Monday, November 19, 2012

Banned until May 2014!

The following letter from Ruth Harley was written and posted after my first letter to Claudia Karvan and Richard Keddie but before my second letter to these two new Screen Australia Board members. 

In Ruth's letter she accuses me again of placing her staff at risk but makes no mention of who I have placed at risk, when I placed them at risk or how I placed them at risk. The phrase 'at risk in dealing with you' baffles me still! At risk of what? Is it just my correspondence that places SA staff at risk or is it my presence in the Screen Australia foyer? 

The words 'intimidation' and 'harassment' have disappeared from the list of crimes for which I have been banned. Is this significant? God only knows! This gets stranger and stranger with each passing  month!

I will respond to Ruth's letter when time permits. 

Friday, 16 November 2012

Dear James

Your dealings with Screen Australia

I refer to:
  1.   my letter to you dated 10 May 2012; 
  2.   correspondence which I understand you have received from the Commonwealth 
    Ombudsman’s Office in relation to Screen Australia’s decision as notified in my 
    letter of 10 May 2012; 
  3.   an application for feature development funding lodged by you with Screen Australia 
    on 3 October 2012 in respect of the project Honour; and 
  4.   an application for feature development lodged by you with Screen Australia on 23 
    October 2012 in respect of the project Ships in the Night. 
    On 5 October 2012, I wrote to you in response to your application for funding for Honour. As foreshadowed in that letter, the documents referred to above were raised at the meeting of the Board of Screen Australia held on 9 November 2012.
I am writing to you at the Screen Australia Board’s request following its 9 November Board meeting.
Clearly, there have been various developments in relation to your dealings with Screen Australia since my letter of 10 May 2012. Unfortunately, the events which have occurred have only served to reinforce Screen Australia’s concerns for its staff. Nothing which you have written, said or done since 10 May provides Screen Australia with any basis on which to conclude that its staff are no longer at risk in dealing with you. Accordingly, our position remains as put to you in my letter of 10 May 2012, subject only to the following comments.

Producer Offset

In my letter of 10 May 2012, I confirmed that Screen Australia will continue to accept applications made by you under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, and to deal with any such applications in accordance with law. I did not specifically refer in my letter to applications for the Producer Offset, which is administered by Screen Australia as the film authority under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. As you may be aware, applications for the Producer Offset can only be made by companies, and not by individuals. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I wish to clarify and confirm that, subject to the usual requirements of the producer offset legislation and associated rules, Screen Australia will accept producer offset applications lodged by companies owned, managed or otherwise associated with you and will determine any such application in accordance with law.

Future Review of the decision

Screen Australia did not make its decision of May 2012 in relation to you lightly. The decision represents a serious step, taken for serious reasons. We acknowledge that it would be appropriate to review the decision after a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances. Accordingly, we will review our decision in May 2014 to assess whether circumstances have changed such that we can recommence dealing with you in a normal manner. It is to be hoped that at that time, we will be able to conclude that there is no basis for continuing concern for our staff. However, we need also to raise with you an issue which will need to be resolved should we decide that we can once again accept applications for funding from you.

As you are aware, Screen Australia attaches eligibility conditions to its funding, some of which are project-based and some of which relate to the attributes of applicants. An example of the latter type of eligibility condition is the requirement that applicants (and their “Related Parties” as defined in our Terms of Trade) not be in breach of any obligation owed either to Screen Australia or to one of its predecessor agencies.

Screen Australia has recently advised parties with outstanding obligations to Screen Australia and its predecessor agencies that in order to be eligible for further funding the relevant outstanding obligation must be resolved.

According to our records, you and/or entitles which are your Related Parties (within the meaning of our Terms of Trade) are indebted to Screen Australia (standing in the shoes of the previous agencies) in a total amount of $32,626.19. Accordingly, I have enclosed written particulars of this indebtedness, and an invoice.

Yours sincerely

Ruth Harley
Chief Executive Officer 

1 comment:

  1. James, for a long time there I thought you were a whinging wanker. Now I can see that you have a case and that it should be dealt with on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of vague and ultimately meaningless terms such as 'at risk'. Congratulations. Keep up the good work. The sooner we see the back of Dr Harley the better.