The Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Ethics — A Follow-Up That Should Not Be Necessary - February 2022

In early 2022, I also wrote to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Ethics.

I had not only sent private communication to the DVC of Ethics via LinkedIn, in February 2022, I wrote a letter sent to him via express post. 

I wrote because the situation had already escalated to a point where internal processes had failed, and the harm I was experiencing was not only ongoing — it was intensifying.

That letter was grounded in lived experience, documented events, and a simple expectation: that someone in a position of ethical leadership would recognise what was happening and act.

I placed him on notice in the same way the Vice-Chancellor had been placed on notice in November 2021.

What I outlined was clear.

There had been a failure to implement an agreed injury management plan. There had been no meaningful support for recovery. There had been no safe pathway back to work. Instead, there was escalation, silence, and conduct that stripped away dignity in ways that are difficult to adequately put into words.  

I asked him a question.

For me, it was the only question that mattered at that point:

What is the truth?

And alongside it:

What defines courage?

Those questions remain unanswered.

What is the truth?

⸻

What has become clearer over time is that this was never just about process failure.

It was about contradiction.

A profound and deeply confronting contradiction between what is publicly promoted — ethics, dignity, mission, values — and what is privately permitted when those principles are tested.

Because ethics, if they are to mean anything at all, must exist in moments of discomfort. They must exist when action is required. They must exist when silence becomes easier than intervention.

What I experienced was not the presence of ethics.

It was the absence of them where they were most needed.

⸻

I described in that earlier letter the psychological harm, the destabilisation, and the sense of being isolated within a system I had served for over twenty years. I spoke about the impact not only on me, but on my family — the humiliation, the erosion of dignity, the sense that something deeply unjust was being allowed to continue unchecked.  

When harm is sustained and ignored, it does not remain contained. It expands. It embeds. It changes how you see the world around you.

And when that harm occurs within an institution that speaks so confidently about its values, the impact is even more severe.

It forces a question you cannot avoid:

Are those values real?

Or are they only real when they are easy to uphold?

⸻

The role of Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Ethics is not symbolic. It carries an expectation that when ethical failures occur, they will be recognised, confronted, and addressed.

Not deferred.

Not ignored.

Not distanced.

And yet, in my case, that is exactly what happened.

There was no meaningful intervention.

No visible attempt to reconcile the contradiction between conduct and values.

No action that demonstrated that ethics, as a function of leadership, had any operational meaning when tested against reality.

⸻

I am not writing this as someone who has walked away.

I am still here.

I have not withdrawn my position.

I have not abandoned the expectation that what occurred should be acknowledged and addressed.

What I asked for then is exactly what I ask for now:

• Compliance with legal obligations
• Implementation of the injury management plan
• A safe and supported return to work
• And the restoration of dignity through action

These are baseline requirements.

⸻

Legal Accountability — When Ethics Fail, the Law Still Applies

What occurred is not only an ethical failure. It raises serious questions of legal compliance, governance oversight, and institutional accountability.

Work Health and Safety (WHS) Duties

Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), an employer has a primary duty of care to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers — including psychological health.

This includes obligations to:

• Provide a safe system of work
• Eliminate or minimise risks to psychological health
• Respond appropriately when risks are identified
• Prevent further harm once an injury is known

What I experienced demonstrates a failure to:

• Adequately respond to known psychological risk
• Prevent escalation of harm once it was clearly identified
• Provide a safe and supported pathway back to work
• Implement agreed measures designed to stabilise recovery

These are statutory obligations.

⸻

Workers Compensation & Injury Management Obligations

Once an injury is identified and an Injury Management Plan is agreed, there are clear obligations to:

• Actively implement that plan
• Maintain appropriate case management
• Support recovery and return to work in a structured, lawful way

In my case:

• The Injury Management Plan was not meaningfully implemented
• Support mechanisms broke down
• The pathway to recovery was not facilitated

This represents a failure of injury management compliance, not simply a breakdown in communication.

⸻

Governance Failure — When Leadership Is on Notice

What elevates this matter further is that senior leadership was formally put on notice.

This includes:

• The Vice-Chancellor (November 2021)
• The Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Ethics (early 2022)

Once leadership is on notice of:

• Potential WHS risks
• Ongoing harm
• Possible non-compliance with statutory obligations

There is a governance obligation to act.

Failure to act raises serious questions about:

• Due diligence by officers of the organisation
• Whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent ongoing harm
• Whether institutional processes are capable of responding to risk

Silence, in this context, is not neutral.

It may constitute a failure of governance oversight.

⸻

Ethics vs Conduct — The Core Contradiction

This is where the issue becomes unavoidable.

An institution cannot:

• Publicly promote dignity, ethics, and mission
• While privately allowing conduct that undermines those principles
• And failing to act when that contradiction is brought directly to its leadership

At that point, it is no longer a matter of values.

It is a matter of accountability.

⸻

The Question Remains

So I return to the question that was put forward in early 2022.

A question directed to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Ethics, but one that now sits more broadly with the institution itself:

What is the truth?

And if that truth is known—

what defines the courage to act on it?

Because ethics cannot remain a public narrative if they are absent in private reality.

And leadership cannot claim integrity if it does not respond when that integrity is placed directly in front of it.

Ethics without action are just words.

And the institutionalised wage theft also continued…

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 265.