Mr Colin
Neave AM
Commonwealth
Ombudsman
GPO Box
442
Canberra
ACT 2601
1st
September 2016
Dear Mr
Neave
Kent
Purvis has explained to me that any letter I write to you will be forwarded to
him to deal with. Fair enough. However, as captain of the ship you are
responsible ultimately for the way in which investigations are conducted by
your office and should be held accountable for the failure of your staff to
conduct investigations properly.
I need
not add too much to what I have written already. I will make a formal request
for a review but I know, in advance, that this will be a waste of time as you
simply refuse to ask Screen Australia to provide evidence in support of the the
ongoing bans placed on me.
The 3rd
and latest ban is the most absurd of all. To quote Kent Purvis’s understanding
of the primary reasons for this ban:
(1) You
have referred to the actions of SA ‘childish, stupid and counter-productive.
(2) You
have referred to the actions of SA as Mc Carthyism, directly tying the refusal
of communication to your criticism of that agency.
(3) You
have made reference to SA representatives as having lied, or being liars.
That Mr
Purvis accepts these as sufficient reason to ban me from making any form of
application to Screen Australia or from speaking with members of staff is
mind-boggling.
Do you,
as Commonwealth Ombudsman, believe that referring to the actions of public
servants as ‘childish, stupid and counterproductive’ is a crime worthy of a two
year ban?
Do you
believe that drawing parallels between Screen Australia’s ban on me and ‘Mc
Carthyism’ of the 1950s that saw certain filmmakers banned is a crime worthy of
a two year ban?
What
about my assertion that ‘SA representatives as having lied, or being liars’?
I have
provided your office with ample evidence that this is a statement of fact; not
verbal abuse. To call a liar a liar is not offensive.
The most
damaging of all the lies told by various senior members of Screen Australia
over a period of years is the allegation that I intimidated and placed at risk
members of Screen Australia’s staff in my correspondence prior to May 2012.
The truth
or otherwise of this allegation, clearly, is to be found in the correspondence
itself. As I have declared from the outset, if there is any evidence that I
have intimidated or placed SA staff at risk I deserve to be banned. If there is
no evidence senior personnel at Screen Australia have lied. They are liars. A
statement of fact.
On
countless occasions now I have asked Screen Australia to provide me with
evidence, from my correspondence, that I am guilty as charged. On countless
occasions now I have asked a veritable gaggle of different people in the office
of the Ombudsman to request of Screen Australia that it provide evidence. They
have all refused to do so, claiming that the question of the intimidating
correspondence has already been investigated.
Let’s just
presume that this is the case, though both you and I know it is not!
During your
office’s 2012 ‘investigation’ your predecessor must have been provided with
some extracts from my correspondence that led the Ombudsman to conclude that,
yes, I had indeed intimidated and placed at risk members of staff. How else
could the Ombudsman have arrived at this conclusion, if not by considering the
evidence? This evidence must be in your now voluminous files relating to this
matter. It would be very simple for you to instruct Kent Purvis to present me
this evidence – just a few examples that leave no doubt as to my having
intimidated and placed at risk members of staff.
This is,
of course, a hypothetical scenario because you have no evidence on file of my
guilt and no-one from your office has ever asked for it.
Now, in
order to obtain this evidence, I may be left with no choice but to initiate
action in the Supreme Court – a time, energy and money-consuming exercise to
achieve the same result as a telephone call from you to Screen Australia with a
variation of the following words: “Please
provide Mr Ricketson with evidence.”
If
Screen Australia cannot provide evidence, I am, by definition, innocent.
Kent
Purvis argues that I have not been ‘banned’ at all. This is but semantics on
his part. As you will be aware, in any small industry, there will be serious
repercussions for anyone who falls out of favour with the organization that
calls all the shots within that industry. In this case it is Screen Australia.
SA’s ban on me has closed many doors for me. Indeed, it has closed most doors.
This was the intention of the ban. To render me persona non grata.
By way
of illustration please read the letter I have written today to the Chair of
Screen NSW, Helen Wright, (attached) and the accompanying letters I have
written to senior members of Screen NSW’s staff. Their refusal to communicate
with me is par for the course for me these days as a result of Screen
Australia’s ongoing fatwa – emanating from the original and demonstrably false intimidation
allegations made against me.
I am not
a whistle-blower (though I have been a harsh public critic of Screen Australia)
but I am being treated as one. And the Office of the Ombudsman is giving Screen
Australia its tacit approval to keep banning me (and making it impossible for
me to work) unless I cease and desist from asking for evidence in support of
the ban; until I willing give up not just my right to be provided with evidence
but my right of free speech also.
If this
is the way in which the office of the Ombudsman deals with legitimate
complaints, the way in which it investigates, we, the public, have little
reason to have confidence in your or your office in matters of great import.
Pick up
the phone, Mr Neave, or send a memo by email to Screen Australia: “Evidence
please.”
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
Graeme Mason
Senator Mitch Fifield
Ms Louise Vardanega
Australian Director's Guild
No comments:
Post a Comment