letter to Prime Minister Gillard, 10th April 2012

                                                                                   

Dear Prime Minister

Further to my letter of 16^th March.

In Nov. 2009, in relation to education reform, you said, "Today I want to talk about our drive to create a new era of transparency.” When asked if you hoped the new My School website would pressure some institutions into lifting their standards, you replied:

 “Transparency does place pressure on people. Pressure to improve, that's a good kind of pressure.”

Why does this same spirit of transparency not apply to the administration of the Hon Simon Crean’s Ministry for the Arts? Why doesn’t Mr Crean insist upon transparency and accountability from the CEO of Screen Australia, Ruth Harley, from the Chair of the SA Board, Glen Boreham? And from the Chief Operating Officer, Fiona Cameron? If this lack of concern for the precepts of transparency and accountability rife in other federal government agencies you have a huge problem on your hands and one that can only be solved if there is someone within the bureaucratic hierarchy prepared to say, “No, I don’t want the spin answer. I want the answer based on facts. And I want it now!” That there is no-one within the Screen Australia hierarchy – up to and including Simon Crean – prepared to step outside the spin cycle is a recipe for disaster. Here’s how it could work. And fast:

Memo to Simon Crean: “Please find out if it is Mr Ricketson or Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron who are talking nonsense? Is it true that complaints about Fiona Cameron are given to Fiona Cameron to address?”

Memo from Crean to Caroline Fulton: “Find out who is lying here and if Fiona Cameron investigates complaints made about herself. Answer on desk by end of week.”

Memo from Caroline Fulton to Ruth Harley: “Please tell me (a) Does the correspondence that Fiona Cameron refers to in her letter of 12^th Nov 2010 to Mr Ricketson exist? If so, could you please forward me copies? If the correspondence does not exist could you please explain why you have taken no action to address Mr Ricketson’s concerns in the 16 months that he has been appealing to you to do so? (b) Is it true that Ross Mathews and Clair Jager, in assessing Mr Ricketson’s CHANTI’S WORLD documentary application, did not view the most significant part of his proposal – the audio visual ‘promo’? (c) Is it true, when Mr Ricketson has lodged with yourself and Chair, Glen Boreham, complaints about Fiona Cameron, that you have handed these to Fiona Cameron to deal with? (d) Is it true that Ms Coleman has informed Mr Ricketson that he may never again present his project, CHANTI’S WORLD, to Screen Australia for funding consideration? If so, could you please explain why. I would appreciate answers within the next 48 hours?

A mini-investigation such as this could have been completed in a couple of days at any point in the last 12 months – thus saving a lot of people (including myself) a lot of time and trouble and making it unnecessary for me to resort to the internet as a means of forcing Screen Australia to either sue me or apologize for its cockup and set the record straight. It could be completed by the end of this week if Screen Australia spin doctors and lawyers (along with those in your own and Mr Crean’s offices) are not involved.

If Treasurer Wayne Swan is serious about meeting his budget surplus goals and looking for savings  in next months budget, my suggestion would be to fire the spin doctors who have be come a plague on the body politic and whose lies make it possible for bodies such as Screen Australia to ignore the precepts of accountability and transparency that they all crow about on their websites in various mission statements. I suspect that both your own and the governments poll ratings would leap by a few points if the front page news was GILLARD AND SWAN TO CULL 5000 SPIN DOCTORS.

best wishes

James Ricketson

letter to Ruth Harley

5^th April 2012

Dear Ruth

When I saw an email from you in my INBOX I thought: At last this will be Ruth saying something along the lines of “James, upon reviewing the matter I have come to the conclusion that the correspondence that Fiona Cameron refers to in her letter of 12^th Nov 2010 does not exist, as you have been insisting this past 16 months. On speaking with Claire Jager, Ross Mathews and Elizabeth Crosby it is now clear to me that Ross and Claire did not view the promo that was the centrepiece of your original CHANTI’S WORLD application, as you have been insisting this last 16 months. And it is also clear to me, upon speaking with Ross and Liz, that Ross did say that your second CHANTI’S WORLD application was ‘appropriate’ – despite Julia Overton’s later assessment that it was not appropriate. For these errors on Screen Australia’s part please accept my heartfelt apology…” To which I would have replied, “Apology accepted.”

Instead of a response based on facts, based on truth, based on fairness, you have chosen, Ruth, to add yet another layer of spin to this ongoing dispute. You write, “…we have repeatedly, over many months, endeavoured to answer those concerns.” This is a lie. You have not endeavoured to answer any of my concerns. You have studiously avoided answering either my concerns or my questions and, when I have complained to you about Fiona’s playing fast and loose with the truth, you have passed my complaint on to Fiona to deal with it! And Fiona’s way of dealing with any complaint, of course (including those about herself) is “I refuse to correspond any further with you on this matter.”  This is the standard of transparency and accountability you find acceptable amongst your staff! The mind boggles. It is because you have ignored my concerns, failed to answer my questions, that I have kept writing and found myself with no choice but to write to the Prime Minister. If you believe that you have answered my concerns, please direct me to the correspondence in which this has occurred.  If you cannot do so, please do not place any more such nonsense on file.

You refer to “damaging allegations which I believe to be totally untrue.” Which allegations are you referring to? The allegation that I did not write the correspondence that Fiona refers to? The allegation that Ross and Claire did not view my promo? The allegation that Ross Mathews told me, in front of Liz Crosby and Julia Overton that my 2^nd application with CHANTI’S WORLD was ‘appropriate’? If these ‘allegations’ are untrue, why has Fiona not produced the correspondence? Why have Ross, Claire and Liz not refuted my version of events? I have asked so many times and, as you know full well, if the three of them were to present an alternative version of what occurred it would be my word against theirs. Your use of the phrase “which I believe to be untrue” is disingenuous to say the least. By now, Ruth, you should know that my ‘allegations’ are either true or untrue – not that you ‘believe’ them to be untrue. Fiona can either produce the correspondence she refers to or she can’t. “which I believe to be untrue” are the kind of weasel words that let you off the hook further down the track if it is proven (as it shall be) that my ‘allegations’ are true.

Not only is your letter primarily spin it is also a thinly veiled threat. If I continue to demand that Screen Australia adhere to the precepts of transparency and accountability, abide by its own guidelines and deal with my complaints appropriately, I can expect to hear from your legal department. This strikes me as an ambit claim – the hope being on your part that the threat of legal action will prevent me, 16 months down the track, from wanting the record set straight. Such threats, such bullying, won’t have the desired effect. And the threat of legal action is foolish anyway as a court case would necessitate that Screen Australia produce the correspondence that Fiona Cameron refers to; that Claire, Ross and Liz answer the very questions I have been asking for 16 months. If Screen Australia really wishes to go down this route, so be it. A dreadful waste of Screen Australia’s resources I would have thought when answers to questions (my ‘serious allegations’) and an apology would suffice. And would have sufficed 16 months ago if my complaint had been dealt with appropriately.

Produce the correspondence that Fiona refers to (as I have been requesting for 16 months) and I will have a lot of egg on my face and will not have much of a leg to stand on in court. By not producing the correspondence (which you know not to exist) you and Glen Boreham (who also knows that it does not exist) have given your tacit approval to Fiona to place whatever she wishes on file – with no reference to the facts or truth. As I have stated (ad nauseum) in this instance it is just one filmmaker who is affected and of no great consequence in the grand scheme of things. However, if Screen Australia’s Chief Operating officer plays fast and loose with the truth and her behaviour is countenanced by the CEO and Chair of the Board, this is a matter of major concern for the whole industry. It should be a matter of major concern to the Minister, Simon Crean, but it is not. Perhaps my complaint has not made it to Mr Crean’s desk. It certainly should not have but someone within the Minister’s office, other than a spin doctor, should long ago have taken note of the implications of my complaint (most particularly Fiona investigating herself) and take some action.

I have published this on the internet because you have left me no choice if I am to achieve any semblance of justice here. If you are absolutely determined not to deal with my original complaint in an appropriate manner, if you are determined to add to the nonsense that is already on file, I will continue to publish updates of this dispute on the internet and allow my fellow filmmakers to make up their own minds as to whether or not my publishing is appropriate or inappropriate. Answer my questions, address my complaints and apologize and I will remove my correspondence from the internet immediately. Alternatively, produce the correspondence Fiona refers to and assure me, in writing, that Ross and Claire DID view my promo and that Ross did NOT say that my second application was ‘appropriate’.

best wishes

James Ricketson

leter from Ruth Harley

3^rd April 2012

Dear Mr Ricketson

It has come to my attention that quite apart from the substantial volume of correspondence you have sent to this organization containing serious accusations against members of our staff, you have seen fit to publish similarly damaging material to various other people, including the Prime Minister and the world at large through the internet.

We are an organization with limited resources serving the Australian film community in good faith. I appreciate that you have had some concerns about our decision making process and we have repeatedly, over many months, endeavoured to answer those concerns. We will not engage in any further correspondence about those issues.

Your decision to publish your most recent correspondence on the internet  was, seemingly, calculated to create the maximum potential for personal distress and reputational damage. You may wish to seek legal advice as to the consequences of such conduct, and in particular, the consequences of making public and damaging allegations which I believe to be totally untrue. In the interests of all concerned, I ask that you cease that conduct forthwith.

Yours faithfully

Ruth Harley

Chief Executive Officer

letter to Glen Boreham, Chair of Screen Australia Board

Dear Glen

Further to the many letters I have written to you this past 16 months regarding Fiona Cameron’s tendency to play fast and loose with the truth and with Ruth Harley’s tendency to turn a blind eye to Fiona’s lies. Of course, you and the Board have likewise chosen to turned a blind eye to the lack of transparency and accountability exhibited by senior management at Screen Australia. In all my 40 years of filmmaking I have never encountered such a toxic combination of corporate dishonesty and incompetence as has been manifest during Ruth Harley’s reign as CEO. It seems that these qualities are prerequisites for positions in senior management at Screen Australia!

You will no doubt ignore this letter as you have the vast majority I have sent you. That Fiona Cameron is a liar, that she investigates complaints made about herself, herself, are of little interest to the Screen Australia Board! Mind you, these aspects of the way in which Screen Australia is run are not of concern to the Minister, the Hon Simon Crean either and it may be that the office of the Prime Minister feels the same. We shall see.

My most recent letters to the office of the Ombudsman, to the Prime Minister and to Caroline Fulton (copies enclosed) speak for themselves. They contain nothing that you have not been aware of for the past 16 months and have chosen to ignore – in the hope, I guess, that I would eventually simply accept that I have been screwed by Screen Australia and forget about it. Alas, this is not my style.

On Friday 16^th March I sent the following email to Nick Coyle, Screen Australia’s FOI officer. It also speaks for itself:

Dear Nick

It is important always to maintain one’s sense of humour when dealing with Screen Australia! Perhaps the same applies for employees!

I know that it is an incredibly complicated question and many meetings may be necessary to  find an answer, but how long does it take to find out which members of senior management at Screen Australia are public servants and hence subject to the Public Service Code of Conduct? It’s been over two weeks so far! How many more weeks is it likely to be? Mind you it would never have been necessary to call upon your services anyway if Screen Australia did not believe that it was necessary to keep this information secret!

I have another FOI request – most definitely the oddest I have ever made and, I suspect, the oddest one you will ever have to deal with. It is for a document (or documents) that do not exist. Let me explain:

In Nov 2010 Fiona Cameron wrote a letter to me that included the following assertion:

“Unfortunately it appears from your correspondence that you came away from that meeting with an understanding that your application for further funding for Chanti’s World had been effectively green lit. This is not the case. Nor could it be.”

For 16 months I have asked Fiona to produce the correspondence she refers to. She has not done so. This is not surprising because it does not exist. Not only does Fiona know it does not exist but so too do Ruth Harley and Glen Boreham. And the Commonwealth Ombudsman would have discovered that it did not exist also if he had bothered to ask Fiona Cameron to produce it. He did not. He simply accepted Fiona’s word (implicit in her letter) that it existed! As I say, a sense of humour is necessary in this age of transparency and accountability we live in!

There is, I suppose, the possibility that at some moment in 2010, having taken temporary leave of my senses, I did write the correspondence  that Fiona is referring to and, amnesia being a component of my addled state at the time,  have completely forgotten that I did so. So, in order to find out if such correspondence exists, what better way than to call upon the services of Screen Australia’s FOI officer with my strange request – for a document that I claim does not exist! If it does exist I will have egg all over my face and may well need to plead insanity. If it does not exist, Fiona has some explaining to do and an apology to make.

I do appreciate, Nick, that having Fiona as your boss must complicate a request  such as this somewhat but I trust that the fair administration of FOI is not affected by such details.

I am copying this to all of those in the Documentary section of Screen Australia who likewise know that the correspondence Fiona refers to does not exist but who have managed to maintain a conspiracy of silence this past 16 months. And I have attached my letter of two weeks ago to Prime Minister Gillard in hopes that she may put some pressure on Simon Crean to take an interest in the lack of respect for the ideals of accountability and transparency evinced by senior SA personnel. Not sure who to write to if the Prime Minister’s office ignores the letter. The United Nations!

cheers

Poor Nick! I do not envy him the dilemma he is confronted by. If he can’t find the correspondence that Fiona refers to (and he won’t be able to) this should be proof positive that Fiona was lying when she wrote her letter to me in Nov 2010. But then you’ve known that, Glen,  for a long time – you, the Board, Ruth Harley, everyone in the Documentary section of Screen Australia. For you to acknowledge now that Fiona has lied would amount to a confession that the entire organization, up to and including the Board, has had, this past 16 months, no interest in facts, in the truth, but will accept as Gospel whatever spin Fiona Cameron comes up with – with the blessing of Ruth Harley. As I have acknowledged many times, my dispute with Screen Australia is (to all but myself) a storm in a teacup. What this particular storm says about the management of Screen Australia is, however (or at least should be) a matter of concern to the Board and to the Minister.

best wishes

James Ricketson

cc Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard

Commonwealth Ombudsman

2nd letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Dear Prime Minister

Further to my letter of 27^th Feb.

I do hope that someone in your office read my last letter, will read this one and ask the obvious questions: Why is Mr Ricketson not writing to the relevant Minister, the Hon Simon Crean? Is what he says about Chief Operating Officer Fiona Cameron playing fast and loose with the truth, true? Does Fiona Cameron investigate complaints made about herself? Is this a job for our top spin doctor or is there a problem with Screen Australia that needs to be and should be addressed?

The interrelated problems that need to be addressed are:

Problem # 1: Simon Crean (or whoever the relevant person in his office might be) is not at all concerned by the ramifications of having, in senior management at Screen Australia, people who have little respect for the ideals of transparency and accountability.

Problem #2: Screen Australia’s Chief Operating Officer, Fiona Cameron, has little respect for facts,  for due process, and plays fast and loose with the truth.

Problem #3: Fiona Cameron investigates complaints made about herself. (Surely the days are long gone when a senior bureaucrat investigates complaints made about her own conduct!?)

Problem # 4: Fiona Cameron’s boss, Ruth Harley finds nothing inappropriate at all about Ms Cameron’s behaviour.

Problem # 5: Glen Boreham and the Screen Australia Board seem sublimely unconcerned that Fiona Cameron tells lies, that Ruth Harley turns a bind eye and that there is no functioning complaints process within Screen Australia.

Any independent observer in your office – looking at the facts, unswayed by spin – would arrive at one of two conclusions:

(1) Mr Ricketson is wrong, there is no evidence at all to support his assertions or

(2) Mr Ricketson’s assertions are backed up by demonstrable fact and need to be addressed.

Rather than acknowledge the shoddiness of an assessment of my project CHANTI’S WORLD by Clare Jaeger, the Documentary Section of Screen Australia closed ranks behind Ms Jager. That neither Ms Jager nor Ross Mathews had actually seen the promo that was the centrepiece of my application was of no consequence. With Ross Mathews refusing to answer any questions at all in relation to my complaint, I was left with no choice but to appeal to Chief Operating Officer Fiona Cameron to consider my complaint on the basis of facts. Ms Cameron decided not to let the facts get in the way of her decision to support Claire Jager, Ross Mathews and others in the Documentary section.  She overplayed her hand somewhat by placing on file statements she knew to be untrue – thus shifting the focus of my complaint from Claire Jager’s incompetence to my own integrity as a filmmaker. Instead of being a filmmaker with a valid complaint, Ms Cameron characterized me as a filmmaker miffed that I had not been given money that I had thought I would be given. I had, she claimed, said as much in correspondence to Screen Australia.  When asked to produce this correspondence Ms Cameron, like a petulant schoolgirl, announced that she would communication with me no further. That such dishonesty and petulance can be practiced by someone in Ms Cameron’s position beggars belief! And this is the person who looks into complaints made about Screen Australia’s inability to abide by its own guidelines!

If, perchance. Ms Cameron was unaware that the statements she placed on file were untrue, why has she, this past 16 months, done nothing to rectify her mistake? Why has she not apologized and corrected the file – as I have asked many times this last 16 months? Instead, she has informed me, in accordance with her own interpretation of the Screen Australia guidelines, that I may never again present CHANTI’S WORLD to Screen Australia for funding consideration.

And what is CHANTI’S WORLD? It is a documentary I have been working on for 16 years now – a record of the life of a young woman growing up on the streets of Phnom Penh from 8 year old beggar to 24 year old mother of five. CHANTI’S WORLD is the follow-up film to SLEEPING WITH CAMBODIA, completed in 1996 – a documentary that rated highly on the ABC and has been sold all around the world.  Alas, once Claire Jager had written her ill informed and factually incorrect assessment two years ago,leading to Screen Australia’s decision to back her and Ross Mathews regardless, the writing was on the wall for CHANTI’S WORLD as far as Screen Australia is concerned. Fiona Cameron’s decision that it can never again be presented to Screen Australia is both vindictive (in the pettiest way) and discriminatory. A person who behaves as she does should not be in the senior position she holds at Screen Australia – a position that requires total honesty and, when dealing with complaints, a commitment to the facts as opposed to a commitment to back up Screen Australia staff under any and all circumstances.

I trust that someone in your office will look at the facts here and make a determination based on them and not on whatever spin Fiona Cameron, Ruth Harley and Glen Boreham may present in their defence.

best wishes

Censorship and the Emperor's New Clothes

Encore’s reasons for deciding not to publish my piece about the ethics of presenting real people as characters in drama has induced me to do some thinking about the way in which censorship manifests itself within the Australian film industry. There are, broadly speaking, two forms of censorship – one that is imposed from outside and one that we impose on ourselves for reasons of self-preservation. The external form can all too easily lead to the self-imposed form – as I think has happened in our industry.

The Courtiers in The Emperor’s New Clothes epitomize the dangers of self-censorship taken to an absurd extreme. To suggest that the Emperor had no clothes on was not a wise career move for a Courtier hoping for advancement in the Emperor’s court! To what extent does the Emperor’s New Clothes dynamic operate within the Australian film industry? Are we, as an industry, as a film culture, as brutally honest with ourselves as we should be? Do we fear that revelation of how few clothes we have on might make the tax-paying public wonder why on earth it is supporting an industry that, with a few exceptions (broad Aussie comedies of late), makes films that most Australian’s don’t want to see? But I digress…

An example of externally imposed censorship:  Last year, during an ‘industry forum’  at which Ruth Harley and Tania Chambers represented Screen Australia and Screen NSW respectively, Encore magazine was given permission to film Ruth and Tania’s presentations but was told that it could not film the Q & A with the audience that followed. The official reason given was that the presence of Encore’s camera might inhibit filmmakers from speaking unguardedly. The actual reason, as disclosed to me, was that Encore feared it would be sued if it broadcast, online, filmmaker’s comments that Screen Australia deemed defamatory. And what might Screen Australia deem defamatory? Hard to know and we’ll never find out because the threat was sufficient to guarantee that no ‘defamatory’ comments  or observations were recorded on tape and hence could be broadcast. 

There is not much that can be done to combat this kind of externally imposed censorship other than to stand up to it and refuse to be intimidated; to call the bluff of institutions within society that have the power to use the threat of legal action to suppress debate or to prevent disclosure of information suggestive of either incompetence or corruption. One would like to think that various industry guilds and organizations would band together to protect the freedom of important and essential speech but it is not the case.   

The threat of externally imposed censorship can easily lead to the other form of censorship that can be just as insidious – self-censorship. Yes, caution is required in writing about a case before the courts – like ‘Mac’ Buttrose’s suing of the producers of PAPER GIANTS - but how likely is it, in reality, that Encore magazine would be sued for hosting a debate about the ethics of representing real people as fictional characters in which passing (and non-defamatory) references is made to PAPER GIANTS?  This is, in my view, a form of self-censorship that is as bad as overt external censorship when it comes to stifling dialogue and debate about issues of concern to us all as story-tellers.

If you believe, dear Reader, what I write here is, in you view, nonsense, you should be free to express this opinion. Unfortunately, with the demise of Encore as a venue in which divergent opinions could be expressed, there is virtually nowhere where ‘robust’ debate occurs anymore about contentious matters of interest to Australian filmmakers.

Creating fictional characters based on real people!

Another of my ‘opinion’ pieces (though I prefer ‘discussion starter’ myself) has fallen foul of Encore censorship. Inspired by a story in today’s newspaper, I thought my few words might open up a discussion about the thorny question of how to represent, in our stories, fictional characters based on real people – especially those who are alive.

"Imagine, dear Encore Reader, through circumstances beyond your control, that your association with someone (spouse, parent, child or friend) you become an object of public curiosity - so much so that some filmmaker thinks that the story of which you are a part (no matter how small) is one worthy of being immortalized on either the silver or plasma screen. There is only one problem, however, and that is that the realities of narrative story-telling necessitate that some liberties be taken with the biographical details of your life. In order for the character based on yourself to serve his/her dramatic function you need to be presented in such and such a way - even if ‘such and such’ a way is our of sync with the realities of your life. You may be a perfectly delightful, generous easy going person but the role calls for a bitch. You may be a decisive, no-time-for-bullshit, take-no-prisoners kind of guy who calls a spade a spade but the screenplay calls for a sensitive soul who would never call a spade a spade for fear of offending. The bottom line is that the dramatised version of yourself is nothing like the way you see yourself or, indeed, the way your friends (and/or enemies) see you. Does it matter? Do you have a right to complain? Are filmmakers under any obligation at all to consult with you before they immortalize your persona in pixels? The case brought by Ita Buttrose’s husband about his portrayal in PAPER GIANTS highlights a dilemma confronted by all screenwriters and other filmmakers who seek to portray characters based on living people whilst at the same timeserving up to audiences compelling drama? What do my fellow filmmakers think?” 

Tim Burrows, editor of Encore, declined to publish on the grounds that the matter was sub judice.

etc.

So, there is now another question worthy of discussion: Can we have a debate within the industry about the ethics of presenting real people as fictional characters in drama or must we remain silent for as long as the PAPER GIANTS case is in the courts – which could be years? Alternatively, I suppose, we could have a debate and make no reference at all to PAPER GIANTS!