Dear Tim
“Filmmaker lies on blog” is not news. “Chief Executive of Screen Australia lies
about her reasons for banning filmmaker” is news. The stakes are too
high for the film industry for Encore to accept ‘no comment’ as an adequate or
appropriate answer from Ruth Harley when asked to provide evidence of a course
of action as drastic as the banning of a filmmaker.
It is, I
believe, part of the role of Encore and other film magazines (and journalists)
to not merely report the news but subject it to critical analysis. What is at
stake here in this banning above and beyond its effect on one filmmaker? What
are the possible ramifications for the industry at large from this
unprecedented action taken by Screen Australia? What is to prevent Ruth Harley
(or her successor) from applying the same principle (‘no comment’) whenever
s/he is asked to be transparent and accountable in relation to other
contentious decisions? Should we, as an industry, accept ‘no comment’ as
adequate under circumstances such as these?
Are there
any circumstances under which, if Screen Australia’s response to a question is
“no comment”, Encore would say, “That’s not good enough. In the interests
of transparency and accountability our readers have a right to know why you
have made such a momentous decision.”
The banning
of one filmmaker is not a momentous decision if he or she were guilty of the
crime for which s/he had been charged. But if s/he is innocent surely such an
abuse of power, such lying on the part of the Chief Executive of a tax-payer
funded film body, is a matter of concern for the whole industry.
Encore
could find out who is lying in this instance by requesting that Ruth Harley
release the correspondence she claims bears witness to the allegations that she
has made. Or she could release selected extracts from them. It is not enough
for a publication as influential at Encore to simply take Ruth Harley at her
word that the correspondence exists.
If the
released documents contain evidence of my harassing, intimidating or placing
Screen Australia staff at risk, you should publish them (or extracts) in
Encore. I will look like both a fool and a liar, and deservedly so. If Harley
refuses to release even extracts from the offending correspondence and deflects
Encore’s requests with ‘no comment’ some interrelated and overlapping questions
of consequence to the industry as a whole arise:
- Have
other filmmakers been effectively banned by Screen Australia on the basis of
evidence not made public?
- Given the
lack within Screen Australia of an appeals process what is to prevent the
organization from treating other filmmakers in the same way in the future –
accusing them of crimes but providing no evidence in support of the
accusations?
- Is the way
in which this banning was carried out (no warning, no evidence, no right of
appeal) a precedent we want to set within the industry?
- Is it
appropriate that complaints made about the Chief Operating Officer of Screen
Australia are adjudicated by the Chief Operating Officer of Screen Australia?
- Given the
inability of the Ombudsman to deal effectively with disputes such as this one,
why is there no independent appeals process external to Screen Australia
whereby a banned filmmaker can argue his or her case as to why s/he should not
be banned?
- Why does
the Ministry for the Arts not make available (insist upon) such an independent
appeals process?
- Might
there be some other reason than the one given why a filmmaker is banned?
These are
just some of the questions I believe to be of importance to the industry as a
whole.
As a
significant player in Australian film (both its industry and culture) Encore
should, I believe, ask the ADG, SPAA and the Writers Guild how they feel about
the precedent that has been set with the banning of one filmmaker? Are these
organizations happy with the possibility that Screen Australia has as its Chief
Executive, a woman who is not committed to the principles of transparency and
accountability and who plays fast and loose with the truth?
cheers
James
The editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald echoes what Ricketson writes here and elsewhere in his blog:
ReplyDeleteA culture of accountability and transparency – and the presumption that, unless public welfare overwhelmingly demands it, secrecy and concealment serve the incompetent, the misguided or the dishonest – needs public endorsement as much as it does statutory authority. Without the former, the latter is of questionable value.
It seems likely that Australians are thinking more about the consequences of secrecy and are more sceptical of excuses used to justify it. They’re less trusting because they reckon they’ve been burnt too often…Governments naturally see themselves as potential losers in loosening the muzzle. The way they see it, one can never be sure where an allegation might lead. The emphasis can led to what PR types like to call issues management – the massaging of reality to the point of public reassurance built on selective information. If people aren’t encouraged to pursue truth, how else will will abuse and dishonesty be exposed? The powerful always are tempted to pull down the blind.
Screen Australia has ‘pulled down the blind’. That is the real underlying problem of which Ricketson’s banning is merely a symptom.