It is
now roughly six weeks since I sent a second letter to Senator Mitch Fifield Minister for Communications and the Arts.
I have
received no response; not even an acknowledgment that my letter (as with the
one I sent 6 weeks before that) have been received.
Mitch Fifield
Minister for
Communications and the Arts
Level 2
4 National
Circuit
Barton, ACT
2600
7th
Dec. 2015
Dear Senator
Fifield
It is now six
weeks since I wrote to you regarding the ban placed on me by Screen Australia.
I have received no acknowledgement of my letter’s receipt from your office.
It is
disappointing that we have, as our new Minister, someone who seems to approve
of the notion that critics of Screen Australia (or any other arts body within
your portfolio) can be banned by senior bureaucrats with no evidence at all provided
that they are guilty of the crime they have been charged with committing!
42 months is a
long time to wait to be provided with such evidence!
In my own case,
I am not guilty of having either intimidated or placed at risk members of
Screen Australia staff with my correspondence. What I am guilty of is
exercising my right to free speech, my right to be critical of Screen Australia
and my insistence that senior members of Screen Australia management and
members of the board be accountable for their actions; that they not play fast
and loose with the truth.
My various
requests of the Commonwealth Ombudsman that his office as Screen Australia for
evidence that I have intimidated and placed at risk members of SA staff have
fallen on deaf ears. The Ombudsman has given his tacit approval to my banning
and will ask no questions. And so it is that our rights, as citizens, to free
speech are slowly eroded. Others who might be expected to advocate my right to
be provided with evidence of my crimes (the Australian Director’s Guild, for
instance) remain silent for fear of bureaucratic retribution.
No filmmaker
wants to have either an informal or a form ban placed on them by Screen Australia.
I have little
choice but to accept that Screen Australia’s ban will last the rest of my life
and have adjusted my filmmaking plans accordingly. I can no longer take
advantage of the tax concessions in place to assist filmmakers such as myself
tell Australian stories for an Australian audience. Perhaps it is no bad thing
that I must now think of myself as a ‘filmmaker of the world’ who just happens
to be Australian; but banned in his own country.
It is a little
late in my career to be making this transition, but where there is a will there
is a way, and I continue, one way or another, to make films – despite Screen
Australia’s determination to do everything it can to prevent me from doing so.
I will continue
to advocate my right to be provided with evidence in support of the ban placed
on me. The actual ban does not bother me too much anymore. Even if the official
ban were to be lifted tomorrow, the unofficial ban that was in place before May
2012, would continue. And nor am I, as I have been for so long, interested in
an apology from the Screen Australia board. The time for an apology is long
since past. Any apology now would be insincere.
I ask only (and
will continue to keep asking) that someone within Screen Australia or within
your ministry point out to me (and my fellow filmmakers) one example of my
having intimidated or placed at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff in my
correspondence. Just one example.
If no such
evidence can be provided, an acknowledgment from the Screen Australia board that Ruth Harley lied is in order. And an
acknowledgment that the Screen Australia board banned me not on the basis of
evidence but on the basis of Harley’s vindictive lie is in order. And an
acknowledgment that the Screen Australia board has continued the ban on me for
close to four years now in the full knowledge that I neither intimidated or
placed at risk anyone is in order.
If you cannot
see that a Screen Australia board that is not accountable to anyone (including
yourself) is a problem, do not be surprised if, at some point during your tenure
as Minister, it becomes apparent that you should have kept your eye more firmly
on the ball.
I have enclosed
my most recent letter to Graeme Mason, Screen Australia CEO, and Nerida Moore, Screen
Australia’s Senior Development Executive. It speaks for itself of one of the
biggest problems facing Australian film – second rate bureaucrats who allow
themselves to be dictated to by a board whose filmmaking members feel no
embarrassment at all in voting large amounts of money for their own film and TV
projects. One of these, Dianne Weir, it has been suggested, is a contender to
replace Mark Scott as Managing Director at the ABC. The notion that the new head
of the ABC might be someone who believes it appropriate to ban filmmakers fills
me with dread. And the possible appointment of Dianne Weir as Managing Director
should raise serious concerns about her commitment to freedom of speech for the
entire filmmaking, TV producing and arts community in Australia and the general
public.
best wishes
James Ricketson
cc Graeme Mason
Nerida Moore
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Screen Australia Board
Australian Directors Guild
From the internet, re Ministerial Responsibility.
Some general points of principle in
handling ministerial correspondence are:
•
it is the expectation of the people who write to ministers that they
will receive a reply, however brief;
•
correspondence should be handled expeditiously and, where a timely
reply is not possible, an interim acknowledgment giving reasons for the delay
should be sent;
•
replies should contain an expression of genuine appreciation of the
correspondence and make specific reference, however minimal, to at least some
of the key points or issues raised; and
•
replies should be signed by someone at an appropriate level.
No comments:
Post a Comment