letter from Ruth Harley CE Screen Australia

10 May 2012

James Ricketson

316 Whale Beach Road

PALM BEACH NSW 2108

Dear James

 

I refer to the application which you lodged on 13 April 2012, and your follow up letter

dated 2 May 2012. This letter is a response to those communications, but I also wish to

address the broader question of your dealings with Screen Australia generally. 

 

Your application of 13 April is, once again, for development funding for Chanti’s World.

Your application acknowledges, at least implicitly, that under our current Documentary

Development Guidelines, this project is not eligible for funding on account of the number

of occasions on which you have previously applied for funding. You propose that two of

the previous applications ought to be disregarded, for eligibility purposes, given the

deficiencies in our assessment process which you contend have occurred. You also

appear to propose that the third application for Chanti’s World be disregarded, as you

chose to withdraw the same. If three of your previous applications applications were

disregarded, you would be potentially eligible for further funding, provided that we were

satisfied that substantial changes to the project had been made, relative to the original

application. 

 

Unfortunately, we do not see matters in this way, and in particular, we do not consider that

our previous assessments of this project were compromised as alleged. I note in this

regard that you took your concerns over those assessments to the Commonwealth

Ombudsman.   An investigation was conducted and a decision made that there was no

criticism of Screen Australia’s approach with respect to the matters investigated and no

better outcome than offered by Screen Australia could be achieved by investigating the

matter further.  I do not propose to traverse those concerns, which have been canvassed

in so many pieces of correspondence between us, again in this letter. 

 

It follows that your latest application for Chanti’s World is refused as ineligible, in

accordance with our Documentary Development Guidelines.

 

Turning to the broader question, after giving the matter serious and careful consideration,

Screen Australia has taken the decision that it will not accept further funding applications

from you, or engage in correspondence with you about funding applications. I appreciate

that this is an unusual step and one which we do not take lightly. However, we believe that

your conduct towards Screen Australia is unreasonable, and that your correspondence

places our staff at risk. We are under a legal obligation to protect our staff from

harassment and intimidation. Staff who have dealt with your correspondence have found it

stressful and their well-being has been affected. Your public statements in relation to our

staff have also caused distress, and appear to be calculated to damage the reputation of individuals and this organization. We reserve our rights in relation to those statements,

and we sincerely ask you to reflect on, and refrain from, such conduct going forward. 

 

In future, if you wish to make an application under the Freedom of Information Act or the

Privacy Act , you may of course do so,  but in order for any applications to be considered,

they must be addressed to foi@screenaustralia.gov.au (if by email) or to the Freedom of

Information Co-ordinator, Screen Australia, Level 4, 150 William Street, Woolloomooloo

NSW 2011 (if by mail).  Aside from such applications (when properly addressed), we do

not propose to accept or respond to any applications or correspondence from you. To be

clear, any correspondence which you send to us about the decisions notified in this letter

will not be read. 

 

Over time, Screen Australia may be willing to review the decision which it has taken in

relation to you. However, before doing so, we would need to be certain that our staff were

no longer placed at risk in dealing with you.  

 

Yours sincerely

 

Ruth Harley 

Chief Executive Officer