Friday, September 28, 2012
A response from the Ombudsman, 28th Sept.
Below is only a part of the office of the Ombudsman's most recent response (28th Sept) to my complaint but it is relevant to my immediate circumstances:
You have asked me to clarify what I mean by stating that I have some concerns about Screen Australia's decision not to respond to any future applications from you, should you lodge a new application with it. It is my view that Screen Australia should reasonably consider any new valid application for funding it receives. This would include a new application from you...
You have stated that in light of the advice provided by Screen Australia you do not consider that there is any point lodging a new application with it. Although I have concerns about Screen Australia's advice rergarding how it will treat future applications from you (which I will be following up with Screen Australia) I am of the view that further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything meaningful for you in the absence of you lodging a new valid application. This is because the existence of a new valid application will provide an opportunity for our office to assess the reasonableness of Screen Australia's actual response. Without an application being on foot, I do not believe that there is any practical remedy further investigation will achieve for you.
One problem with Stephen Nowicki's suggested modus operandi is that even in the preparation of an application I need to talk with members of staff at Screen Australia – which I am not allowed to do because I have allegedly intimidated them and placed them at risk!
On this subject Stephen Nowicki writes:
You have asked for our office to make a determination about whether or not your correspondence has 'intimidated, harassed or placed at risk members of Screen Australia staff'. It is not the purpose of my investigation to make a determination or ruling in the manner that you appear to be seeking. Our office investigates the administrative actions of Australian government agencies, but it is not our role to make a ruling on the occupational, health and safety of the staff of an agency.