Members of the Screen
Australia Board
Level 7, 45 Jones St
Ultimo 2007
11th July
2016
Dear Members of the
Screen Australia Board
Nicholas Moore,
Rosemary Blight
Al Clarke
Matthew Leibmann
You have banned me
again. For another two years. Six years in total now.
Really, Al and Rosemary,
two filmmakers banning a fellow filmmaker!
How do you justify this
ban? To yourselves? To me? To the film ‘industry’?
You know that there is
no evidence that, prior to May 2012, I intimidated, harassed or placed at risk
members of Screen Australia’s staff. You know that the ban on me is based on a
lie! And yet you go along with it. Why? Because the wagons must circle around
Fiona Cameron to protect her?
If you really do believe
that it me who is lying when I assert my innocence, provide me with three
instances, from my correspondence prior to May 12th 2012, that
constitute evidence that I am guilty as charged. Hey, just provide me with one!
Surely it must be easy to provide at least one instance in which I intimidated
and/or placed at risk a member of Screen Australia staff in my correspondence!?
I have asked such
questions countless times this past four years. You will not answer them, any
more than previous members of the board would. The simple reason for this is that
I am not guilty as charged.
And you know it.
As for the most recent two
year ban, announced to me by Graeme Mason on 16th May, Graeme’s
explanation of the need for it is as follows:
1 Since 7 May 2014 you have continued to
write offensive, harassing and defamatory letters and emails to Screen
Australia board members and staff and to publish these letters and emails on
the internet.
2 These letters and internet publications
seem intended to humiliate and damage the reputation of Screen Australia staff.
3 The manner and frequency of your letters
has made some staff feel upset, distressed and personally attacked. This is
unacceptable to Screen Australia, particularly as staff have been directed by
the board not to correspond with you due to the ban.
I will ask again: please
provide me with three examples where, this past two years, I have written “offensive,
harassing and defamatory letters and emails to Screen Australia board members
and staff,”; where I have sought to “humiliate” members of Screen Australia’s
staff?
Or just one example!
You will not do so. You hope
that the mere assertion that I am guilty of these offences will suffice. Throw
enough mud and some of it will stick, right! Repeat the same tired allegations
often enough and it will be assumed, by those with an interest in all this,
that where there is smoke there must be fire: “The Screen Australia board would
not ban Ricketson for six year unless he was guilty of something fairly
horrific!”
You can get away with such
dishonest bureaucratic bullying (intimidation!?) because you can rest assured
that the Ombudsman is a toothless tiger with no interest at all in evidence of
either my guilt or innocence. You can rest assured also that Louise Vardanega,
Australian Government Solicitor (acting) will not release to me a copy of Ruth
Harley’s 2012 submission to Mr Ian Govey which, presumably, contains evidence
of the heinous offenses that necessitated I be banned. And you can rest assured
that there is a section within the Freedom of Information Act that enables
Graeme Mason to refuse my repeated requests for evidence of my guilt – be this
Ruth Harley’s submission to Mr Govey or any other evidence Screen Australia has
in support of the ban on me: “Don’t worry, Graeme, we’ve got your back. Just
keep stonewalling Ricketson. Screen Australia is under no legal obligation to
provide him with evidence of his guilt, thanks to the very clever wording of
the altered ‘Terms of Trade’: ‘forms the view’.”
Yes, Screen Australia can
‘form the view’ that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese and
is under no obligation to provide evidence in support of such propositions.
Really, Al and Rosemary! You
go along with this nonsense!?
The deck is stacked against
me. You know this.
I doubt very much that you
really believe that the appalling way in which Sceen Australia has treated me
is fair? If it had happened to either of you, Al and Rosemary, how would you
have responded? Your careers as Australian filmmakers effectively terminated on
the basis of allegations you know to be untrue and which you could prove to be
untrue if anyone was interested in looking at the facts; the evidence.
Would you just have sucked it
up, back in 2012 – the banning of you? Accepted your fate without protest? The
damage to your reputation? The loss of income? Or would you, as I have, request
that the Screen Australia board provide evidence of your guilt? Even if your
repeated requests were characterized by the board as harassment?
You both understand, in your
roles as film and TV producers, that the Screen Australia ban, rendering it
impossible for me to take advantage of the Producer Offset (which would require
communication with Screen Australia, which is forbidden), effectively makes it
impossible for me to make films in this country. It is not just the lack of
access to the Producer Offset that is the problem. It is also that other film
funding bodies are reluctant (to say the least!) to fund the development of
projects that have not a snowflakes chance in hell of being made. And then
there are, in this collaborative ‘industry’ of ours, professional colleagues who can see no upside
in collaborating with a banned filmmaker; with someone who intimidates and
places at risk Screen Australia film bureaucrats.
Does not the effective termination
of the career of a fellow filmmaker bother you at all?
As for “some staff feel upset,
distressed and personally attacked”, the only person on staff at Screen
Australia to whom this assertion could apply is Fiona Cameron – whose playing
fast and loose with the truth re ‘Chanti’s World’ was the catalyst for the
dispute that led to my being banned. (This is all well documented but no one
has ever been interested in the sequence of events that led to my being
banned.)
In the one and only
conversation I have ever had with Fiona (just prior to her requesting of the
Screen Australia caretaker that he call the police and have me arrested! For
‘trespassing’!) she told me, when asked for evidence of my intimidation of her,
that she ‘felt’ intimidated. Is this all, in your view, Al and Rosemary, that
is required for a filmmaker to be guilty of intimidation? That a member of
staff ‘feel’ intimidated? Are you aware of the can of worms you have opened up
here? Evidence of actual intimidation is not required. Only that a person
‘feels’ intimidated!
As for Fiona feeling upset and
distressed (since she is the only member of SA staff to whom this assertion of
Graeme’s could apply) let me respond to this by reversing the roles that Fiona
and I find ourselves in:
Let’s say that Screen
Australia, after four years of my asking, did actually produce three examples
from my correspondence in which any reasonable person would draw the conclusion
that I had intimidated, harassed and placed at risk members of Screen Australia
staff. Let’s imagine that Screen Australia chose to make this evidence public,
as it should, if such evidence exists. I would, as a result, be revealed, in
public, in the eyes of my professional colleagues, to be a fraud. It would be
apparent that I had been playing fast and loose with the truth in asserting
this past four years that I was not guilty as charged. Being publicly shamed in
this way would certainly lead to my being upset and distressed. It may even
lead me to feel that I had been personally attacked by Screen Australia. Would
I then be able to lay responsibility for my being upset, being distressed, at
the feet of Screen Australia? Or would I have to accept that I was the author
of my own pain and distress?
Neither Fiona nor myself can
claim our feelings of pain and distress to be evidence that we have in some way
been wronged. We must both accept that actions (including lying) have consequences
for which we alone are responsible. I am sure that it is painful and upsetting for
Fiona to read in public fora (my blog) that she plays fast and loose with the
truth. Her response should not to reach for her handkerchief and play the
damsel in distress but to come out fighting and produce evidence, from my
correspondence, that it is me and not she who plays fast and loose with the
truth. Fight me with facts, with evidence; not with appeals to female fragility
– “you have hurt my feelings!” (It seems to me that all too often the modern
day female bureaucrat can play hardball as well as any man but, when it suits,
reach for their handkerchief, shed some tears and rely on their male
counter-parts to come to their rescue!)
As for damaging the reputation
of Screen Australia staff (Fiona again), how can Screen Australia make such an
assertion with a straight face when your banning of me has not only done severe
damage to my reputation but made it close to impossible for me, as an Australian
filmmaker, to work in the country of my birth? Have you, Al and Rosemary, no insight into the
absurdity of the position you have taken regarding my reputation? It is OK to
trash James Ricketson’s reputation with no evidence at all in support of the
need to do so, but Fiona Cameron’s reputation must be protected at all costs!
As you know (or would
know if you bothered to look at the sequence of events preceding even Fiona’s
playing fast and loose with the truth re my ‘Chanti’s World’ application) what
I am guilt of is exercising my right to freedom of speech; my right to be a
vocal critic of Screen Australia.
What I was guilty of,
one year after Screen Australia was established, wearing my journalist’s hat,
was having the temerity to ask questions that Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron did
not want to answer. (This is all well documented). And then, when Fiona Cameron’s
played fast and loose with the truth re ‘Chanti’s World’, I had the temerity to
respond accordingly and not, as was expected, to roll over and accept that
Fiona could place on file statements that were untrue and which reflected badly
on my character. And then, when I complained to Ruth Harley about Fiona, Ruth
handed my complaint about Fiona to Fiona to investigate! And I had the temerity
to question the propriety of this!
And now Graeme Mason
repeats Fiona Cameron’s lie about ‘Chanti’s World’ secure in the knowledge that
there is no-one, no body (the Screen Australia board, the Ombudsman, the
Minister for the Arts, the Australian Drector’s Guild) to hold him accountable;
that will expect him to base i]his assertion in fats, backed by evidence. And
my accusing Graeme of lying, as I am just now will, needless to say, be seen as
evidence of the need to continue banning me.
You will not ask Graeme
to substantiate his recent claims re ‘Chanti’s World’, will you, Al and
Rosemary? No more than your board colleagues in 2012 felt inclined to ask Fiona
Cameron to substantiate her claims. Once a lie has been told within Screen
Australia the wagons must, of necessity, circle around the person who told the
lie and anyone with the temerity to call out a lie for what it is must be
punished in whatever way is necessary to maintain the status quo.
And so it goes.
Whilst the last four
years of your ban have been distressing to me there is something more important
than my own fate at stake here. Screen Australia should not have, in senior
management, or on the board, people who believe that the way to deal with
critics, with those who ask awkward questions, is to ban them; to destroy their
careers. The mind-set within an organization such as Screen Australia that
views the banning of a filmmaker as an appropriate response to criticism is not
the mind-set required to foster the development of ground-breaking film and TV
projects. It is a mind-set that harks back to Soviet block thinking of several
decades ago. Particularly in the age in which we live, in which all filmmaking
rules have been thrown to the wind with the advent of digital cameras,
home-edit suites, You Tube and social media straight-jacket, punitive thinking
of the kind Screen Australia indulges is out of step with the times in which we
live. Young filmmakers should feel free to challenge senior management, to
challenge the board without the fear
that in so doing they could wind up, like myself, banned for exercising their
right to free speech. If I were in your position, Al, Rosemary (and Graeme) and
some upstart clever young filmmaker were to tell me, politely or not so
politely, that my ideas were old hat, redundant, that I was (to use the
vernacular of the day) full of shit I would smile to myself and invite them to
come and, at the very least, share a coffee with me and expound on their
reasons why I am full of shit. They may
be right! Do you want young filmmakers who are compliant, who obey the rules
(regardless of how ridiculous they are) or young men and women whose attitude
is: “Fuck your rules.”
If you have the courage
of your convictions, Al and Rosemary, if you really believe that I am guilty of
offenses so heinous that banning me is the only option open to the board, meet
with me this week, with Kent Purvis from the office of the Ombudsman in
attendance, and lay your evidence on the table – both literally and
figuratively. If you have a strong case in support of my guilt, present it. I
am back in Australia for one week so if you have any interest at all keeping
this matter out of court this is the week to meet with me.
Or if you, like Graeme
Mason, you believe that alleged evidence of my guilt must never sees the light
of day, let’s sort this out in a court of law in which facts and evidence (and
not mere assertions) will reveal just who is playing fast and loose with the
truth – myself or Screen Australia? Your choice.
If you decide to go down
the ‘court route’ how much, from Screen Australia’s limited pool of precious
financial resources, will you, as board members, allow Graeme Mason to spend
defending SA’s legal right to withhold from me evidence of my guilt of the
charges laid against me? $10,000? $20,000? $50,000
best wishes
James Ricketson
cc Senator Mitch Fifield, Minister for the Arts
Ms Louise Vardanega, Australian Government Solicitor
(acting)
Mr Kent Purvis, Office of the Ombudsman
Kingston Anderson, Australian Director’s Guild.
Graeme
Mason
Chief
Executive
Screen
Australia
Level 7,
45 Jones St
Ultimo 2007
18th July 2016
Dear Graeme
It is a shame
that neither you nor members of the Screen Australia Board have availed
yourselves of the many opportunities presented to you to resolve this dispute
amicably and without the need to involve the Supreme Court. The most recent of
these was a week ago, 11th July, when I issued an invitation to the
Screen Australia Board to meet with me whilst I was in Sydney for a week.
As with all such
invitations on my part this past four years, this one was ignored. Screen
Australia will not agree to any meeting with myself in which evidence of my
guilt will be, literally and metaphorically, on the table. The reason? Because
there is no evidence. You know this.
It is a great
shame that the Minister for the Arts does not believe Screen Australia to be
under any obligation to provide me with evidence that I am guilty of
intimidating or placing at risk members of Screen Australia’s staff. The mere
assertion of my guilt is enough for Senator Fifield to agree, no questions
asked, to the termination of the career of an Australian filmmaker – if, that
is, Caroline Fulton has even brought this matter to the Minister’s attention?
And it is a
great shame that the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to date, has shown no interest in
evidence of my guilt (or innocence) and certainly no interest in getting all
parties involved in the same room for a meeting in which a fair and amicable
resolution could be arrived at based on evidence; on facts. My multiple
attempts to facilitate such a meeting, over a period of four years, have been
ignored.
In your capacity
as Chief Executive you too could have arranged for such a meeting to take place
– as I suggested to you in the first weeks of your new job. You clearly do not
see conciliation as part of your job. No, in this matter, you see your job as
repeating tired lies about ‘Chanti’s World’ in the hope that by sheer repetition
they will become true. You have decided to defend Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron
at all costs and with no respect for either facts or evidence. Rather than
presenting me with evidence of the offences Screen Australia alleges have led
to my being banned (for six years now!) you have sought to override both the
letter and the spirit of FOI legislation by banning me from making FOI requests
to obtain this evidence. Jane Supit, Head of Legal, has not had the
professional courtesy to even acknowledge receipt of my letters regarding FOI!
I will lodge a complaint
about my being banned from making FOI requests with the Information
Commissioner. In the meantime, and with much reluctance, I will now set in
motion legal action against Screen Australia with a view to obtaining the
evidence you are so keen to withhold.
If this matter
does result in a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court (as seems certain,
given yours and the Screen Australia board’s intransigence) I wonder how much
money Screen Australia will expend arguing its legal right to withhold from me
evidence of the offences that have led to Screen Australia’s ongoing two year
bans? As you know, these bans make it close to impossible for me to make films
in this country?
And you go along
with this nonsense, Graeme!
cheers
James Ricketson
