Creative Australia’s decisions should be peer reviewed and at arm’s length. Where did things go wrong?
- Written by: Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne
For the past three weeks the arts have been dominated by a recent decision made by the board of Creative Australia. On February 7 it was announced Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino had been chosen as the artistic team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale in 2026.
One week later, the board announced Sabsabi and Dagostino would no longer be representing the country because their selection would cause “a prolonged and divisive debate”.
This about-turn represents a low point in the relationship between artists and their funding body, Creative Australia.
Creative Australia (known as the Australia Council until 2023) has historically endured many attacks from the public, the media and political parties. This past weekend, for example, The Weekend Australian published three different stories critiquing Creative Australia and its arts funding processes.
While the amount of money Creative Australia receives is minuscule in relation to overall government spending (in 2023–24 it received A$258 million), the arts themselves enjoy a profile much greater than their monetary value.
So how does Creative Australia operate? And what does this decision on Sabsabi mean for its relationship with artists?
What is the peer review system?
Funding decisions at Creative Australia are based on two key principles: peer review, and arm’s length funding.
Peer review means decisions on who is funded are made by artists and arts workers with a deep understanding of the artform at hand.
Arm’s length funding means that, while the government funds Creative Australia, artists are supported free from direct political intervention.
The Australia Council, established in 1975, was originally structured around several artform boards, made up of peers from each of the artform sectors. These peers were given the task of overseeing their artforms and making funding decisions. Peers were selected by the government, usually after nomination by the Australia Council, and served terms of between two to five years.
Membership of an artform board was seen as an honour as well as a duty by those selected: a way of influencing funding decisions, but also a way of giving back to the sector.
As a result of an internal review in 2012, the process of peer decision making changed dramatically. The Australia Council in 2013 removed the artform boards (with a couple of exceptions) and introduced an ad hoc peer system where individuals were asked to self-nominate if they wanted to be part of the selection process. Staff then chose individuals, from a large pool of peers, to sit on a panel for each funding round.
As a result of the 2013 reforms the relationship with the minister for the arts was also changed. Up till then, the minister only had the power to appoint the members of the Australia Council board and the members of the various artform boards. In 2013 the act was changed so the minister could also give policy direction to the Australia Council.
In 2019, another category of selector was introduced. Industry advisors advise on multi-year funded applications, with the final decision made by Creative Australia staff.
The changing make-up of decision makers
The membership of the Australia Council’s governing board was historically more politicised, but its members were also often leading figures in the field.
The chair position was usually a leading figure from the arts and cultural field, including writers Donald Horne, Rodney Hall and Hilary McPhee, and music specialist Margaret Seares.
In the 2000s this changed under the Howard government, with the re-framing of the arts as businesses. This led to the appointment of business-people onto the board, particularly as chairs. Chairs this century have included business leaders David Gonski, James Strong, Rupert Myer and now Robert Morgan.
This meant priorities other than artform quality were introduced into the overall decision making.
The Venice Biennale process
Australia has been participating in the Venice Biennale since 1954.
Until 2019 there was a commissioner responsible for the selection of the Australian artist. The role was occupied by notable individuals in the arts world, such as philanthropist and art collector Simon Mordant. Artists would be individually invited by the commissioner to be the Venice representative.
In 2019 the Australia Council took over the role, and the process changed to an application system where artists were assessed by a panel of experts, before the final representatives (such as Sabsabi and Dagostino for 2026) were selected from a shortlist of six.
While all of the details of what happened in the lead up to rescinding Sabsabi’s invitation are unknown, some facts have been laid out: The Australian published an article criticising his selection; Coalition arts spokesperson Claire Chandler asked about his selection in Question Time; and Arts Minister Tony Burke phoned Creative Australia CEO Adrian Collette.
That night, Collette and the board decided Sabsabi’s invitation would be rescinded.
Who gets a say in the arts?
It seems now the funding model that Australia has created for the arts may no longer be serving the artists. The board’s decision following Burke’s phone call to Collette calls into question the principles of peer review and arm’s length funding.
The structure and decision-making processes of Creative Australia should now be reviewed as a matter of urgency. The peer system works remarkably well if structured appropriately. At present it would seem it is not.
Artists deserve a body that defends their rights, so they are not sacrificed for political needs.
Authors: Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne
