“Please Don’t Neglect Us”: What I Asked of SIRA NSW — In My Own Words - June 2021

When my matter was escalated, at my demand, to the Enforcement & Prosecutions Unit of the NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority, I did not write as a litigant trying to score points.

I wrote as a worker trying to survive a system that had already overwhelmed me.

The record matters because what I asked for was not extraordinary.

It was enforcement.

—

When a Regulator Says “We Acknowledge” — and Then Says “Not Our Jurisdiction”

In June 2021, I demanded that my complaint be escalated to the Enforcement & Prosecutions Unit of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority.

After two years of raising workplace health and safety concerns, navigating workers compensation disputes, and documenting alleged statutory non-compliance, I finally received formal acknowledgment that my material had been received, logged, and would be reviewed within 14 business days.

On paper, it looked like progress.

In reality, what followed exposed a deeper problem — the gap between acknowledgment and action, and the destabilising effect of jurisdictional withdrawal after escalation.

—

The Escalation and my Expectations 

On 31 May 2021, I was informed that my claim was recorded as “CLOSED – LIABILITY DENIED.”  

Within days, I:

• Sent 13 attachments by email

• Sent a USB of indexed records via registered post

• Left voicemail messages

• Requested enforcement of compliance by the insurer

• Raised concerns about a withheld IME report

• Asked for clarity about investigative steps and jurisdiction

On 21 June 2021, SIRA formally acknowledged receipt of:

• My 13-attachment email

• The registered USB

• My voicemail

• Further written correspondence

The matter was escalated to the Manager of Enforcement & Prosecutions, who confirmed four steps:

1. Review information on hand

2. Review material submitted

3. Identify applicable legislation within jurisdiction

4. Respond with an outcome

The timeframe: 14 business days.

That acknowledgment gave me something I hadn’t had in a long time — hope.

I wrote at the time:

“I need this to speed up to the Commission now, but balanced with ensuring a proper, legitimate and transparent investigation is conducted this time, with my evidence for true impartiality.”

I was not asking for preferential treatment.

I was asking for regulatory scrutiny.

—

What I Asked For — In My Own Words

On 20 June 2021, as my health deteriorated and financial pressure mounted, I wrote plainly:

“While the investigation progresses — I need support ASAP — it’s a matter of respect and human dignity.”

But the “support” I was requesting was not counselling.

It was enforcement.

“I need you to enforce compliance immediately by the insurer CC Insurance.”

And:

“I need you to enforce cooperation, collaboration and communication by employer and insurer immediately… Go straight to the VC and ensure HR are kept away from me, as you continue this investigation.”

I also wrote:

“Can you please advise me who I can send this entire file of records to, so I can finally have a legitimate and transparent investigation and my entitlements and rights that were stolen… assessed and accounted for.”

And, when the personal toll became unbearable:

“I’m alone and afraid and suffering financially.”

“Don’t neglect us until it’s too late. I’ve given you all the evidence, and annotated, to help you. Help me now too. Please.”

Those words are uncomfortable to revisit.

But they show exactly what I was seeking: lawful intervention while harm was ongoing.

—

The Parallel Track: The Personal Injury Commission

At the same time, my matter was proceeding before the Personal Injury Commission.

From a worker’s perspective, the system felt fragmented:

• The Commission handling dispute resolution.

• The regulator handling enforcement.

• Neither halting the deterioration in real time.

Procedural silos may make sense administratively.

They are devastating experientially.

—

The Jurisdiction Shift

After escalation, acknowledgment, and review undertakings, engagement shifted.

Calls did not occur.

Communication became indirect.

And ultimately, the position was communicated that my matter was not within SIRA’s jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is not a casual word.

In administrative law, it defines authority.

But when:

• Evidence has been formally logged,

• The matter has been escalated internally,

• A review timeframe has been set,

a subsequent jurisdictional withdrawal — without detailed statutory reasoning — raises serious governance questions.

A regulator declining jurisdiction should provide:

1. Clear written reasons.

2. Specific legislative references.

3. Explanation of enforcement thresholds.

4. Identification of the body that does have authority.

5. Confirmation whether any aspect remains within scope.

Anything less creates opacity.

Opacity breeds suspicion.

These were not abstract complaints.

They were requests for regulatory intervention while harm was ongoing.

—

The Broader Question and Structural Issue

This is bigger than my case.

When a worker:

• Submits extensive documentary evidence,

• Is told their matter is escalated,

• Is given a review timeframe,

• Is actively deteriorating while waiting,

and then receives a jurisdictional distancing without transparent reasoning —

what safeguards ensure regulatory accountability?

• What interim protections exist when enforcement review is ongoing?

• Can regulators compel document production swiftly?

• Can they direct compliance during investigation?

• Should jurisdictional boundaries be explained transparently and promptly?

• How do we prevent “quiet exits” from enforcement scrutiny?

Regulatory legitimacy depends on visible, reasoned decision-making.

When a regulator later says a matter is outside jurisdiction — after reviewing evidence, escalating internally, and setting timelines — the human impact of that withdrawal is profound. 

Silence creates suspicion.

Ambiguity erodes trust.

Opacity damages credibility.

—

Referral Is Not Regulation

Alongside enforcement acknowledgment, I was provided:

• Psychologist contact details

• Financial counselling services

• Lifeline and Beyond Blue numbers

• Advice to contact my GP

Those services are essential in crisis contexts.

But I was not asking the regulator for emotional support.

I was asking it to regulate.

There is a fundamental difference.

When distress arises from alleged systemic non-compliance, the appropriate primary response is compliance action — not referral sheets.

Dignity is not a crisis hotline.

—

The Human Cost of Administrative Avoidance

I could have accepted a reasoned refusal.

I could have accepted statutory limits clearly explained.

What I struggled with was avoidance followed by withdrawal.

When someone writes:

“Help me now too. Please.”

and the system responds with distance rather than clarity, it compounds the harm.

—

Why This Matters

Many injured workers describe the same pattern:

1. Raise WHS concerns.

2. Injury occurs.

3. Compensation dispute follows.

4. Regulatory complaint is lodged.

5. Acknowledgment is issued.

6. Time passes.

7. The worker deteriorates.

The system may not intend harm. But if it cannot respond proportionately and transparently when harm is ongoing, reform is necessary.

Not optional.

—

Grounded Close

If you are navigating a similar regulatory maze:

Document everything.

Quote your own words.

Request written reasons.

Ask for statutory references.

Transparency is not hostility.

It is a basic requirement of lawful administration.

And dignity in law must show up in practice — especially when someone has already said, clearly and without theatrics:

“Don’t neglect us until it’s too late.”

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 173. 

—

Further reading 

Marschall, A. (2024, 12 December). ‘How Trauma-Informed Practices Can Create a Safe and Supportive Workplace.’ Spring Health. [Online blog]: https://www.springhealth.com/blog/how-trauma-informed-practices-can-create-a-safe-and-supportive-workplace