Thursday, May 24, 2012
letter to Ombudsman 25th May
Ms Alison Larkins
Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman
GPO Box 442, Canberra 25th May 2012
Dear Ms Larkins
If I were obliged to reduce my request for assistance from the office of the Ombudsman to one simple question it would be: Please ask Ruth Harley to quote one sentence, one paragraph, one email, one letter to a member of her staff that contains anything that could be construed, by even the most sensitive or Screen Australia employee, as posing a risk to them.
If Harley can produce just one sentence, one phrase, a few words that are evidence of my having harassed or intimidated her staff or placed them at risk, both my case and my credibility are greatly weakened. I have lied. I am a liar.
I imagine, from time to time, that the office of the Ombudsman reviews its modus operandi. I would like to suggest that a ‘fast lane’ be implemented (as in supermarkets) for people such as myself who really only require someone in the relevant position of authority (the office of the Ombudsman, for instance) to ask a simple question: “Ms Harley, could you please identify the dates on which Mr Ricketson communicated with Screen Australia by either email or in a letter in the manner you refer to in your letter of 10th May banning him from having any contact with Screen Australia?”
If Harley produces the correspondence no further investigation is required by your office, thus saving precious time that could be better spent on more weighty matters.
The same could have applied 17 months ago when Elisa Harris failed to ask of Fiona Cameron the one question that could have resolved this matter in half an hour: “Please, Ms Cameron, could you provide me with the dates and modes of transmission of the correspondence you refer to in your letter of 12th Nov 2010?”
Please, Ms Larkins, get someone to call Ruth Harley and ask her the one question mentioned above. If Harley cannot produce the correspondence, my complaint is clearly worthy of having more questions asked in relation to it.