Graeme
Mason
Chief
Executive Officer
Screen
Australia
Level 7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo 2007
6th Sept. 2016
Dear Graeme
Given your refusal to
provide me with evidence that I intimidated and placed at risk members
of Screen Australia staff, given the refusal of the office of the Ombudsman to
ask for such evidence and of the Australian Government Solicitor to provide it,
I am left with no choice now but to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court;
to subpoena from SA, the Ombudsman and the Australian Government solicitor
documents containing alleged evidence of the offenses that led to my being
banned.
My lawyer tells me that such proceedings will cost me
up to $50,000 to obtain copies of these documents. Or, should I say, for it to
become apparent that there is no evidence that I am guilty of having
intimidated or placed anyone at risk. A waste of money, yes, but my reputation
is worth that amount to me.
Given that Screen Australia will probably likewise
spend $50,000 in its attempt to keep such evidence secret (the total absence of
evidence secret!), around $100,000, along with the time and energy of many
people, will be expended on a legal exercise that I suspect the Supreme Court
judge will deem, quite rightly, to be absurd. It will surprise me not at all if
s/he shakes her head in bafflement and asks the relevant parties why I have had
to resort to the Supreme Court to acquire evidence of my guilt!
On 11th Nov 2013 I wrote in a letter to you
the following words:
“I had hoped it would not be necessary to involve you in
this dispute. It is unfair that both Ruth Harley and the Board have left me
with no option, now that you are Chief Executive, but to ask you to either
provide me with evidence of my crimes or lift the ban.”
You did not bother to respond to this letter. You were
going to stick my Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron regardless of the facts. You have
made it clear this past two and a half years, however, not only that you
support the original ban placed on me in
the absence of any evidence but have extended the ban by another 2 years on the
most spurious of grounds.
Since becoming Chief Executive Officer you have
ignored my every request to be provided with evidence of behaviour on my part
that warrants these ongoing 2 year bans; just as those before you (Ruth Harley
and Fiona Cameron) ignored my multiple requests to be provided with evidence that
I intimidated and placed at risk SA staff. Indeed, with a logic that is truly
Kafkaesque, you characterize these multiple requests of mine as harassment and
cite this ‘harassment’ as a reason why I need to be banned further!
Contrary to both the spirit and the word of Freedom of
Information legislation you have made it clear (in writing) that you will
accede to no further FOI requests from
me in relation to evidence that you
claim warrants my being banned. This is
bureaucratic byllying of the worst kind. (I imagine that the expression ‘bureaucratic
bullying’, as with my use of the word ‘Mc Carthyism’ will be cited in 2018 as a
further reason to ban me!) And you can get away with this because there is
no-one, no body, that will hold you or the Screen Australia board accountable.
You have made the ban on me your own now, Graeme. You
are responsible, along with the Screen Australia board, for the wastage of time, energy and money
that will now ensue as I pursue this in the Supreme Court.
It was, of course, Fiona Cameron’s and Ruth Harley’s
original intention that the ban inflict sufficient damage on my career to
induce me to stop asking for evidence and cease being a public critic of Screen
Australia. In establishing Screen Australia’s capacity to harm my career, and
its willingness to do so, I was supposed to keep my mouth shut and take down my
blog. It was also intended that I become an object lesson to other filmmakers
who might be foolish enough to criticise Screen Australia or demand that senior
members of its staff behave in a transparent and accountable manner.
I did not, however, play the role I supposed to play
according to the script Screen Australia so hastily wrote in May 2012. I did
not take the ban on me lying down and here we are, more than four years down
the track, firmly entrenched in our respective position. Mine is that common
sense, natural justice and old fashioned professional courtesy dictate that a
person accused of a serious offence (and ‘placing at risk’ is a serious
offence) be appraised of evidence that he is guilty as charged. Screen
Australia’s position is: How dare you have the temerity to challenge us! You
expect accountability and transparency from us! We are the money (in both the
literal and metaphorical sense of the word). We have told you to stop writing
to us but you persist. You are harassing Screen Australia staff and will be
banned every two years until you learn to play the role we want you to play.
In Screen Australia’s ongoing fatwa you have been ably
supported by the office of the Ombudsman – a succession of whose ‘investigating’
staff have refused to ask Screen Australia for evidence of the offences for
which I have been banned. The best that Kent Purvis has been able to come up
with, by way of justification for the latest ban is:
(1) You
have referred to the actions of SA ‘childish, stupid and counter-productive.
(2) You
have referred to the actions of SA as Mc Carthyism, directly tying the refusal
of communication to your criticism of that agency.
(3) You
have made reference to SA representatives as having lied, or being liars.
The Ombudsman, through Kent Purvis, supports the
proposition that if I would only stop asking for evidence of my alleged
offenses the ban on me will be lifted in May 2018. This is a little very naïve
but more importantly for me to cease asking for evidence would by to give my
own tacit approval to Screen Australia of the ban.
Screen Australia has also been ably supported in this
ban by the Australian Government solicitor. She refuses to release to me the
evidence in her possession, provided by Ruth Harley in May 2012, relating to my
having intimidated and placed at risk members of SA staff. I will, through the
Supreme Court, subpoena Ruth Harley’s submission.
Screen Australia’s fatwa has also been enabled by the
Australian Director’s Guild – an organization now so dependent on Screen Australia
funding, so terrified of offending senior management within SA, that it dare
not even mention in its newsletter the ongoing bans placed on one of the AGD’s
founding members.
The impact of your ban had been brought back to me in
a very concrete way this past few months in the following way:
Twelve years ago I started to film a documentary about
Anu Singh, whose killing of Joe Cinque 20 years ago resulted in Helen Garner
writing a book entitled “Joe Cinque’s Consolation.” This book has, as you know,
been produced as a film; soon to be released. Screen Australia is an investor
in this film.
For a couple of years I developed (as producer,
director and cameraman) a documentary about Anu Singh and the circumstances
surrounding her killing of Joe Cinque. The documentary, totally self-funded, is
one that I believe would, in the months to come, be of great interest to a
large Australian audience. I do not, unfortunately, have the financial
resources to complete the film.
Under normal circumstances I could (and would) make an
application to Screen Australia for such funds to edit the film. Screen
Australia may well have knocked back my application for a variety of reasons,
of course, but I would have been able to have it assessed on its merits as a film. Your ban makes it
impossible for me to make an application. Your ban makes it impossible for me
to even speak with a member of Screen Australia staff on the telephone about
this documentary.
You believe the best way to deal with critics, the best
way to deal with those who ask too many (or awkward) questions is to prevent them,
in any way Screen Australia is
able to (and there are many ways) from making films. Such petty vindictive
behaviour is not only acceptable to you but is practiced by yourself. To what
end? What gains accrue to Screen Australia from refusing to allow me to make an
application with “Offending Women” – the title of my Anu Singh documentary? Do
you and Fiona Cameron and the board members chalk this up as some kind of victory?
“We sure have taught that James Ricketson a lesson!”
Really, Graeme, what a disappointment you have turned
out to be as Chief Executive Officer of Screen Australia.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Senator Mitch
Fifield, Minister for the Arts
Ms Louise Vardanega,
Australian Government Solicitor (acting)
Commonwealth
Ombdusman
Australian Director’s
Guild.
No comments:
Post a Comment