Beyond Apologies: I Was a Human Being. They Had Statutory Obligations - January 2023

An injury management plan never implemented. A worker left to carry the harm.

I was a human being whose recovery, livelihood and family mattered. My employer and insurer had obligations. There was a written injury management plan. I was trying to have that plan implemented and those obligations fulfilled. I should never have been left pleading for compliance while my life unravelled.

I was one woman trying to return to her job.

That’s what I need people to understand before they read another word.

I had worked for two decades at Australian Catholic University. I had studied, earned my degrees, built my professional skills and given years of service. I had a home to protect and a life I had worked hard to build.

I asked for a safe work environment. When I was injured by a representative of my employer as adverse action, I sought support to recover and return safely to my work.

What followed has left me frightened, financially damaged and traumatised by the very systems I approached for help.

——

We are beyond apologies.

I want Catholic Church Insurance investigated. I want the conduct of ACU senior leaders investigated. I want IRO, SIRA and SafeWork NSW held accountable for their handling of my complaints. I want the barriers I encountered in seeking justice through the Personal Injury Commission examined.

CCI’s handling of my claim involved fraud and enabled retaliation by my employer. I want the conduct of CCI and its lawyers scrutinised, the evidence examined, and responsibility established.

I want the human being at the centre of the systemic harm to be seen.

——

The worst trauma was what happened when I asked for help

I experienced this treatment as torture.

The systemic harm has been the deepest trauma of all. For me, it has been thousands and thousands and thousands of times more traumatic than losing my dad to suicide.

I know the weight of those words. Losing my dad was devastating. I’m telling you how devastating this prolonged experience has been: the fear, the financial pressure, the repeated rejection, the isolation and the feeling that no matter how clearly I explained the harm, nobody would make it stop.

——

How could they do this to this family?

We had already lived through profound loss. I was trying to care for my family while protecting my own health, work and home. Instead, I was left fighting for the basic cooperation that should have supported my recovery.

And this happened in connection with Australian Catholic University and Catholic Church Insurance.

Where was the compassion? Where was respect for human dignity? Where was the recognition that their unlawful decisions reached into a family already carrying grief?

Even writing this now is extremely traumatic. I’m shaking as I revisit it. Reliving it feels surreal. The consequences are still real.

I need support. I can’t keep carrying the evidence, the injuries, the financial losses and the work of seeking justice alone.

——

I asked them to implement the plan

The injury management plan needed to be implemented. It never was.

That’s the central failure I kept trying to have addressed.

I was asking for cooperation with my nominated treating professionals. I was asking for the support needed to recover and return safely to the work I valued.

On 12 January 2023, I asked SIRA to ensure CCI replied. I also asked what IRO meant by a “communication plan”.

I explained why I needed communication in writing:

“Given the amount of systemic abuse I suffered for several years, by those with a core responsibility for enforcing compliance of WHS and worker’s compensation regulations, I am cautious in trusting any sudden phone call from anyone.”

I needed to understand what was happening. I needed an accurate record. I needed communication that didn’t leave me frightened and scrambling to work out what had just been done.

On 17 January 2023, I wrote to IRO and SIRA again. I asked for written answers by 19 January. I offered reports from my GP about my fitness to perform my work.

I was still trying. Still explaining. Still asking the people responsible for the scheme to help it work.

——

 

CCI's answer was “fast track” closure

On 20 January 2023, CCI’s Senior Claims Specialist replied:

“The claim was transferred across to me to manage, but has since been transferred to our fast track team for closure.”

Read that again. CCI were ALMOST about to COMPLY, but someone directed them to CONTINUE the FRAUD. IT’S CORRUPTION! 

I was asking for help to recover and return to work. CCI was telling me that my claim was on its way to being closed.

The years that passed were years of my life. They were years of fear, lost work, financial pressure and further injury.

I want the decisions and their consequences investigated. I want the harm addressed.

——

22 January 2023

On 22 January 2023, I asked SIRA and IRO for clear information about what they would do. I explained the failures to communicate with me and my health professionals, the harassment and intimidation I had reported, and my experience of being failed by two IRO-funded solicitors.

I wrote:

“Please provide support and clear information on what you are going to do as regulators and SafeWork.”

I also explained that I had been too fearful to open a letter from the second solicitor.

That’s how traumatic this process had become. Correspondence from people who were supposed to help could itself trigger fear.

What support did they think I needed to participate? Who was going to help me understand and challenge the decisions? How was I supposed to keep confronting this alone?

——

IRO sent CCI’s answer back to me

On 24 January 2023, IRO’s Manager Solutions wrote:

“IRO contacted CCI and CCI provided a copy of the email below to you which answers the 3 questions you asked and offers an apology for the delay.”

IRO recommended contacting my lawyer to challenge the dispute and referred to funding for lawyers to take insurer disputes to the Personal Injury Commission.

What did that do for the frightened woman who had already explained that she had been failed by two solicitors?

What did it do about the plan that had never been implemented?

What did it do about the history of complaints IRO already held?

For me, complaining to IRO became an utter waste of precious time and emotional energy. I kept putting my distress and my evidence before it, only to remain responsible for finding the next route through the same ordeal.

IRO’s 24 October 2022 Complaint Handling Protocol described assessing whether insurer responses were fair and reasonable, escalating complaints and investigating where appropriate. I want to know what scrutiny my complaints actually received. Why was CCI’s reply treated as answering my questions without resolving the failure and misconduct I was reporting? 

——

They already had the records

IRO had my complaints. SIRA had my records. SafeWork NSW had my records.

I had told them what was happening. I had asked for intervention. I had explained the consequences.

I shouldn’t have had to keep reliving it to make each new person understand.

——

Questions IRO must answer

IRO already held my complaints. On 24 January 2023, it sent CCI’s closure response back to me as answering my questions.

 

• What did IRO do to examine my complaint that the original injury management plan had never been implemented?

• What claims records and evidence did it obtain from CCI to test the response against the history I had reported?

• How did it decide that CCI’s response was fair and reasonable under its 24 October 2022 Complaint Handling Protocol? Did it consider escalation or formal investigation, and what were its reasons?

• What did it do with my disclosures that two IRO-funded solicitors had failed me and that correspondence had become a trigger of trauma?

• What practical assistance did it provide to help me understand and challenge the dispute, given the difficulties I had already explained?

• What concerns did it share with SIRA through the available information-sharing arrangements, and what follow-up occurred?

 

IRO must explain the work it actually did with the complaints already in its possession. Referring me towards the same failed process obviously didn’t resolve the failure I was reporting.

——

Questions SIRA must answer

SIRA published standards for injury management and psychological injury claims. I repeatedly sought its intervention over non-compliance.

 

• What did SIRA do when I reported that the original injury management plan had never been implemented?

• Did it examine CCI’s handling against section 45 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 and the applicable versions of Standards 12 and 33? What did it find?

• What evidence did it obtain about communication with my nominated treating professionals, support for recovery and barriers to a safe return to work?

• What did it examine about the August 2022 dispute, the support accompanying it and CCI’s subsequent move towards closure?

• What decisions did it make to investigate—and where are the reasons addressing the evidence I supplied?

• If it relied on SafeWork’s position, how did it independently assess the separate concerns about CCI’s claims handling?

• How did its response fulfil its supervisory responsibilities, including the objective of effective supervision of claims handling and disputes under section 23 of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015?

 

What protection did SIRA’s involvement deliver to the worker who was repeatedly asking it to act?

——

Questions SafeWork NSW must answer

I reported harassment, intimidation and continuing psychological harm by a representative of my employer - the national manager of employment relations and SAFETY! I needed the risks examined and a safe path back to work.

 

• What evidence did SafeWork obtain and assess about the workplace risks I reported?

• How did it assess ACU’s compliance with section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, including the duty concerning psychological health?

• How did it apply the relevant psychosocial-risk requirements and the 2021 Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work?

• Did it examine whether policies were implemented and risks controlled, rather than accepting the existence of policies as sufficient?

• What action did it take to assess the reported continuing harm and the conditions necessary for a safe return to work?

• What were its reasons for taking or declining investigative or enforcement action?

• How does it explain the responses I recorded about the inspector not wanting to “ruffle feathers” and not being there to play “he said, she said”? What evidence-based assessment followed my reports?

 

A person reporting harm deserves an explanation of how the risk was assessed and what was done about it.

I don’t want these agencies treated merely as witnesses to ACU’s and CCI’s conduct.

The regulators’ own conduct must be examined. Their own decisions must be explained.

——

What use were the laws if their protection never reached me?

The Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 provided the framework for compensation and injury management.

Section 45 of the 1998 Act concerns injury management plans for significant injuries. Mine were being caused by my employer in retaliation for requesting a psychosocially safe work environment. SIRA’s April 2022 Standards of Practice, including Standards 12 and 33, addressed planning, communication, psychological injury and recovery. 

Those provisions and standards need to be applied to the full history of my claim. I want an investigation to identify the obligations that applied, whether they were met, and what happened when I reported failures.

SIRA’s standards addressed support when disputing liability, tailored communication and workplace psychological risks. Where was that support in my experience?

The employer’s safety duties under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 include psychological health. NSW introduced more explicit psychosocial-risk requirements on 1 October 2022. 

Yet in my January 2023 correspondence, I recorded SafeWork’s words as I remembered them:

“Well all they’ll do is just show me the policies and I don’t want to ruffle feathers.”

I also remember being told that SafeWork was not there to play “he said, she said”.

I was asking for protection. I needed the evidence examined and the risks assessed.

How could showing a policy answer whether the conduct had stopped? How could avoiding “ruffling feathers” be an adequate response to a person reporting continuing harm?

——

Four institutions—and I was still alone

SIRA. IRO. SafeWork NSW. The Personal Injury Commission.

Four institutions looming over one woman’s efforts to obtain protection, procedural fairness and justice.

They have different responsibilities. The Personal Injury Commission resolves disputes; it’s not the workplace safety or insurance regulator. But those distinctions don’t explain why I remained without an effective resolution.

My experience was that IRO couldn’t deal with SIRA, SIRA relied on SafeWork’s position, and SafeWork didn’t provide the intervention I sought.

Where did that leave me?

Still frightened. Still carrying the consequences. Still trying to find somebody who would take responsibility for examining what had happened.

I want the procedural barriers I encountered in the Personal Injury Commission process examined too. What opportunities did I have to be heard? What support was available? How were the difficulties I disclosed addressed?

I can’t be left alone to confront adversarial lawyers while already traumatised by the process. I regard the conduct I encountered from lawyers acting against me as unconscionable and unethical. I want the specific actions I allege were underhanded, INVESTIGATED!

The purpose of this scheme mattered to me because I needed to recover and return safely to work. I needed assistance that made that possible.

——

It took a third solicitor to help me understand

It took a third workers’ compensation solicitor for me to understand what had happened to my claim and the process for challenging it.

By then, I had already spent enormous effort seeking help.

What I learned led me to allege that CCI and its lawyers had undermined the statutory scheme in handling my claim. I want their communications, decisions and representations independently scrutinised.

Why did it take a third solicitor for me to obtain that understanding? What had the earlier solicitors and the agencies explained? What had they left unanswered?

My later efforts to obtain help included dealings with Graeme Head, the former Secretary of the NSW Department of Customer Service, who became CEO of the NDIA in November 2025. I experienced those dealings as further deflection. I want the responses to my requests examined, alongside the wider history. 

A person shouldn’t have to become an expert in institutional boundaries simply to obtain a fair opportunity to challenge decisions affecting her livelihood, especially the implementation of the injury management plan agreement. 

——

“Always unfit”—with what evidence Catholic Church Insurance?

I challenged what I described as CCI’s written false statement to IRO that I had always been unfit to do my job.

I wrote:

“Unlike CCI’s insulting comment that I was always unfit to do my job (I excelled at for twenty years), the records compiled tell and demonstrate a different story.”

With what evidence could such a damaging description be justified?

Which period? Which duties? Which assessment? What consultation with my nominated treating professionals?

Cooperation with my treating professionals to support recovery and a safe return to work was missing. WHY? 

I had spent two decades doing demanding professional work. ACU benefited from that work. Colleagues and communities benefited from it.

Speak to the people who knew my work. Examine my qualifications, achievements and contribution. Examine the medical evidence properly too.

Being injured didn’t erase my abilities. Needing a safe workplace didn’t erase my professional identity.

I’m still analysing records, reconstructing events and doing the work of an information professional because nobody else has provided the answers. That doesn’t erase my trauma. It demonstrates the skills and persistence I’ve had to draw upon while carrying it.

——

I was known. I contributed. I mattered.

I don’t want to be erased.

Who authorised what happened to me?

• Who at ACU communicated with CCI about my claim, my capacity and my employment?

• What information did they provide? Who checked it? What consideration was given to my evidence and the evidence of my treating professionals?

• Who decided to move my claim towards closure? Who authorised decisions affecting my job? Who knew that I was reporting continuing harm and seeking a safe return?

Was there improper coordination or collusion?

That question needs to be answered through the communications and decision records. I want an investigation to follow the evidence to the people who instructed, authorised, endorsed or knew about the conduct.

At ACU, that must include the Vice-Chancellor’s leadership and oversight, relevant human resources executives, and those responsible for workplace safety and return-to-work arrangements.

At CCI, it must include the claims-management hierarchy, its lawyers’ involvement, and those responsible for compliance and oversight.

Responsibility can’t stop at the person whose name happened to appear beneath an email.

——

The damage reached my home and my family

In August 2022, while trying to settle on my home, I faced devastating financial pressure.

I reported selling an investment property at a substantial loss, paying $10,000 in penalties, paying another $15,000 to the vendor for an extension, and withdrawing $300,000 from my superannuation to complete settlement through a security swap.

That was my financial security. My future. The resources I had worked to build.

Those losses are the result and consequences of the failures I was repeatedly seeking to have investigated. I want the financial and claims records examined together, so responsibility for the losses can be established.

I had also sought help from Chris Minns, my state MP for Kogarah. He visited the university on 29 April 2022. I went to his electorate office on 9 May 2022, still seeking help. I received no meaningful resolution of the regulatory concerns. I received more betrayal. 

See:

• The Social Media Post I Saw on 29 April 2022
• The Day I Almost Didn’t Come Back – Kogarah Electorate Office - May 2022
• Distress and Betrayal - May 2022

I was trying to save my work and my home while protecting my family from any more harm.

Implementing the injury management plan and meeting the applicable legal obligations at the outset, would have cost a fraction to all key stakeholders, of what this prolonged failure has cost me.

Instead, one worker’s request for recovery and a safe return became years of pleading with regulators to enforce compliance, being abandoned to force a statutory scheme to operate as intended, escalating losses and further trauma.

——

We are beyond apologies

What are these organisations there to do if a worker can repeatedly report harm, supply records and ask for help—and still be left alone with the consequences?

I want independent investigation of:

• CCI and its lawyers: claims handling, entitlements, medical evidence, non-implementation of the original plan, communications and the move towards closure.

• ACU and its lawyers: the retaliation including intimidation, workplace risks, decisions affecting my employment and communications with CCI.

• IRO: its handling, assessment and escalation of my complaints.

• SIRA: its response to reported non-compliance, and possibly fraud, and its supervision of the insurer.

• SafeWork NSW: its assessment of the reported WHS risks and its reasons for taking or declining action.

• The Personal Injury Commission process I encountered: procedural decisions, opportunities to be heard and barriers to participation.

 

I want findings. I want reasons. I want responsibility established and appropriate consequences where wrongdoing is found. I want financial redress for the damage caused.

I intend to make CCI’s handling of my claim a public example of why workers need effective protection—and why the institutions overseeing that protection must answer for their own conduct.

But this story can’t become another discussion in which everybody talks about systems and nobody sees the person.

I’m still here (barely, but still here), frightened by what happened and traumatised by having to revisit it.

I have degrees, achievements, relationships, responsibilities and a profession I value. I had a life before I was forced to spend years trying to prove that the harm deserved attention.

The indifference I have experienced has left me deeply distressed about our society. I need people to recognise the human consequences and offer meaningful support.

I’m one woman asking to return safely to her job.

I don’t want to be erased.

We are beyond apologies. I want justice, accountability, support—and the human being behind this story finally to be seen.

——

Laws and policy references

The laws and standards below identify duties and expectations that require examination against the full history. I want an investigation to establish which provisions applied at each stage and whether they were complied with.

 

• Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)⁠ — the workers’ compensation legislative framework.

• Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)⁠ — including section 45 concerning injury management plans for significant injuries.

• State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 (NSW)⁠ — including section 23 concerning SIRA’s objectives.

• Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (NSW)⁠ — including Schedule 5 concerning the Independent Review Officer’s functions.

• Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)⁠ — including section 19 concerning the primary duty of care.

• Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), January 2023 version⁠ — including the psychosocial-risk provisions introduced from 1 October 2022.

• SIRA Standards of Practice, April 2022⁠ — particularly Standard 12, injury management plans, and Standard 33, managing psychological injury claims.

• IRO Complaint Handling Protocol⁠ — complaint assessment, escalation and investigation.

• SafeWork NSW: Managing psychosocial hazards at work⁠ — the code first published in 2021; the linked webpage may include later updates.

• NSW Government: Legal obligations and rights⁠ — supporting explanation of the psychosocial-risk changes.

 

The January 2023 legislation links provide a historical reference point for that correspondence. Earlier events require the versions applicable when they occurred.

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Documents  629-630, 632, 640.

I am frightened and writing my story publicly for my safety, after exhausting the avenues reasonably available to obtain protection. I want the harm to stop so I can recover safely in my job.