For Mitch Fifield Minister for (non) Communication

Senator Mitch Fifield

Minister for Communications and the Arts

Level 2


4 National Circuit


Barton, ACT 2600                                                                                         

22^nd August 2016

Dear Senator Fifield

Following on from my previous letters, not one of which you have bothered to acknowledge receipt of.

In a letter to my lawyer dated 9^th August, Screen Australia’s Head of Legal, Jane Supit, justifies the organization’s latest two year ban on me on the following grounds:

5.1.  Mr Ricketson has engaged in a persistent pattern of unreasonable and highly offensive conduct towards members of Screen Australia’s Board Members and staff. 


5.2.  On this basis Screen Australia has properly determined that Mr Ricketson is ineligible for funding…

Given that it would be quite unreasonable to ban a filmmaker for being unreasonable, it is my alleged my “highly offensive conduct” that needs to be addressed.

Is there any evidence at all, between May 2014 and May 2016, that my conduct towards SA staff and members of the board was “highly offensive”?

Ms Supit’s choice of words is designed to obfuscate; to create the illusion that there has been some interpersonal contact between myself and members of staff and the board this past two years. This is not so.

Between May 2014 and May 2016 I have not met with any member of Screen Australia’s staff. I have not met with any member of the Screen Australia board. I have not spoken with any member of staff or the board on the phone. Consequently, Ms Supit’s reference to ‘conduct’ can only apply to letters I have written.

It follows that evidence of my “highly offensive conduct” must be found in letters of mine written between May 2014 and May 2016.  Screen Australia refuses to supply any such evidence to me.

As Jane Supit knows, there has been no-one, this past four years, (including the Minister for the Arts) in a position to insist that evidence be provided in support of the ban on me.  Ms Supit knows that she can place whatever she wishes on file and that no-one will ask her to back up what she writes with evidence. In doing so she joins Fiona Cameron, Ruth Harley and Graeme Mason from senior management within Screen Australia in the creation of the fiction that I intimidate staff, that I place them at risk, that I behave in a highly offensive manner. Whilst perhaps not, strictly speaking, defamatory, such lies effectively destroy my reputation in the eyes of anyone who reads the files. And this will be the case in perpetuity; until these false allegations are revealed for what they are – false allegations.

Yet again I have requested of the Commonwealth Ombudsman evidence that, between May 2014 and may 2016, I wrote letters to Screen Australia staff and the board that contained anything that could be deemed to be “highly offensive.” I have been asking of the Ombudsman for four years that he insist on evidence in support of allegations and not rely merely on allegations. To date my requests have fallen on deaf ears. I have also been asking you, Minister, to request of Screen Australia evidence of my alleged crimes. You have ignored all of my correspondence. Or is it more accurate to say that Caroline Fulton has ignored it? That Caroline Fulton has not seen it as being of sufficient importance to bring to your attention?

Until such time as I am provided with evidence of my guilt of any of the allegations that have been levelled at me by Screen Australia this past four years I will continue to advocate my innocence and will, if need be, pursue this matter in the Supreme Court.

In many of my letters this past two years I have suggested and requested meetings with members of Screen Australia staff and the board to resolve this dispute. These requests have been ignored.  Perhaps Ms Supit  includes all these letters, all these requests for dialogue, for mediation, for evidence of my “highly offensive conduct’, as evidence my being ‘unreasonable.’

Mr Fifield, I would like to travel to Canberra to meet with you at your earliest possible convenience. I request that you place on the table, in such a meeting, at least three extracts from my correspondence that you believe warrant my being banned for six years for the reasons provided by Screen Australia.

If you accede to this request I strongly suggest that you read the following, in full. It is my blow by blow refutation of the charges laid against me from 19^th Sept. 2012:

http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/letter-of-14th-sept-to-elizabeth.html

A quote:

“…some clarity on what has occurred this past three years is required – especially since it was you who effectively banned me as a ‘proven producer’ back in June 2009 and have so played a significant role as a catalyst in the initiation of the dispute between myself and Screen Australia – a subject to which I will return below. In the meantime, however, let’s be clear where we stand with Liz being ‘distressed’ by my email yesterday. Is ‘being distressed’ the same as ‘feeling intimidated’? If so, am I also able to claim, having been enormously distressed by the way that Screen Australia has dealt with ‘Chanti’s World’, that I have been intimidated by yourself, by Ross, by Claire, by Fiona, by Ruth Harley? Of course not.

Unless you are using a dictionary whose definition of ‘intimidate’ is radically different from the two I consulted (Oxford and Funk and Wagnalls), lets work with these two:

“To make timid, scare. To discourage from acting by threats of violence.”

            “Overawe with fear, especially in order to influence conduct.”

Have I sought to scare Liz or to discourage her from acting in any way with a threat of violence? Have I sought to overawe her with fear in order to influence her conduct?

Your use of the word ‘aggressive’ is also worthy of comment. My aggression has manifested itself in asking questions that Liz , Ross, Julia, Claire, Fiona, Ruth and yourself simply refuse to answer – transparency and accountability not being priorities in SA as it is currently being administered. That you should define the asking of questions, the repeated asking of questions that I have a right to ask, as ‘aggressive’ explains why and how it is that you can send me pretty well every letter and email I have written to Screen Australia and refer to it as ‘intimidating’. I am still somewhat at a loss, however, to understand how my correspondence has placed Liz or anyone else at Screen Australia ‘at risk’ – unless, that is, it is at risk of being distressed by being asked questions. Can you please explain to me what, in Screen Australia-speak, ‘at risk’ means? This is not a rhetorical question but I feel sure that it falls into the category of questions that no-one at Screen Australia is prepared to answer - standard SA operating procedure.”

‘At risk’ is the sort of language used in applications for Apprehended Violence Orders. ‘At risk’ was employed by Screen Australia in a crude attempt to present me in as unfavourable a light as possible. Screen Australia succeeded in its intentions. If you can provide any evidence at all that I posed a risk to any member of Screen Australia staff, please place it on the table in the meeting I am proposing.

yours sincerely

James Ricketson

Graeme Mason

Fiona Cameron

Louise Vardanega

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Australian Director’s Guild

Another letter for Al Clarke - fellow filmmaker and member of the Screen Australia board

I had hoped that this letter to Al Clarke, sent a week ago, might elicit a response of some kind (“James, lets talk about this over a cup of coffee.”) but then I had hoped this would be the response to the other letters I have written to Al this past 16 months.

Al Clarke

Screen Australia Board

Screen Australia

Level 7, 45 Jones St

Ultimo 2007

10^th August 2016

Dear Al

Four years down the track we have entered the realm of high farce:

“Screen Australia will continue to ban you, Mr Ricketson, for as long as you continue to intimidate and harass staff with your persistent asking for evidence that you intimidated and placed at risk Screen Australia staff prior to May 2012.”

A tale of Kafkaesque absurdity, with elements of Monty Python and Alice in Wonderland thrown in for good measure!

Do you go along with this nonsense, Al? Did you vote with your fellow Screen Australia board members to ban me in May 2016?  For the third time!

Or did vote not to ban me but were outvoted by your fellow board members?  I hope this is the case. Or I hope, at least, that you asked Graeme Mason and Fiona Cameron to provide you with evidence of my guilt? And I hope, if you were provided with some evidence, that you might have said to your fellow board members, “Shouldn’t we, as a matter of natural justice, professional courtesy, be sharing this evidence with James?”

If there is evidence in my correspondence of my having intimidated and placed at risk members of SA staff it will be on file. It’s being made public, if such evidence exists, would destroy my reputation – as it should if I am guilty as charged. Any filmmaker who intimidates members of staff of any film funding organization deserves to be banned. If he (or she) also places staff at risk his or her behavior should be brought to the attention of the police and an AVO taken out against them. This did not happen because the original charges were, as you know, nonsense. Now, four years down the track, my saying that the charges were nonsense, that both Ruth Harley and Fiona Cameron played fast and loose with the truth, is the evidence upon which you base your biennial bans!

Really, Al! Is this your idea of natural justice?

I suspect not. I suspect that the ban on me is a huge embarrassment to you. And, hopefully, to others on the board also. Unfortunately, the board has been digging itself into a hole for four years now and can’t easily dig itself out without admitting that the original ban on me was a huge cock–up that should never have happened.

The SA board can stick resolutely to its guns in August 2016 because it knows that there is no-one who will ask for evidence that I am guilty as charged -  not the Minister for the Arts; not the Commonwealth Ombudsman (to date at least) and not the Australian Directors Guild.

And the board knows that the one body in possession of the evidence of my alleged offences  - the Australian Government Solicitor - is under no obligation to appraise me of this evidence owing to client confidentiality! This could be overcome if the ‘client’, technically Graeme Mason, were to agree that I have right to know the evidence in support of the proposition that I am guilty as charged. That Graeme will not release Ms Vardanega from her legal obligations raises the question: “Why not? What is there in Ruth Harley’s allegations about me that must remain under lock and key?”

My guess is that you are not fine with all this but must go along with it as an expression of solidarity with the board and as an expression of confidence in Graeme Mason and Fiona Cameron. To do otherwise might upset the Screen Australia apple cart.

Screen Australia will argue (in court if need be, no doubt) that the ban on me does not apply to the Producer’s Offset. You know that in the real world in which we filmmakers must work, dependent as we are on the good will of Screen Australia,  the ban on me is the kiss of death to any project with my name attached to it. It would be a very brave (or foolhardy!)  fellow screenwriter, director or producer who would enter into a collaborative relationship with me knowing that Screen Australia claims I am prone to intimidating and placing members of its staff at risk. And if I place members of SA staff at risk, might I not also place at risk filmmakers with whom I collaborate? Imagine the outcry if I made real the risk that Screen Australia claims I pose; if my alleged tendency to place people at risk were to be made manifest in action!

“Ricketson a risk to fellow filmmakers!” That’s the headline. The byline:

“Screen Australia funded this film project knowing that one of its participants,  Ricketson, by Screen Australia’s own admission, posed a danger to others.”

The Murdoch press would have a field day!

Surely Screen Australia owes a duty of care to my fellow filmmakers and would be remiss in not protecting them from any association with such a dangerous individual as myself!

You can see, Al, I am sure, the hole that Screen Australia has dug for itself. How Screen Australia digs itself out of the hole I have no idea. And nor does Screen Australia – other than to keep digging and hope that I will stop harassing and intimidating senior management with my persistent insistence that I have a right to be appraised of the evidence in support of the proposition that I am guilty as charged.

My only remaining option, in the absence of evidence of my guilt, is to obtain it through action in the Supreme Court.

cheers

James

Cc Senator Mitch Fifield, Minister for the Arts

Graeme Mason

Fiona Cameron

Louise Vardanega

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Australian Director’s Guild

Evidence of my having intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen Australia staff still kept under lock and key

Louise Vardanega

Australian Government Solicitor (acting)                                                                                                    

9^th August 2016

Dear Ms Vardanega

Further to my recent correspondence regarding Screen Australia’s ban on myself.

On 9^th may 2012 the Australian Government Solicitor provided Screen Australia with confidential legal advice regarding myself. Quoting from a document obtained through FOI, under the heading, Proposed Resolution:

“The Board notes the advice of the Australian Government Solicitor, dated 9 May 2012 in relation to Mr Ricketson.”

It is clear from what occurred that same day, and which was communicated to me by Ruth Harley, that the Australian Government Solicitor had advised Screen Australia that it was within the organization’s legal rights to change its Terms of Trade in order to ban me.

It follows that Screen Australia must have provided the Australian Government Solicitor with evidence that I had persistently treated Screen Australia staff in a discourteous, hurtful and intimidating fashion.” (I am quoting from the amended Terms of Trade)

Ruth Harley expressed my offence thus:

“…Your correspondence places our staff at risk. We are under a legal obligation to protect our staff from harassment and intimidation.”

For more than four years I have been asking to be provided with the evidence of my guilt – the same evidence that must have been provided to the Australian Government Solicitor.

Screen Australia has refused to provide me with even one instance in which I intimidated or placed at risk members of staff.

The Australian film and TV industry is relatively small. Most members of it are known to each other – at least by name and reputation. It was not necessary for Screen Australia to actually publish any statement to the effect that I had intimidated and placed at risk members of staff for this to become widely known – especially given the presence on the Screen Australia board over the years of half a dozen or so filmmakers.

Given the role that Screen Australia plays in the development of film and TV projects and in the provision of production funding, any fellow filmmaker wishing to work with me, to collaborate with me, has had to weigh up the question this past four years:

“Does it make sense to align myself with someone who, it is alleged, intimidates and places at risk members of SA staff? What chance does any project I am involved with have of going into production with James Ricketson attached to it?”

On two more occasions since May 2012 (in May 2014 and May 2016) Screen Australia has banned me. On each occasion I have asked to be provided with evidence in support of the proposition that I am guilty as charged. On each occasion I have been provided with reasons as vague as those provided today, to the lawyer representing me, by Jane Supit:

“Ricketson should stop writing offensive correspondence to and about Screen Australia Board Members and staff, and to remove offensive correspondence from his blogpost.”

My requests to have such “offensive correspondence” pointed out to me, quoted to me, are always met with silence.

I am not a lawyer but surely the imposition of a penalty as serious as the banning of a filmmaker requires more, by way of evidence, than simply a reference to  “offensive correspondence”. Would such an assertion stand up in any court of law if it were not backed up by example of such “offensive correspondence”? No.

Natural justice demands that an accused person be appraised of the evidence in support of the allegations made against him (or her) and be in a position to defend him/herself. This opportunity has been denied me – not only by Screen Australia but also by the Australian Government Solicitor.

Screen Australia claims that there is no impediment to my accessing the Producer’s Offset; that a company in which I am a director can communicate with Screen Australia? Yes, in theory, but what filmmaker is going to want to form a company with a fellow filmmaker who is banned and who, it has been alleged, intimidates and places at risk members of staff?

I do appreciate that you, as Australian Government Solicitor (acting) cannot reveal to me the evidence that Ruth Harley presented to your office in 2012 without the permission of Graeme Mason, who has made it clear that he will not provide such permission. Please rest assured that whatever evidence was provided to the Australian Government Solicitor was untrue. I did not, prior to May 2012, intimidate or place at risk any member of SA staff.

I am placing this on record because it seems, now that almost all avenues have been explored, to no avail,  that I will be left with no alternative, if I wish to obtain evidence of my alleged guilt, but to do so through the courts. As I have stated often: this will be an experience and time-consuming process for all involved. It should not be necessary. And would not be necessary if you were to release, make public, the evidence upon which the Australian Government Solicitor agreed to my being banned – even if this means defying your client, Graeme Mason.

best wishes

James Ricketson