The question is:
“Evidence please that Mr Ricketson intimidated or placed
at risk any member of Screen Australia’s staff?”
The Commonwealth Ombudsman could have picked up the phone
and asked this question. He declined to do so. The Minister for the Arts could have
picked up the phone and asked this question. Three Ministers for the Arts have
now failed to do so.
Now, a great deal of time, energy and money will be
expended by myself – to get an answer – and by Screen Australia to prevent me
from getting one.
A sad state of affairs!
Jane
Supit
Head of
Legal
Screen
Australia
Level 7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo 2007
12th April 2016
Dear Ms Supit
re Supreme Court Statement of
Claim # 2012/220477
In late 2012 I appeared in the Supreme Court (Division:
Common Law; List: Defamation) with legal representatives of Screen Australia. I
was representing myself.
The presiding judge declined to hear the matter, claiming
that I needed, in my ‘Statement of Claim’ (drawn up by myself) to more clearly
articulate my case and suggesting that I seek the services of a lawyer. I could
not afford to do so - hence my representing myself.
I have now retired as an Australian filmmaker and am in a
position to pursue the matter, which I intend to do. The last four years of my
professional life have been destroyed by Screen Australia’s banning of me and,
whilst there is nothing that can be done to bring these years back, there is
something that can be done to undo the damage done to my reputation by the ban.
You will, of course, be able to look at the file and
acquaint yourself with the case. In the meantime I am seeking one particular
document from Screen Australia
In order to impose a ban on me on 10th May
2012, Screen Australia had to amend its ‘Terms of Trade’.
As Nick Coyle, Governance Manager wrote under ‘Proposed
Resolution’ 0n 9th May 2012:
3. The Board approves the amendment of Screen Australia’s
Terms of Trade by addition of a statement in the following terms:
“In addition to the requirement in our eligibility
conditions that applicants for funding act in good faith, Screen Australia
expects that communications between its staff and funding applicants will be
courteous and respectful. Screen Australia reserves the right to not accept
applications for funding from any person who Screen Australia forms the view
persistently treats our staff in a discourteous, hurtful or intimidating
fashion; not will Screen Australia enter into correspondence with any such
person.”
The Screen Australia board, without meeting to discuss
the matter, amended its Terms of Trade with the intention of banning one
filmmaker – myself. Then, the following day, convicted me of being in breach of
a segment of SA’s ‘Terms of Trade’ that had not existed 24 hours earlier! An
extraordinary state of affairs!
I have never, despite four years of asking, been provided with any evidence that I
“persistently treat(ed Screen Australia) staff in a discourteous, hurtful or
intimidating fashion.” This is unsurprising as there is no evidence. I am not
guilty as charged. The banning of me was an abuse of power by Ruth Harley; a
ham-fisted attempt to silence a critic and to provide herself and Fiona Cameron
with a seemingly valid reason to refuse to answer questions relating to Fiona’s
having placed on file statements that Ruth knew to be untrue.
I initiated my Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court in
2012, seeking only $1 in damages, with the sole intention of proving that I had
intimidated no-one; that I had placed no-one at risk. I had no interest in
financial gain; only in having my name cleared. Four years later, I still wish to have my name
cleared.
In order for the Australian Government Solicitor to have
been able to give Screen Australia advice regarding the proposed ban on me (9th
May 2012), Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron must have provided him with documented
evidence that I had breached the ‘eligibility conditions’ that were
retrospectively applied to me. Whilst the Australian Government Solicitor’s
letter of 9th May 2012 is, according to Nick Coyle’s memo to Screen
Australia board members on 9th May 2012, confidential, the same does
not apply to Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron’s letter(s) to him. It is in these
documents that will be found (or should be found) evidence that my
correspondence placed SA staff members at risk and that Screen Australia had a
duty of care, to use Ruth Harley’s words, to “protect out staff from harassment
and intimidation.”
If Screen Australia does not wish to provide me with
copies of Ruth and Fiona’s correspondence with the Australian Government
Solicitor I am, here, making a formal request to be provided with a copy
through Freedom of Information legislation.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
cc Senator Mitch Fifield
Mr Colin Neave,
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Australian
Director’s Guild
Louise Vardanega
Chief Operating Officer
Australian Government Solicitor
Locked Bag 35
Kingston
ACT 2604
18th April 2016
Dear Ms Vardanega
Acting on
legal advice I am seeking copies of the following documents, utilizing Freedom
of Information legislation:
(1) Any
and all correspondence from members of Screen Australia staff to the Australian
Government Solicitor - up to and including 9th May 2012 - in
relation to the allegation that I intimidated, harassed and/or placed at risk
members of Screen Australia staff in my correspondence.
(2) A
copy of the confidential letter of advice to Screen Australia from the
Australian Government Solicitor dated 9th May 2012.
The
enclosed copies of documents relating to this matter will place my request in a
context.
I will be
in Cambodia for the next six weeks. In the event that these documents become
available to me in the next month or so, could you please send them to me
electronically.
yours
sincerely
James
Ricketson
