QUESTIONS FOR SCREEN AUSTRALIA RE 'PRODUCER OFFSET'

 Chair, Screen Australia Board, Michael Ebeid

Board Members

CEO, Dierdre Brennan

GPO Box 3984

Sydney, NSW 2001                                                                 5^th November 2026

 

Dear Screen Australia,

 

I am writing a series of short articles in the hope of stimulating discussion amongst Australian filmmakers and funding bodies about the objectives, assessment processes and accountability of government support for Australian films.

 

One such piece, posted on Facebook today, entitled PRODUCER OFFSET FOR DUMMIES (attached) will be followed by a slightly deeper dive into the pros and cons of this initiative.

 

One question to be explored is the extent to which Australian taxpayers can discover how much public money has supported individual films and what benefits have resulted.

 

The Producer Offset is wonderful, but questions arise as to whether the system provides sufficient transparency to allow an informed public debate about its effectiveness.

 

I am using Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby (2013) as a case study:

 

‘Gatsby’ is particularly interesting because it was made substantially in Australia by an Australian director, employed a large Australian workforce, achieved considerable international commercial success, and was based on an American novel set in America.

 

In May 2013, the ABC reported that The Great Gatsby benefited from approximately $80 million in tax-offset assistance. I have been unable to establish whether this was the final amount received.

 

I would appreciate answers to the following questions.

 

1. How much did Australian taxpayers contribute?

 

Did The Great Gatsby receive the Producer Offset, and if so, what was the final amount paid?

 

Was the approximately $80 million reported by the ABC in 2013 accurate? If not, can Screen Australia provide a corrected figure?

 

Did the production receive any additional Commonwealth or state government assistance, whether through grants, equity investment, loans or other incentives?

 

Is there a public record showing the total government assistance received by the film? If so, where can I find it?

 

2. What did Australian taxpayers receive in return?

 

Am I correct in understanding that the Producer Offset is a tax rebate, not a recoupable investment, and that taxpayers therefore receive no direct share of a film's box-office revenue or profits through the Offset itself?

 

If the Australian government also makes a direct equity investment in a film, how are financial returns calculated and reported?

 

What evidence is available of the economic benefits generated by The Great Gatsby, including Australian employment, expenditure and tax revenue?

 

Does Screen Australia undertake retrospective assessments of whether individual films have delivered the economic or cultural benefits anticipated when government assistance was provided?

 

3. Why is the information confidential?

 

Screen Australia's website states that it cannot disclose which productions have benefited from the Producer Offset because of tax secrecy laws. Does this prohibition extend to the final dollar amount received by a production completed more than a decade ago?

 

If so, which specific provisions of legislation prevent disclosure, and do they impose confidentiality indefinitely?

 

Does Screen Australia distinguish between commercially sensitive information, such as individual salaries and contractual arrangements, and the total amount of public money received by a production?

 

Would it be legally possible to publish the total Producer Offset received by a film without disclosing confidential commercial details?

 

If current legislation prevents such disclosure, would Screen Australia support legislative changes allowing project-level figures to be published after an appropriate period?

 

4. What is the Producer Offset intended to achieve?

 

Is its primary objective to stimulate economic activity and employment, to support Australian creative talent, to encourage the production of culturally Australian stories, or some combination of these?

 

How does Screen Australia measure success against these different objectives?

 

Should a film's Australian audience, or lack of one, be relevant when evaluating the effectiveness of government assistance?

 

How does Screen Australia distinguish between the economic success of Australia's film production industry and the cultural success of Australian filmmaking?

 

Does Screen Australia believe that sufficient information is currently available for taxpayers, filmmakers and researchers to evaluate the Producer Offset's effectiveness at the level of individual productions?

 

5. A broader question of public accountability

 

I understand that the Producer Offset is administered under taxation legislation, and that Screen Australia may be legally prevented from answering some of these questions.

If that is the case, I would appreciate an explanation of the legal restrictions, rather than simply being advised that the information is confidential.

 

I would also welcome Screen Australia's views on whether the existing disclosure arrangements strike an appropriate balance between commercial confidentiality and public accountability.

 

Finally, could you direct me to any published studies evaluating the economic and cultural benefits of the Producer Offset, including any studies examining individual films?

 

I would like to publish a fair account of the scheme's benefits, limitations and public accountability arrangements, to include Screen Australia's responses and to make clear where the organisation is legally prevented from providing information.

 

If taxpayers are not permitted to know how much public money an individual film received, how can they meaningfully assess whether the scheme is delivering value for money?

 

cheers

 

James Ricketson

cc IF Magazineå

PRODUCER OFFSET FOR DUMMIES

                                    

                                    PRODUCER OFFSET FOR DUMMIES

 

How Australian taxpayers help finance Australian films and why it matters.

 

We all know that the Australian government provides financial assistance to filmmakers. 

 

Few of us understand how much assistance, where the money comes from, and what taxpayers receive in return.

 

One of the most important forms of assistance is the Producer Offset.

 

Despite its bureaucratic name, the principle is simple.

 

The Australian government gives eligible filmmakers a substantial tax rebate on the money they spend making their films.

 

For Australian feature films intended for cinema release, that rebate is generally 40%.

 

Yes, 40%. Quite a lot of money.

 

How does it work?

 

Imagine this: you are producing an Australian feature film with a budget of $5 million.

 

Of that $5 million, you spend $4 million employing Australian actors and technicians, hiring cameras and lighting equipment, renting locations, building sets, editing, recording sound and so on.

 

The government agrees to reimburse you 40% of that $4 million.

 

That's $1.6 million of taxpayers' money.

 

Your $5 million film has effectively cost its financiers $3.4 million, before allowing for financing costs.

 

Sound like a great deal, right?

 

It’s not quite that simple, however.

 

What qualifies for the rebate?

 

The government doesn't necessarily refund 40% of everything you spend.

 

It refunds 40% of what is called Qualifying Australian Production Expenditure, or QAPE.

 

In plain English, this generally means money spent on eligible Australian goods, services and production activities.

 

Pay an Australian cinematographer? Generally qualifies.

 

Hire cameras from an Australian equipment company? Generally qualifies.

 

Employ Australian editors, sound technicians and visual effects artists? Generally qualifies.

 

Pay a Hollywood star millions of dollars for work performed overseas? Generally doesn't qualify.

 

There are exceptions and detailed rules, but that's the basic principle.

 

The rebate is calculated on qualifying expenditure, not necessarily the film's entire budget.

 

When does the producer receive the money?

 

The government doesn't simply hand over $1.6 million when you announce that you're making a film.

 

The rebate is claimed through the tax system after the film has been completed and the necessary certification obtained.

 

The question arises:

“How can a producer use that money to make the film if it won't arrive until after the film is finished?”

The answer:

 

The producer can borrow against the anticipated rebate.

 

A bank or specialist lender advances money on the strength of the expected government payment. When the rebate arrives, the loan is repaid, together with interest and fees.

 

In brief: the government's promise of future money helps finance the film today.

 

Who decides what is an Australian film?

 

Screen Australia administers the Producer Offset certification process.

 

To qualify, a production generally must satisfy a Significant Australian Content test or qualify as an official international co-production.

 

Screen Australia takes into account the film's subject matter, where it is made, who makes it and where the money is spent.

 

A film doesn't necessarily have to tell an Australian story, be set in Australia or feature an entirely Australian cast to qualify for the Offset.

 

This question arises:

 

What qualifies as being an Australian film?

 

Its subject matter? Its writer? Its director? Its actors? Its financiers? Or the nationality of the company that owns it?

 

As far as I can tell there is no simple answer to this question.

 

What about Hollywood films made in Australia?

 

Hollywood productions can also receive substantial assistance from Australian taxpayers, but generally through a different scheme: the Location Offset.

 

This provides eligible productions with a 30% rebate on qualifying Australian expenditure.

 

A Hollywood studio can bring an American story, American stars and an American director to Australia, employ Australian crews and use Australian facilities, and receive a substantial tax incentive.

 

The film doesn't have to be culturally Australian.

 

THE GREAT GATSBY, for instance.

 

The government's rationale is largely economic: jobs, investment, infrastructure and business activity.

 

The Producer Offset, by contrast, is intended to support Australian screen production and Australian creative participation – an important distinction.

 

Is the Producer Offset a good idea?

 

There are powerful arguments in its favour.

 

Making films is expensive and financially risky. The Producer Offset helps Australian producers raise finance, employ skilled workers and compete internationally.

 

Without it, many (most?) Australian films would struggle to get made.

 

There are legitimate questions worth asking and discussing:

 

“Should a film that attracts almost no Australian cinema audience receive the same percentage rebate as one that attracts hundreds of thousands?”

 

“Should the cultural value of a film matter more than its commercial performance?”

 

“Should governments distinguish between films primarily intended to create employment, films intended to win international prizes, and films intended to tell Australian stories to Australian audiences?”

 

 “Should taxpayers be entitled to be provided with information about the public money supporting individual productions?”

 

The Producer Offset helps Australian films get made. Whether those films achieve their cultural, artistic or commercial objectives are questions that will be explored in a little more detail in my next post.

RQBBIT PROOF FENCE

  RABBIT PROOF FENCE is relevant to the discussion we're having here on Facebook. It is a textbook example of an Aussie film, written and directed by Aussies based on an Aussie story for Aussie audiences that appealed also to international audiences. 

RABBIT PROOF FENCE cost between $6 and $7 million and more than justified itself at the box office, taking around $15 million worldwide. 

RABBIT PROOF FENCE collected an impressive number of Australian awards - the AFI Award for Best Film, Phillip Noyce for Best Director, Christine Olsen for Best Adapted Screenplay. Internationally it won audience awards at Edinburgh, Denver, Calgary, Aspen, Durban and Best Foreign Film at São Paulo.

RABBIT PROOF FENCE is much more than a significant Australian award-winning film that did well at the box office. More importantly, it involved Australian audiences responding emotionally to an intense and quintessentially Australian story. 

For many non-Aboriginal Australians the film provided their first direct emotional encounter with what it meant to be a child of the Stolen Generations. 

My guess, 24 years after its release, in that more Australians have seen RABBIT 

PROOF FENCE than had seen any other Australian narrative film dealing with an Aboriginal issue. 

RABBIT PROOF FENCE is a story that couldn't simply be relocated to California or England without becoming an entirely different story.

There was controversy, of course, at the time of RABBIT PROOF FENCE’S release. 

Some conservative commentators and historians challenging aspects of the film's historical representation and the circumstances surrounding Molly Craig's removal. 

This controversy is itself evidence of the film’s cultural impact. People were arguing about Australian history because of an Australian movie. 

Wonderful 🤗

RABBIT PROOF FENCE is of historical and cultural importance, will still be viewed in 50 years and be an integral part of Australian film history. It is precisely the sort of film that the founding fathers of our ‘industry’ sought to encourage; a film that “posterity will regard as some of the most significant films made by and for Australians.”

RABBIT PROOF FENCE presents a powerful challenge to a proposition that sometimes seems implicit in Australian film policy: that a film needs to become less specifically Australian to appeal to international audiences. 

RABBIT PROOF FENCE suggests the opposite – that its appeal both in Australia and overseas is that it is distinctively Australian.

For discussion, dialogue and debate

AUSSIE FILMS FOR AUSSIE AUDIENCES

 AUSSIE FILMS FOR AUSSIE AUDIENCES

First written in January 2013. Updated November 2026.

Was the original intention behind setting up our film 'industry' to provide Australian crews with ongoing work on films made by overseas production companies, or to support the production of Australian films - written, directed and crewed by Australians, telling Australian stories to Australian audiences?

The two objectives are not mutually exclusive, of course. 

Overseas productions provide employment, develop skills and make use of Australian studios, technicians and other production resources.

But thirteen years after I first wrote this piece, the question remains:

Have we become a backlot for foreign films at the expense of Australian films?

A debate about this recurring question is long overdue.

When I first wrote this in January 2013, Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby had not yet been released.

At the time, film producers and Screen Australia bureaucrats were arguing about whether Gatsby — an adaptation of one of the great American novels, financed and distributed by Warner Bros — was an appropriate recipient of tens of millions of dollars' worth of Australian taxpayer support.

I asked:

What will Australian taxpayers get for their contribution to the coffers of an American entertainment company whose primary market is not Australia?

And:

What will NSW taxpayers get for their contribution to Gatsby's budget when the amount contributed is hidden from them on the grounds of "commercial-in-confidence"?
Thirteen years later, the terminology and mechanisms may have changed, but the underlying question has not.

The Great Gatsby was released in May 2013 and was internationally successful - grossing around US$354 million worldwide. It employed Australian crews, used Australian facilities and demonstrated Australia's capacity to mount a major international production.

All good things.

But was it an Australian film?

No.

It was an American story, based on an American novel, set in America, financed primarily for an international market. Its Australian director, Australian crew and Australian production expenditure do not turn F. Scott Fitzgerald's quintessentially American story into an Australian one.

This distinction matters.

Today Australia is more successful than ever at attracting international productions. In 2024/25, a record $2.7 billion was spent on drama production in Australia. International productions filming here accounted for around $1.3 billion, including $1 billion spent by 20 international feature films.

This is excellent news for Australian technicians, studios and service providers.
But Australian productions accounted for only 40 per cent of total drama production expenditure.

So the question I asked in 2013 has become more, not less, relevant:

What exactly is the purpose of public support for Australian film?

Why is it important that we have an Australian film industry?

Would it really matter if federal and state governments stopped subsidising Australian films and concentrated instead on attracting Hollywood movies and international television series to our shores?

If what we want is employment, perhaps that would make economic sense.

But if we believe Australian film is important to Australian culture, a different set of questions need be asked and debated.

The word "industry" itself is problematic. It conjures up a product for which there are identifiable consumers and from which a profit is expected to accrue.

Australian films, however, have historically struggled to return their production investment through the Australian box office alone. If commercial profitability were the sole criterion by which public support for culture was judged, we might also speak of the Australian ballet industry, the Australian opera industry, the symphony orchestra industry and the poetry industry.

As industries, judged purely by their capacity to survive without public or philanthropic support, many cultural activities would fail the test.

Yet we support them.

Why?

Because we believe culture has a value that cannot be measured solely at the box office.
Drop the word "industry" for a moment and think simply in terms of Australian film, and the questions become both more interesting and more pertinent.

The Report of the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission declared:

"Australia, as a nation, cannot accept, in this powerful and persuasive medium, the current flood of other nations' productions on our screens without it constituting a very serious threat to our national identity."

The report argued that Australia should encourage films of artistic, conceptual, cultural and social value even when they might not be commercially successful. Some, it suggested, might eventually be regarded by posterity as amongst the most significant films made by and for Australians.

And, importantly, it recognised that commercial success and artistic integrity are not mutually exclusive.

That was the philosophical foundation on which government support for Australian filmmaking was built.

Is it still?

Or has the objective gradually changed?
There is a perfectly reasonable economic argument for governments providing incentives to attract international productions to Australia. They employ Australian crews. They develop skills. They support studios and associated businesses. They bring substantial amounts of overseas money into the country.

We need acknowledge these benefits.
But we should not confuse film production taking place in Australia with Australian filmmaking.

They are not the same thing.

A Hollywood production shooting at Fox Studios or on the Gold Coast may employ hundreds of Australians and contribute millions of dollars to the economy. Good news!

But it does not necessarily contribute an Australian story, an Australian perspective or an Australian voice to our culture.

And that was one of the principal reasons taxpayers began supporting Australian filmmaking in the first place.

In 2013 I wrote that The Great Gatsby might be a box-office hit and might even be a masterpiece. I didn't know: the film hadn't yet been released.

We now know that it was a commercial success.

But the point I was making then remains the same and the debate remains necessary in my view.

The Great Gatsby was NOT an Australian story told for Australian audiences and reflecting aspects of our culture for present and future generations of Australians.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with Australians working on American films.

There is nothing wrong with governments wanting international productions to spend hundreds of millions of dollars here.

The question is simply whether, somewhere along the way, economic activity has become confused with cultural policy.

If Australian taxpayers are going to support filmmaking, what are we trying to achieve?

Employment?

Foreign investment?

A world-class production-services sector?

Or Australian stories, written and directed by Australians, reflecting Australian lives and experiences back to Australian audiences?

Perhaps the answer is: all of the above.

But if so, we should say so and be transparent about how much public money is being spent pursuing each objective.

Because the question I asked thirteen years ago remains unanswered:

Are we building an Australian cinema, or are we building the world's best backlot?

James Ricketson
November 2026

GATEKEEPERS

 IF Magazine has declined to publish this Opinion Piece; declined my offer to pay to have it published as ‘Sponsored Content’

                                                             GATEKEEPERS

                                                For discussion, dialogue and debate

Would Young Einstein have received development funding if Yahoo Serious had been assessed anonymously by Screen Australia "industry experts" through an online application form?

Prior to the establishment of Screen Australia in 2008, fledgling filmmakers could meet face-to-face with experienced filmmaker/assessors. I was one of those assessors, working for the Australian Film Commission on short-term contracts for a dozen or so years.

In the early 1980s, an applicant who had never made a film submitted a chaotically written, incoherent, incorrectly formatted comedy screenplay riddled with typos. We three assessors were unimpressed. There was little in the written proposal to persuade us to take seriously his request for $15,000 to shoot three test scenes for a feature film.

\

Then Yahoo Serious walked into the room.

He paced up and down, talked up a storm and pitched Young Einstein. His manic energy, eccentricity, self-confidence and zany sense of humour won us over. Whatever the shortcomings of his written application, here was someone worth taking a risk on.

We recommended the AFC fund the test scenes.

The rest is history. Young Einstein grossed around $25 million worldwide

Would a 21st-century Yahoo Serious survive today's assessment processes? Or would s/he receive a form letter of rejection from the GATEKEEPERS?

This question has become more relevant with the arrival of AI. Today, an applicant can use ChatGPT or another AI platform to produce, in an hour, a polished synopsis or treatment that appears to tick every assessment box. The written application may tell us increasingly little about the creative capacities of the human being behind it.

Put that applicant in a room with experienced filmmakers asking intelligent questions and something else becomes possible: a genuine assessment of the person as well as the paperwork.

Both Screen Australia and Screen NSW refer to assessors as "industry experts". This brings to mind William Goldman's famous observation:

"Nobody knows anything... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one."

For decades, assessors and applicants met face-to-face. Today assessors remain anonymous and most applicants have no opportunity to pitch their projects or engage in dialogue with the people judging them.

Why?

I have asked Screen Australia and Screen NSW this question multiple times without receiving an answer.

When I asked VicScreen, CEO Caroline Pitcher responded immediately. She argued that assessor confidentiality:

"...supports fair, independent and robust decision-making by enabling candid, criteria-based feedback, reducing the risk of lobbying or external pressure, and protecting assessors in what is a small and highly connected industry."

These are arguments worth taking seriously.

But there is another side to the equation.

Does protecting assessors from applicants come at the cost of removing something essential from creative assessment — human engagement?

Can creative potential be reliably assessed without meeting the creator?

In the late 1990s, I was asked by the ABC to meet a young man who had never made a documentary but wanted, as a one-man-band, to film his road-trip travels from Cape Town to Cairo.

On paper, his proposal seemed wildly ambitious. Should the ABC take the risk?

I met him. Face-to-face he quickly convinced me he had the talent, energy and determination to pull it off. It was, in part, a gut judgement.

I recommended that the ABC and Australian Film Commission take the risk.

The resulting series, Africa — Cape Town to Cairo, broadcast on the ABC in 1998, launched the career of Michael Davie, now an internationally respected documentary filmmaker.

During my years assessing for the AFC, I encountered many filmmakers whose talent emerged not through polished applications with all the right boxes ticked, but through direct engagement. Some lacked experience but compensated with passion, intelligence, originality and an unmistakable determination to get their films made.

Instinct matters.

The Hollywood "elevator pitch" exists for a reason.

Filmmaking is not principally a literary activity. Some talented filmmakers struggle to express themselves in written applications. Some are dyslexic, shy or inexperienced. Some communicate much better through images than prose. Some are eccentric. Some may even appear slightly mad.

And some of these people make extraordinary films.

I am not suggesting that every applicant should receive a face-to-face meeting. Clearly that would be impractical. I am asking whether shortlisted applicants should have the opportunity to meet and pitch to experienced filmmaker/assessors before significant funding decisions are made.

There will always be tension between bureaucratic certainty and creative risk-taking. But have we got the balance right?

Great films rarely emerge from bureaucratic certainty. They emerge from talented, unpredictable human beings whose gifts may not be obvious on paper.

My concern is that anonymous assessment, online applications and the proliferation of professional bureaucratic decision-making may make it harder for funding bodies to recognise precisely those filmmakers who don't fit comfortably into predetermined boxes.

Cost is sometimes advanced as an argument against face-to-face assessment.

Screen Australia invests tens of millions of dollars each year in documentary and drama production. Would allocating even a tiny percentage of those funds to pitch sessions for shortlisted applicants really be prohibitively expensive?

The question is not whether the old system was perfect. It wasn't.

Nor am I arguing that gut instinct is infallible. It certainly isn't. Goldman was right: nobody knows anything.

But perhaps acknowledging that uncertainty is precisely why human judgement should remain part of the process.

There are many reasons Australian films struggle to find audiences: limited marketing budgets, short theatrical runs, streaming competition and the difficulty of attracting attention in an overcrowded entertainment landscape.

But another question is worth asking:

Are our assessment and development processes themselves contributing to the problem?

Perhaps anonymous assessment is fairer. Perhaps it is more efficient. Perhaps confidentiality protects assessors from lobbying and pressure. These are legitimate arguments, and I would like to hear them debated.

But I keep returning to the young man with the terrible screenplay who walked into a room more than forty years ago and persuaded three sceptical assessors to take a $15,000 gamble on him.

His name was Yahoo Serious.

Would he get through today's gate?

If the answer is no, perhaps we have a problem worth talking about.

James Ricketson

30 October 2026

Final letter to Tony Burke MP regarding 13 year dispute with with Screen Australia

 

The Hon. Tony Burke MP

Minister for the Arts

GPO Box 594

Canberra,  ACT 2601                                                                          25^th February 2026

 

Dear Minister

re Screen Australia

 

Given Screen Australia’s lack of a functioning complaints process for filmmakers and your own clear lack of interest in helping resolve my now 14 year long dispute with Screen Australia, I recently sought legal advice from a solicitor and barrister. The salient points they made are the following:

 

-        I do not consider any of the correspondence provide by you as being intimidatory or capable of placing any SA staff at risk. I think the term intimidation is subjective and the concept of "being capable of placing staff at risk," is extremely vague. They represent language that can be manipulated to encompass a vast number of communications and potentially censor innocent people.

 

-        I doubt that you will be able to extract an apology or an acknowledgement that your alleged behaviour was not improper. Time is your biggest enemy.

 

-        The costs implications are twofold: (1) The process will cost money, (2) It is almost inevitable that the losing party will be ordered to pay the bulk of the successful party’s costs.

 

As a self-funded filmmaker with minimal assets, it would be unwise of me to initiate legal proceedings against Screen Australia and risk bankruptcy. I can only defend myself with words and hope that anyone in the future with an interest in the truth, with facts and with evidence will have access to my blog and be in a position to decide for themselves who was, back in 2012 and 2025, telling the truth and who was lying.

 

In brief:

 

It was apparent back in 2012 that I had not intimidated, harassed or placed at risk any Screen Australia staff member. The Board was aware of this but rubber-stamped Ruth Harley’s proposal that I be banned anyway.

 

In 2025 the current Board threatened to ban me yet again, citing my repeated requests for evidence of my guilt as further harassment/intimidation on my part.

 

Just as Screen Australia has no functioning complaints mechanism, so too is it with your Ministry. Facts, truth, evidence are of no consequence. The Screen Australia Board is free to censor, intimidate and ban whomsoever it likes with impunity.

 

As you would be aware if you had read any of my correspondence over the past year I have offered many times to meet with Screen Australia Board and/or senior staff members to resolve this matter. I have made it clear many times over the past 14 years that I would willingly accept my publishment if one paragraph, one sentence or even one word could be presented to me that warrants my banning. 

 

Screen Australia has not taken me up on these multiple offers because Board members and senior staff alike know that I am not guilty as charged and would not be able to look me in the eye and tell me that XXX or YYY was evidence enough for them to ban me or, in 2025, to threaten to ban me again for having the temerity to ask questions it does not wish to answer. It is one thing to bully a filmmaker in cyberspace and quite another to do so to his or her face with no evidence at all to place on the table! 

 

The current board, as with its 2012 counterpart, does not have the moral courage to declare, ‘Yes, we made a mistake in banning Mr. Ricketson;’ does not have the integrity required of a body with such enormous power to steer our fragile industry in a fair and equitable manner.

 

One problem that besets filmmakers is that the financial funding cake that we must compete with each other to acquire a slice of, is not nearly big enough to feed us all. This is just a fact of life. Filmmakers thus fall, broadly speaking, into two categories: (1) Those who are recipients of SA largesse and (2) those who are not. 

 

The former has no desire to bite the hand that feeds it, and those who are not successful in their applications have no desire to bite the hand of the funding body that they hope will feed them next time around. In the absence of a functioning complaints mechanism and considering what happens to filmmakers such as myself who seek justice, it is not surprising that few filmmakers will write to you as I have. 

 

I am far from being alone in having complaints about Screen Australia. There are many of us, but most will not risk their future by making complaints that they fear may result in their being treated as I have been since 2012.

 

The problem here is systemic and has been since Screen Australia was set up.

 

There are several reasons why we do not make many films these days that Australian audiences want to see, but amongst them is the way in which Screen Australia has been run since its inception.  The problem is systemic.

 

I believe that senior SA staff, the Board and you, as Minister, should be open to the feedback and criticisms of other filmmakers in a manner that does not result in their being ‘banned’ (officially or unofficially) by Screen Australia.

 

We live in challenging times and the advent of AI, the ubiquity of streaming services that adversely affect cinema ticket sales, present our ‘industry’ with challenges that must be met with boldness and imagination and with the input of older generation filmmakers with decades of experience and the skills acquired along the way, and of young filmmakers who may have little or no experience but have an understanding of the media landscape that we older generation filmmakers do not. “Let a thousand flowers bloom.” Do not rely for good ideas on career bureaucrats who tend to lack the kind of boldness we need now.

 

At the risk of belabouring the point, Screen Australia’s problems are systemic. It has an ‘attitude problem’. The changes needed are radical if we are to convince Australian audiences that Australian films are exciting not just as entertainment but as a mirror we hold up to ourselves as a culture.

 

cheers

 

James Ricketson

cc Members of the Screen Australia Board

Dierdre Brennan CEO, Screen Australia