Mr Colin
Neave AM
Commonwealth
Ombudsman
GPO Box
442
Canberra
ACT 2601
24th
August 2016
Dear Mr
Neave
On the website for
the Commonwealth Ombudsman the following words are to be found:
“Our aim is to resolve
complaints impartially, informally and as quickly as reasonably practicable…we
endeavor to resolve disputes through consultation and negotiation…”
Close to 6 years after I made my
original complaint to Elisa Harris (Dec 2010) and 50 months after I made a
formal complaint about being banned by Screen Australia, I am no closer to
being provided with evidence that I intimidated or placed at risk members of
Screen Australia staff.
Kent Purvis has been given the task of
determining whether or not the May 2016 ban on me (the 3rd such two
year ban) can be justified on the basis of actions on my behalf between May
2014 and 2016. It would seem that he must do so without any reference to the
circumstances surrounding the first (10th May 2012) ban on me!
My earlier correspondence with your
office, dating back to 2010, has by now, I imagine, been lost in the mists of
time. It is worth looking at again, however, since right at the outset I was prepared to accept the legitimacy
of ban if any evidence could be provided in support of the truth of the
allegations made against me.
Ms Alison Larkins
Acting
Commonwealth Ombudsman
GPO Box 442,
Canberra
25th
May 2012
Dear Ms Larkins
re
2010-118398
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.
best wishes
James Ricketson
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/letter-to-ombudsman-25th-may.html
My suggestion was ignored by your office
and now, 50 or so months later, it looks as though I may be left with no
alternative but to obtain what Screen Australia considers to be ‘evidence’
through action in the Supreme Court.
Three days before the original Screen
Australia ban I wrote the following to your office:
Ms Alison Larkins
Acting
Commonwealth Ombudsman
GPO Box 442,
Canberra
7th May
2012
Dear Ms Larkins
re
2010-118398
Following on from
my earlier correspondence. It is now more than three weeks since I made an
application to Screen Australia for development monies for my contentious
project CHANTI’S WORLD. My cover letter of 13th April
(enclosed) makes clear the dilemma confronting both myself and Screen Australia
vis a vis ‘conflict of interest’. There has been no acknowledgement of receipt
of my application and no response to my letter. This is par for the course with
Screen Australia. I have experienced variations of this many times since the
organization’s inception. Fiona Cameron’s placing on file demonstrably false
assertions about me was merely the tip of the iceberg of the problems any
filmmaker experiences if/she has the temerity to make a complaint about Screen
Australia.
On 2nd
May I sent a follow up letter (also enclosed) asking what, precisely, had
happened with my application. Again, silence. I have experienced 17 months of
this sort of treatment in relation to CHANTI’S WORLD and it is, to put it
mildly, more than a little annoying. To
date, for reasons you will be familiar with, the office of the Ombudsman has
played no role whatsoever in trying to bring this dispute to a logical and fair
conclusion – despite clear evidence that Screen Australia is in breach of its
own guidelines, the APS Code of Conduct and that lying to cover mistakes is
countenanced at the very highest levels of the organization.
The assessment of
any project of mine submitted to the Documentary Section of Screen Australia
can only be made when my dispute with
Screen Australia is settled one way or another. In essence what it boils down to is this: either James
Ricketson has been spinning a yarn, playing fast and loose with the truth, or
Screen Australia cocked up badly and, rather than admit to its errors and
rectify its mistakes, has bent over backwards to first of all ignore and then
cover them up by placing lies on file. If it is me who has been playing fast
and loose with the truth I owe various people apologies and Screen Australia
would be quite within its rights to sue me for defamation. If Screen Australia
is at fault the organization owes me an apology that makes it possible
for me to make applications to the organization without there being a conflict
of interest.
If no resolution
is achieved by the end of this week I will have no choice but to withdraw my
application and wait until there is a resolution one way or another. Given that Screen Australia has shown no
interest at all in resolving the matter (other than by threatening to sue me)
and given that the office of Minister for the Arts likewise shows no interest
at all in its resolution, I am left
with the Office of the Ombudsman as my last port of call. Alas, your office
likewise seems to have no interest in the matter – leaving me with little
choice but to try and force a resolution by publishing my correspondence online
and hoping that Screen Australia will commence legal proceedings against me so
that the facts can come to light and a fair resolution be reached. That anyone
should have to go to such lengths to achieve a fair resolution to a complaint
is absurd!
best wishes
James Ricketson
That it should be
necessary for me to utilize the Supreme Court in this way, simply to obtain
evidence of guilt, is absurd. It will be a time and energy consuming exercise
for all involved.
Please bring this
ongoing farce to an end, Mr Neave, by insisting that Screen Australia provide
evidence of the growing list of crimes and misdemeanors it alleges I have
committed this past five years and which, it believes, warrant my being banned.
best wishes
James Ricketson
cc Senator Mitch
Fifield, Minister for the Arts
Graeme Mason, CEO
Screen Australia
Fiona Cameron, COO
Screen Australia
Ms Louise
Vardanega, Australian Government Solicitor (acting)
Australian
Director’s Guild
No comments:
Post a Comment