.

That is a failure to act.

⸻

Awareness Is Not Action

In my follow-up, I challenged something fundamental:

Stop using awareness and training to cover inaction.

Because awareness without enforcement is not protection.

Training without intervention is not prevention.

You cannot promote mental health strategies publicly while failing to act when harm is formally reported.

That is a contradiction.

⸻

What This Reflects — Then and Now

At the time, I drew a comparison that should concern anyone relying on these systems.

When fraud is suspected, systems move quickly.

When harm is reported, the urgency disappears.

That contrast reflects what is prioritised.

This is not something confined to January 2022.

This pattern—delay, deflection, and silence—has not meaningfully changed.

The failure to respond is part of a broader, ongoing experience.

⸻

The Human Cost of Silence

By January 2022, this was no longer just a complaint.

It was survival.

I said clearly in my correspondence:

• I was not okay
• The harm was ongoing
• The situation had become unbearable

Silence compounds the harm.

When the regulator remains absent, the message is unmistakable:

You are on your own.

⸻

What That One Month Exposed

The period between 11 December 2021 and 11 January 2022 revealed something critical:

• A regulator notified of harm - again
• A formal reporting channel used
• A worker actively seeking intervention
• And no response

That inaction shows how the system operates when it is actually relied upon.

⸻

Legal and Regulatory Accountability

SafeWork NSW has obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) to:

• respond to reported risks
• address workplace hazards
• enforce compliance

Psychosocial hazards are recognised, serious workplace risks.

A failure to respond to a formal report raises serious questions about whether those obligations were met, not just then, but in how similar reports continue to be handled.

⸻

The Question That Still Stands

One month after a Speak Up report:

• no response
• no engagement
• no action

So the question is:

What is the purpose of reporting psychosocial hazards if the regulator does not respond?

⸻

Closing

This is a documented example of how a system behaves under pressure, and how that behaviour continues to affect real people.

A report was made.

Time passed.

Nothing happened.

And the consequences of that silence did not end there.

The harm continued…

And the wage theft also continued…

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 245.

⸻

Reference: What SafeWork NSW Says Should Happen

SafeWork NSW – Incident response and investigations: Customer Service Standard (What to expect)

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/prosecutions/customer-service-standard-what-to-expect-during-a-workplace-investigation

This Customer Service Standard sets out how SafeWork NSW says it will respond when notified of a workplace incident, including serious safety risks and work-related illness. It outlines both the investigation process and how people affected are to be engaged, assessed, and kept informed throughout.  

According to the standard:

• Incidents are triaged and assessed to determine an appropriate regulatory response
• Inspectors are expected to take action and begin collecting information about the incident
• Investigations involve gathering evidence, including speaking with affected persons, reviewing documents, and testing what has occurred
• SafeWork NSW will communicate outcomes of the initial response, provide updates during any investigation, and inform affected individuals of the final decision    

These are not optional steps. They are the stated standard.

⸻

How This Relates to My Lived Experience

My experience did not reflect this standard.

It did not begin with silence. It began with how the matter was handled when I sought help.

Instead of an objective, evidence-based response:

• the inspector accepted the account of the employer representative—the very individual I had identified as responsible for the ongoing harm
• my own account, as the affected worker reporting serious psychosocial risk and fearing for my safety, was not treated with the same weight or scrutiny
• there was no meaningful attempt to test competing accounts, gather evidence, or verify what had actually occurred

This is directly inconsistent with the standard’s requirement to collect information, assess the incident, and determine whether a breach of work health and safety laws has occurred.

I had approached SafeWork NSW because:

• there were no effective control measures in place to stop ongoing harassment and intimidation
• I was not being protected by the employer or insurer, despite clear work health and safety duties of care
• external avenues, including an attempted APVO, had failed to recognise the seriousness of what was occurring - see http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/07/apvo-court-registrars-response.html

This was sustained, escalating workplace conduct that extended into:

• my private communications
• my interactions with my union
• and even my medical spaces

In that context, an evidence-based investigation—grounded in independent assessment, not reliance on a single party’s account—was critical.

That did not occur.

Instead, the process reflected:

• acceptance of the employer’s version without verification
• failure to investigate whether protections were in place or being implemented
• failure to assess whether work health and safety obligations were being breached

What followed that initial failure was silence, after I formally tried a second time to escalate the matter through the Speak Up online form on 11 December 2021. 

SafeWork NSW's own Customer Service Standard compared with what occurred in practice. This was not delay. It was dismissal, followed by silence.

⸻

The Gap

The Customer Service Standard describes a process that requires:

• independent information gathering
• objective assessment of risk and potential breaches
• and ongoing communication with affected individuals

My experience reflects the opposite:

• one-sided acceptance instead of investigation
• failure to test evidence or protect the reporting worker
• silence following formal escalation

This is serious because it goes directly to whether SafeWork NSW is meeting its own stated standards when a worker reports serious psychosocial hazards and seeks protection.