Senator Mitch
Fifield
Minister for
Communications and the Arts
Level 2
4 National
Circuit
Barton, ACT
2600
22nd
August 2016
Dear Senator
Fifield
Following on
from my previous letters, not one of which you have bothered to acknowledge
receipt of.
In a
letter to my lawyer dated 9th August, Screen Australia’s Head of
Legal, Jane Supit, justifies the organization’s latest two year ban on me on
the following grounds:
5.1. Mr Ricketson has engaged in a persistent
pattern of unreasonable and highly offensive conduct towards members of Screen
Australia’s Board Members and staff.
5.2. On this basis Screen Australia has properly
determined that Mr Ricketson is ineligible for funding…
Given
that it would be quite unreasonable to ban a filmmaker for being unreasonable,
it is my alleged my “highly offensive conduct” that needs to be addressed.
Is there
any evidence at all, between May 2014 and May 2016, that my conduct towards SA
staff and members of the board was “highly offensive”?
Ms
Supit’s choice of words is designed to obfuscate; to create the illusion that
there has been some interpersonal contact between myself and members of staff
and the board this past two years. This is not so.
Between
May 2014 and May 2016 I have not met with any member of Screen Australia’s
staff. I have not met with any member of the Screen Australia board. I have not
spoken with any member of staff or the board on the phone. Consequently, Ms
Supit’s reference to ‘conduct’ can only apply to letters I have written.
It
follows that evidence of my “highly offensive conduct” must be found in letters
of mine written between May 2014 and May 2016.
Screen Australia refuses to supply any such evidence to me.
As Jane
Supit knows, there has been no-one, this past four years, (including the
Minister for the Arts) in a position to insist that evidence be provided in
support of the ban on me. Ms Supit knows
that she can place whatever she wishes on file and that no-one will ask her to
back up what she writes with evidence. In doing so she joins Fiona Cameron,
Ruth Harley and Graeme Mason from senior management within Screen Australia in
the creation of the fiction that I intimidate staff, that I place them at risk,
that I behave in a highly offensive manner. Whilst perhaps not, strictly
speaking, defamatory, such lies effectively destroy my reputation in the eyes
of anyone who reads the files. And this will be the case in perpetuity; until
these false allegations are revealed for what they are – false allegations.
Yet again
I have requested of the Commonwealth Ombudsman evidence that, between May 2014
and may 2016, I wrote letters to Screen Australia staff and the board that
contained anything that could be deemed to be “highly offensive.” I have been
asking of the Ombudsman for four years that he insist on evidence in support of
allegations and not rely merely on allegations. To date my requests have fallen
on deaf ears. I have also been asking you, Minister, to request of Screen
Australia evidence of my alleged crimes. You have ignored all of my
correspondence. Or is it more accurate to say that Caroline Fulton has ignored
it? That Caroline Fulton has not seen it as being of sufficient importance to
bring to your attention?
Until
such time as I am provided with evidence of my guilt of any of the allegations
that have been levelled at me by Screen Australia this past four years I will
continue to advocate my innocence and will, if need be, pursue this matter in
the Supreme Court.
In many
of my letters this past two years I have suggested and requested meetings with
members of Screen Australia staff and the board to resolve this dispute. These requests
have been ignored. Perhaps Ms Supit includes all these letters, all these
requests for dialogue, for mediation, for evidence of my “highly offensive
conduct’, as evidence my being ‘unreasonable.’
Mr
Fifield, I would like to travel to Canberra to meet with you at your earliest
possible convenience. I request that you place on the table, in such a meeting,
at least three extracts from my correspondence that you believe warrant my
being banned for six years for the reasons provided by Screen Australia.
If you
accede to this request I strongly suggest that you read the following, in full.
It is my blow by blow refutation of the charges laid against me from 19th
Sept. 2012:
A quote:
“…some
clarity on what has occurred this past three years is required – especially
since it was you who effectively banned me as a ‘proven producer’ back in June
2009 and have so played a significant role as a catalyst in the initiation of
the dispute between myself and Screen Australia – a subject to which I will
return below. In the meantime, however, let’s be clear where we stand with Liz
being ‘distressed’ by my email yesterday. Is ‘being distressed’ the same as
‘feeling intimidated’? If so, am I also able to claim, having been enormously
distressed by the way that Screen Australia has dealt with ‘Chanti’s World’,
that I have been intimidated by yourself, by Ross, by Claire, by Fiona, by Ruth
Harley? Of course not.
Unless
you are using a dictionary whose definition of ‘intimidate’ is radically
different from the two I consulted (Oxford and Funk and Wagnalls), lets work
with these two:
“To make timid, scare. To discourage from
acting by threats of violence.”
“Overawe with fear, especially in
order to influence conduct.”
Have I
sought to scare Liz or to discourage her from acting in any way with a threat
of violence? Have I sought to overawe her with fear in order to influence her
conduct?
Your use of the word ‘aggressive’ is also worthy of comment. My
aggression has manifested itself in asking questions that Liz , Ross, Julia,
Claire, Fiona, Ruth and yourself simply refuse to answer – transparency and
accountability not being priorities in SA as it is currently being
administered. That you should define the asking of questions, the repeated
asking of questions that I have a right to ask, as ‘aggressive’ explains why
and how it is that you can send me pretty well every letter and email I have
written to Screen Australia and refer to it as ‘intimidating’. I am still
somewhat at a loss, however, to understand how my correspondence has placed Liz
or anyone else at Screen Australia ‘at risk’ – unless, that is, it is at risk
of being distressed by being asked questions. Can you please explain to me
what, in Screen Australia-speak, ‘at risk’ means? This is not a rhetorical
question but I feel sure that it falls into the category of questions that
no-one at Screen Australia is prepared to answer - standard SA operating
procedure.”
‘At risk’ is the
sort of language used in applications for Apprehended Violence Orders. ‘At
risk’ was employed by Screen Australia in a crude attempt to present me in as
unfavourable a light as possible. Screen Australia succeeded in its intentions.
If you can provide any evidence at all that I posed a risk to any member of
Screen Australia staff, please place it on the table in the meeting I am
proposing.
yours
sincerely
James
Ricketson
Graeme Mason
Fiona Cameron
Louise Vardanega
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Australian Director’s Guild
No comments:
Post a Comment