When Seeking Help Became a Trauma Trigger: What ACU Governance Was Told - December 2022

By December 2022, the fear had followed me into the very process of seeking help. Government correspondence was waiting in an online portal. I needed to read it. I wanted to know whether someone would finally act. But I could no longer bring myself to open it alone.

These documents record that point in the snowball effect of harm: when the effort to obtain protection had itself become a source of panic, exhaustion and fear.

——

On 5 December 2022, a claims consultant from TAL, UniSuper’s insurer, wrote on behalf of my usual consultant:

“Could you please confirm if you have returned to work on 27/11/2022?”

My reply began:

“The simple answer is no, I haven’t returned to work yet.”

I was still trying to secure a safe way to return and recover in my role. Yet the process of reporting harm and seeking intervention had become overwhelming.

I wrote:

“I just want it to end, starting with compliance to return to my work.”

And I explained the barrier to reading the Fair Work Ombudsman’s replies:

“I get into a panic attack and hyperventilate at the thought of logging into my account with the Fair Work Ombudsman portal.”

An unread reply can look like a small administrative problem from the outside. My correspondence describes what it felt like from the inside: the anticipation of another response from a system that had repeatedly failed to protect me, and the fear of what opening it might do to me.

I had sent desperate pleas, reports of serious misconduct and adverse action, and supporting evidence by post. I was seeking action. I was also struggling to face the replies.

At the same time, my family was grieving. My aunt’s funeral was that week. I explained that I had arranged for a supportive friend to log in to my account after I helped my family with funeral preparations.

Even grief had to share space with the continuing crisis.

——

On 9 December 2022, I wrote to TAL again. A friend had tried to help me access the portal the previous night. I had managed to update my password, and it worked again. Restoring access had not restored my ability to face the correspondence alone.

“I can’t view government replies on my own. I’m scared and alone. And I distrust even those that show integrity - it’s a symptom of trauma.”

I was describing how far the fear had spread. Even a person showing integrity could encounter distrust, because my experience of seeking protection had left me expecting further harm.

I continued:

“I’ve been made to feel like I’m an exception to all the laws that exist and those that should’ve protected me and my rights to a safe work environment.”

This was how the experience felt to me: protections existed, but I couldn’t obtain the protection I needed.

My friend was already carrying substantial responsibilities of her own. I was grateful for her support, and conscious of what I was asking of her. Reading a government reply had become something I needed another person to help me survive emotionally.

In that same email, I wrote:

“I have so much happening in my own life and I had a right to be there for my family too.”

I also described the theft of my personal, annual and long service leave, and the conduct I had reported involving ACU, Catholic Church Insurance and others. Behind those serious allegations was a practical, continuing need: support for recovery and a safe return to my work of twenty years.

I told TAL that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s replies were:

“my hope to start restoring my trust in government integrity.”

Hope and fear were occupying the same space. I wanted to read that someone would act. I was frightened of encountering another failure to act.

I subsequently forwarded the communication to ACU governance and the Justice and Peace Office. In that message, I expressly acknowledged TAL’s conduct:

“They have displayed customer service excellence and ethical conduct.”

I then wrote:

“This is something missing from Catholic Church Insurance and certain executive staff at ACU.”

I also questioned a service excellence award given to an HR executive, who was involved in a privacy violation I had reported. The question I was putting before governance was about the relationship between public recognition and the conduct I was asking them to examine.

My acknowledgement of TAL’s service matters. I could still recognise ethical treatment and say so. I was asking ACU governance to recognise the difference too, and to respond to the harm described in the correspondence I had placed before them.

See also:

Introducing the corporate psychopath responsible for SAFETY - 2020

AND

The aftershock from the sabotage - March 2020

——

The 9 December 2022 email ended:

“I’m exhausted, alone and frightened. I must rest.”

Those words were sent to the TAL claims consultant and then placed before university governance. They recorded the human consequences of the continuing crisis: fear, isolation, depleted energy, family grief, and difficulty accessing the very correspondence that might contain help.

This is part of the snowball effect I have been documenting. The harm reached beyond my workplace into my health, my family life, my ability to rest, and my ability to navigate the systems I was turning to (and initially trusted) for protection.

ACU governance was told. They were shown what seeking help had become for me.

What did they do with that knowledge to help me return and recover safely in my role?

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents 576, 578.

——

Further context: TAL and the duty of utmost good faith

In December 2022, I praised TAL’s ethical conduct towards me. I have since learned that, following a Financial Services Royal Commission referral, ASIC took TAL to the Federal Court, which found that it had breached its duty of utmost good faith in handling another woman’s income protection claim. 

That finding adds a sobering context to my experience. TAL’s support provided an income that helped sustain me while I continued fighting over CCI’s conduct and “handling” of my workers’ compensation claim. Although the legal frameworks differ, the connection is the need for meaningful scrutiny and accountability when insurers harm the people depending on them. Must it take a Royal Commission before an injured person’s evidence receives serious attention?

Reference: ASIC, 10 March 2021, Court finds that TAL Life Limited breached its duty of utmost good faith – Royal Commission referral⁠.

See also:

Two Insurers. One Injury. Only One Did Its Job - November 2021