When Regulators Close Ranks: Systemic Harm - March 2021 - Part 1

This and subsequent posts record a short but critical sequence of events in March 2021.

It is grounded in contemporaneous correspondence.

It is not advocacy.

It is documentation.

⸻

1. 9 March 2021 — SIRA NSW Closes My Complaint Without Inquiry

On 9 March 2021, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA NSW) issued a “CC Level 2 Escalation – Customer Closure” response to my complaint concerning my employer and the handling of my workers compensation claim.

SIRA NSW stated that it had liaised with SafeWork NSW and that:

• the employer’s Return to Work practices were “compliant” with workers compensation legislation, and

• the Return to Work Coordinator was “appropriately trained and qualified”.

On that basis, SIRA NSW closed my complaint.

What the correspondence did not disclose was decisive:

• Who conducted the investigation;

• What evidence was reviewed;

• Whether my contemporaneous records were examined;

• Whether my treating doctor was consulted;

• How conclusions were reached in circumstances where I had no functioning case manager, no one therefore to implement the injury management plan, and no coordinated return-to-work process.

Most critically, SIRA NSW did not investigate the basic facts it purported to rely on.

No regulator established:

• who the Return to Work Coordinator actually was,

• whether that person ever contacted me,

• whether they had authority to coordinate my return,

• or whether a Return to Work Plan was ever intended to be implemented.

I had drafted a Return to Work Plan myself, in good faith, while injured—because no coordinator was performing that role. That draft was never meaningfully engaged with. See Enter unSafeWork NSW & “that” RTW plan I drafted - October 2020.

To this day:

• I have never been provided with the employer’s alleged Return to Work Program;

• I have never been provided with coordination to implement the injury management plan;

• and I have never seen evidence that my employer intended to cooperate with return-to-work obligations at all.

None of this was investigated.

⸻

2. 10 March 2021 — The Immediate Health Impact

In the early hours of 10 March 2021, after receiving SIRA NSW’s closure email, I forwarded the correspondence to my treating GP.

At that time:

• I was already under medical care;

• I reported living in fear;

• and I documented the cumulative psychological harm caused not only by workplace conduct, but by the regulatory process itself.

When regulators close complaints without transparency, exclude evidence, and redirect responsibility endlessly, the system itself becomes a source of harm.

This was not abstract.

It was immediate.

It was medical.

⸻

3. 10 March 2021 — Reporting Suspected Corruption to ICAC

Later that same day, 10 March 2021, I lodged a formal complaint with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

I did so because:

• the investigation described by SIRA NSW was not transparent;

• I had been denied procedural fairness;

• and it appeared that decisions were being made without my participation, despite my extensive contemporaneous records.

The complaint was acknowledged on the same day.

⸻

What Was Not Investigated — and Why That Failure Matters

Despite the language used by SIRA NSW, no regulator ever investigated:

• the absence of a functioning Return to Work Coordinator,

• the absence of an implemented Return to Work Plan,

• the absence of a cooperative injury management process,

• or the ongoing harassment by the perpetrator—the cause of my workers compensation claim.

I had reported that harassment to a SafeWork NSW inspector.

That inspector:

• did not intervene,

• did not stop the perpetrator,

• and did not remove the psychosocial hazard causing ongoing harm.

Instead, SIRA NSW later advised that it had spoken with SafeWork NSW and, on the basis of that communication alone, closed my complaint.

My contemporaneous records meant nothing to either regulator.

My treating doctor was not consulted.

I meant nothing.

The process occurred between the perpetrator (the National Manager of Employment Relations and Safety), the SafeWork NSW inspector, and “Customer Support” at SIRA NSW—without transparency, without procedural fairness, and without regard for the injured worker at the centre of it.

⸻

The Regulatory “Fob-Off”: Redirected Everywhere, Accountable Nowhere

In closing my complaint, SIRA NSW advised me to pursue other avenues for specific concerns, including:

• SafeWork NSW

• the Fair Work Commission

• the Privacy Commissioner

• NSW Police

This redirection is documented in SIRA NSW’s correspondence.

However, each referral failed to address the core issue SIRA NSW itself was responsible for: enforcing compliance with workers compensation, injury management, and return-to-work obligations.

SafeWork NSW

SIRA NSW referred me to SafeWork NSW — the very regulator it had already “liaised” with before closing my complaint. That pathway had already failed to stop the harassment or ensure a lawful return-to-work process.

That experience is documented here:

https://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/08/enter-unsafework-nsw-that-rtw-plan-i.html?m=1

NSW Police

SIRA NSW also suggested police involvement.

I had already pursued that avenue. It did not result in protection, enforcement, or safety. The response of the court registry is documented here:

https://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/07/apvo-court-registrars-response.html?m=1

Privacy Commissioner

SIRA NSW suggested I raise privacy concerns with the Privacy Commissioner.

But how would the Privacy Commissioner:

• compel an employer to comply with injury management obligations?

• order an insurer to provide statutory entitlements?

• enforce return-to-work cooperation?

Those powers sit squarely within SIRA NSW’s jurisdiction.

Referring me elsewhere did not resolve the breach.

It avoided responsibility.

Fair Work Commission

Finally, SIRA NSW suggested the Fair Work Commission.

What followed was not “fair work”.

The risk of being publicly attacked, disbelieved, and humiliated on the public record compounded my injury rather than resolving it. That “risk” is documented extensively, including:

• When a Cry for Safety Is Answered by Lawyers - February 2021

• Clayton Utz - Isolation, Intimidation & Victim-Blaming in the Workers Compensation System

• Employment lawyer #3 - Part 5 - Unacceptable and unfair legal advice - 2020

• The Unfair Work Commission - denying employees their generally protected rights - Part 1

• The Unfair Work Commission - denying employees their generally protected rights - Part 2

• The Unfair Work Commission - denying employees their generally protected rights - Part 3

None of these processes restored my statutory entitlements.

None ensured injury management compliance.

None made me safer.

⸻

The Truth Injured Workers Are Not Told

Speaking up through SafeWork NSW did not protect me.

Remaining silent would not have protected me either.

For me, speaking up did not save a life.

But silence would have meant accepting ongoing harm without record or resistance.

This is the impossible position injured workers are placed in.

⸻

A Question That Remains

SafeWork NSW encourages workers to speak up about workplace risks, including through its “Speak Up” app:

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/advice-and-resources/speak-up-app

The principle is sound.

The intention matters.

But when speaking up leads to:

• inaction,

• regulatory closure without inquiry,

• and further harm to the person who raised concerns, a serious question remains:

If speaking up does not protect workers, and silence does not protect them either — what are we meant to do?

⸻

Summary — What Happened

In summary:

• SIRA NSW closed my complaint without conducting an independent, transparent investigation.

• SafeWork NSW did not stop the ongoing harassment that caused my injury.

• No Return to Work Coordinator functioned in practice.

• No Return to Work Plan was cooperatively implemented.

• No Return to Work Program was ever provided to me.

• My evidence and medical records were disregarded.

• I was redirected across agencies that lacked the power—or will—to enforce compliance.

• Decisions were made without my participation.

This is why I documented what happened.

This is why I escalated concerns.

And this is why silence in regulatory systems is not neutral—it is dangerous.

(Documents 152, 156 and 159). 

Now read: 

SIRA NSW - Regulatory Priorities 2025-26

The Law Became Another Site of Harm

I was taught to believe that lawyers exist to protect people when power is unequal — especially injured workers, employees harmed at work, and those already destabilised by institutions.

That belief did not survive my experience.

This is not an accusation of criminal conduct.

It is not a claim about intent.

It is a record of how legal practice felt and functioned when I was at my most vulnerable.

I write in my own voice because silence did not keep me safe.

⸻

The Gap Between Principle and Practice

I have listened to senior lawyers speak publicly about:

• bullying as unlawful

• psychosocial harm as real

• employer duties of care

• dignity at work

These principles are articulated clearly in professional training, regulatory commentary, and parliamentary submissions by the legal profession itself.

Yet in my own matter, the way law was practised felt very different.

Legal strategy narrowed harm into technical questions.

Distress was treated as inconvenience.

Power was exercised procedurally, not humanely.

The gap between what is said and what is done is where harm occurs.

⸻

When Conflicts Were Treated as Manageable

One of the most destabilising aspects of my experience was watching conflicts of interest treated as matters to be managed rather than ethical lines to be respected.

The profession’s own standards emphasise:

• undivided loyalty

• avoidance of conflicting duties

• public confidence in justice

Yet when those standards were not meaningfully applied, it was the injured person who absorbed the cost — emotionally, financially, psychologically.

Being told “this is how the system works” does not reassure someone who is already unwell.

It isolates them.

⸻

Professional Negligence Is Often Quiet

Negligence does not always look dramatic.

Sometimes it looks like:

• advice that omits foreseeable harm

• silence where clarity is needed

• strategies that protect institutions while leaving workers exposed

Even the legal profession itself has publicly acknowledged that the workers compensation system is complex, confusing, and structurally hostile to injured workers.

When legal practice mirrors those features instead of countering them, harm compounds.

⸻

Experiencing Institutional Legal Power

Large law firms operate as institutional actors, not individuals.

When firms such as Clayton Utz act for powerful employers, insurers, or public bodies, the ethical burden is greater — not smaller.

My experience of institutional legal correspondence and positioning felt characterised by:

• technical dominance over proportionality

• procedural force over substantive fairness

• comfort with outcomes that deepened harm

This is my experience and opinion. Others may see it differently. I am entitled to speak about what happened to me and even to my family. (See http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/07/intimidating-family-as-community.html and http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2026/01/clayton-utz-isolation-intimidation.html ).

⸻

The Harm No Costs Schedule Records

What is never costed is:

• the retraumatisation of having injury reframed as inconvenience

• the exhaustion of navigating ethics alone

• the erosion of trust when representation feels indistinguishable from opposition

Workers compensation already removes agency.

When legal practice reflects that same dynamic, the impact multiplies. And this goes for employment lawyers too. 

(See http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/01/employment-lawyer-1-2019.html, http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/02/employment-lawyer-2-part-1-2020.html and http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2025/03/employment-lawyer-3-part-1-2020.html). 

⸻

Why I Am Writing This Publicly

I did not choose visibility lightly.

I am writing because:

• internal processes did not prevent harm

• accountability mechanisms moved too slowly

• silence protected those already insulated

This is not retaliation.

It is documentation.

The law is not neutral when power is unequal.

Legal strategy is not neutral when it foreseeably worsens harm.

Ethics matter only when they are practised, not just taught.

⸻

Publication note

This post reflects my personal experience and opinion, informed by public professional standards and commentary. It is shared after formal avenues failed to prevent further harm.

⸻

COMPANION EXPLAINER POST

When Legal Practice Amplifies Workers Compensation Harm

This post is not only about my personal story.

It is about structure.

The workers compensation system has been repeatedly described — including by the legal profession itself — as complex, fragmented, and difficult for injured workers to navigate.

Yet legal practice within the system often reproduces the same features:

• opacity

• procedural dominance

• emotional detachment framed as professionalism

⸻

The Structural Problem

In theory, lawyers are meant to:

• reduce power imbalance

• clarify rights

• protect vulnerable clients

In practice, injured workers often encounter:

• conflicts framed as technicalities

• silence framed as strategy

• advice shaped by cost and convenience rather than recovery

This is not a failure of individual morality.

It is a failure of incentives and accountability.

⸻

Why Psychological Injury Claims Are Especially Vulnerable

Psychological injuries are uniquely exposed to:

• credibility contests

• reframing of distress as instability

• misuse of “reasonable management action” narratives

The profession knows this. It teaches it. It writes about it.

What injured workers experience is the gap between knowledge and conduct.

⸻

What Accountability Would Look Like

A system that genuinely protects injured workers would require:

• enforceable conflict-of-interest standards

• trauma-informed legal practice

• consequences when legal strategy foreseeably worsens harm

Until then, injured workers will continue to report that the system — including legal practice — made things worse.

⸻

Why this explainer exists

This post is shared to help the public understand why so many injured workers describe the legal process as another site of harm, not relief.

SIRA NSW - When the System Is Silent, the Harm Is Not - February 2021

(Including the Regulator Who Was Told)

There is a particular kind of harm that occurs when a person asks for help and the system designed to protect them goes quiet.

Not delayed.

Not overwhelmed.

Not imperfect.

Silent.

In early 2021, I was no longer asking for outcomes. I was asking for human response. I had been injured, isolated, and stripped of support while trying to navigate my employer’s conduct, the workers’ compensation system, and communication with the state regulator, SIRA NSW, all at the same time.

The injury was real.

The trauma was real.

And the fear was real.

What I learned very quickly is this: silence inside a care and regulatory system compounds harm.

I told the regulator I was not coping

In February 2021, I wrote directly to SIRA NSW. I explained that I was traumatised, avoiding emails and voicemail because of the distress they caused, and that I had no support. I explained that delays were placing me at risk of homelessness. I asked who I was meant to speak to for income support when I was being directed back toward the very people who had harmed me.

I asked, plainly, for help.

I was not writing as an abstraction or a case number. I was writing as a human being in distress, seeking support from the regulator responsible for overseeing the workers’ compensation system.

“Who is ‘them’?”

At that time, I had applied for interim income support simply to survive. When that application was rejected, I was told to “speak with them.”

No one explained who “them” was.

Was I meant to speak to the employer representatives who had already subjected me to harm?

Was I meant to negotiate directly with an insurer I believed was not acting independently?

Was I meant to be well enough, resourced enough, and emotionally safe enough to confront the source of my own injury?

That confusion — and the distress it caused — was not incidental. It was part of a system that left me carrying the risk alone.

Trauma does not pause for process

I told SIRA NSW that I was identifying symptoms consistent with PTSD arising from prolonged organisational abuse and adverse action. I explained that I could not safely open emails without becoming distressed. I asked for support to be present with me during an insurer-arranged independent medical examination. I asked for my rights to a return-to-work plan, a case manager, and coordinated injury management to finally be honoured.

These were not unreasonable requests. They were the very safeguards the system is meant to provide.

Yet while processes continued around me, no one ensured I was safe within them.

Isolation is not recovery

One of the deepest harms was not only the injury, but the enforced isolation.

Colleagues I had supported for nearly two decades were coerced into silence. I told the regulator what this was doing to my mental health. I explained that telling someone to rely on “friends and family” ignored the reality that my family had already been drawn into harm and distress.

I wrote that therapy alone could not help me if my basic rights under workers’ compensation were still being denied — because psychological care cannot replace safety, income, dignity, and protection from further harm.

This is what systemic failure looks like

Systemic failure is not always loud.

Sometimes it looks like:

• a regulator being told someone is frightened and alone,

• repeated explanations of distress with no effective intervention,

• processes continuing while the human being inside them deteriorates,

• and silence that protects institutions rather than people.

I was not asking for special treatment.

I was asking for the system — including SIRA NSW — to function as it is meant to.

Support.

Coordination.

Protection.

A genuine path to recovery.

When the System Is Silent, the Harm Is Not

Why I am sharing this now

I am sharing this because I did not stay silent.

I am sharing this because the regulator was told.

I am sharing this because formal processes did not stop the harm.

And I am sharing this because others will recognise themselves here — still wondering if the silence means they did something wrong.

They didn’t.

If a system requires an injured person to become sicker, poorer, and more traumatised before it responds, then the system itself is unsafe.

Listening is not a courtesy. It is a measure of dignity.

(Documents 149-150). 

————

Further reading 

Ahsan, S. (2022, 6 September). ‘I’m a psychologist – and I believe we’ve been told devastating lies about mental health’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/06/psychologist-devastating-lies-mental-health-problems-politics 

SIRA NSW. (2025, 3 October). ‘Recovery after a workplace injury: Information for employers on supporting a worker in their recovery after a workplace injury.’ https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/workers-compensation/recovery-after-a-workplace-injury