“Ruth Harley resigns for family reasons”
This is the headline I long to read – ‘family reasons’ being
a favoured euphemism in this day and age when senior government executives are
either fired or asked to resign.
When I started asking questions of Screen Australia 18
months ago I did so in the naïve belief that someone further up the food chain than Fiona Cameron would ask her to
produce the correspondence she referred to in a letter of 12th Nov
2010 that essentially brands me as being a liar. When it became apparent that
no-one, up to and including the Ombudsman, was going to ask Fiona to do so, I
could have just given up there and admitted defeat. This would probably have
been the sensible course of action. And it was certainly the course of action
Screen Australia expected me to take. But no, with what is probably a
deep-seated streak of masochism, I decided to plough on and see how many
letters I would have to write to get some answers. A lot, I discovered, but to
no avail. No-one was going to answer any questions. So, I thought to myself,
why not post my questions on the internet and embarrass Screen Australia, the
Ombudsman, Simon Crean into answering them. No joy here either. Other than a
half-heated threat to sue from Ruth Harley, no answers have been forthcoming. With
no more bridges to burn I will plough on and see if there is any way at all of
getting someone from the Prime Minister down to ask Ruth Harley to either
produce the correspondence (or extracts thereof) or apologize for both Screen
Australia’s cockup and the subsequent lies told in order to cover up the
cockup.
My latest letter to Ruth Harley speaks for itself:
Ruth Harley
CE, Screen Australia
Level 4
150 William St.
Woolloomooloo 2011 14th
June 2012
Dear Ruth
It comes of course as no surprise to me that you do
not respond to my letters since you have made it clear that you would not do
so. It also comes as no real surprise to me that you have not carried out your
barely veiled threat to sue me for calling you a liar in public. A court case
would prove very embarrassing to you since, regardless of the outcome, any
public release of the letters that you claim bear witness to the crimes you
have charged and convicted me of would reveal that you are indeed a liar. The
same applies for the correspondence that Fiona Cameron claimed existed back in
Nov 2010 and which, as you know (and have done for 18 months), does not exist.
It comes as no real surprise to me that Glen Boreham and
the Screen Australia Board have no interest in whether or not the Chief
Executive of SA is a liar. The Board seems to accept unquestioningly the
proposition that I have intimidated, harassed and placed at risk Screen
Australia staff. It comes as no real surprise either that Rachel Perkins and
Robert Connolly could vote for the banning of a fellow filmmaker without any
evidence being presented in support of such a ban. And it comes as no surprise
either, through months of silence and the lack even of the acknowledgement of receipt
of letters, that Simon Crean is likewise uninterested in whether you have lied
to provide justification for your banning of a filmmaker. And it comes as no
real surprise now that the Ombudsman, whose office never bothered to ask Fiona
to produce the correspondence she said existed back in Nov 10, is not prepared
to ask you to produce the offending correspondence you claim exists. What does
come as a surprise to me is that I am no longer surprised that Screen Australia
is so lacking in adhering to even the basic fundamentals transparency and
accountability. It would come as a real surprise if it did begin the behave in
accordance with these precepts.
The Australian Film Industry needs, as Chief
Executive and as the Chief Operating Officer of our peak funding body senior
executives who are committed to honesty, transparency and accountability and
who behave at all times with the highest degree of integrity. You and Fiona
have failed the integrity test. Please just go. Resign for ‘family reasons’. And
take Fiona with you. Alternatively, release the correspondence you and Fiona
claim to exist and to be worthy of my banning. If you can do that, if I am the
liar and not yourself, I do not deserve to be a part of the film community and
my being banned is appropriate punishment.
best wishes
James Ricketson
If Ricketson has not written the correspondence, as he insists, Ruth Harley has abused the power entrusted in her by both the Screen Australia Board and the Minister for the Arts Simon Crean. If Ricketson has not harassed or intimidated Screen Australia staff, if he has not placed them at risk (of what, one must wonder!) there must be some other reason why Harley has banned him. I for one am curious to know. One has to presume also that Harley would not make such a radical decision without the imprimatur of the Screen Australia Board, raising the question as to what was going on in the minds of the Board members when they voted? This question applies in particular to the two film directors on the Board – Rachel Perkins and Robert Connolly. Are they cognizant of the real reasons for Ricketson’s banning or have they seen the correspondence that Harley refers to as her reason for the ban? So many questions and no answers at all.
ReplyDeleteI gave up trying to make films in Australia some time ago for reasons not dissimilar to what appears to be going on here – powerful Screen Australia bureaucrats (though they were powerful AFC and FFC bureaucrats then) who are never ever held accountable for their actions and who, through their network of friends, produce the bulk of films made in Australia. Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron seem to have become members of this club and all the indications are that Screen Australia is now a body that has been corrupted by the power vested in a small clique whose actions are never questioned by the Screen Australia Board or by Mr Crean. It is small wonder that our films underperform when it is not the best and brightest making the decisions but those who have been able to play the power game most cleverly and in such a way as to guarantee that dissident voices are silenced and those who ask difficult questions are marginalized. One further question that must be asked here is why it is that Australian filmmakers accept this state of affairs. Screen Australia is there to serve the needs of the industry, not vice versa. So many questions, so few answers!