Tony Burke’s handling of APY probe attacked by top Aboriginal art academic Brenda Croft
Brenda Croft, one of the nation’s most senior arts academics, says her removal from a ‘toothless’ government probe into the APY Arts Centre Collective was a ‘stitch-up’.
One of the nation’s most senior arts academics claims she was removed from a government probe into alleged unethical practices at the APY Arts Centre Collective for not being “the right type of Aborigine” and that there is a political attempt to squash the inquiry.
The tri-government probe into the white hands on Indigenous art scandal – launched by Arts Minister Tony Burke – was thrown into turmoil by the accusations of Brenda Croft – head of Indigenous art history at the Australian National University – on the same day three panellists with significantly less experience in art were appointed to the panel.
South Australian Arts Minister Andrea Michaels told The Australian she “suspected it would be more difficult” for the investigation to be conducted fairly while controversial arts boss Skye O’Meara remained at the helm of the APYACC and she would like to see her step aside.
The revelations threaten to derail the hopes of Aboriginal artists who wanted to see a thorough investigation into the claims of bullying, coercive control and white staff painting substantial sections of Indigenous pictures at the APYACC‘s studios. The APYACC and Ms O’Meara have denied any wrongdoing.
Professor Croft said she had been approached by Ms Michaels to be the key arts adviser on the panel more than a month ago.
But on Friday, Ms Michaels phoned Professor Croft to tell her she was “not the right fit” to be on the panel to investigate the accusations against the APYACC leadership, revealed by The Australian.
“I’m just not the right type of Aborigine,” Professor Croft said on Sunday. “I’m known for speaking my mind. I don’t ever kowtow to anyone and I have absolute intellectual rigour and knowledge in this area.”
Professor Croft claimed that her exclusion from the panel, “goes all the way up to Tony Burke … it was always going to get squashed”.
“This has been a stitch-up from the get-go,” Professor Croft said. “The review is toothless, it can only make recommendations.”
She added: “They’ll all say they are friends of the Aborigines … as long as they know their place and do what we want.”
Mr Burke on Sunday rejected Professor Croft’s claims and said he had not had any involvement in the panel selection.
“I have no idea what Professor Croft is talking about,” Mr Burke told The Australian.
“The panel was selected by the South Australian government which is dealing with this issue professionally and sensitively.”
Professor Croft also claimed Mr Burke might have a conflict of interest given his connections to the head of the National Gallery, Nick Mitzevich – who was due to put APYACC works at the centre of a major exhibition – and NGA board member Sally Scales, who is also on the APYACC board.
Neither Mr Mitzevich nor Ms Scales has been accused of any wrongdoing.
The NGA has been embroiled in the scandal, postponing its major winter exhibition, Ngura Pulka – which featured artists from the APYACC’s studios – until it conducts a thorough investigation into the provenance of the paintings.
Ms Michaels said she “suspected it would be more difficult” for the investigation to be conducted fairly while Ms O’Meara remained at the helm and she would prefer the APYACC chief to step aside.
“But I do not have the power to stand someone down,” Ms Michaels said.
Only the board could do that and these board members would have to account for their actions.
“Whoever is on the board has to deal with that,” she said.
“They have to comply with directors’ duties … they’re responsible for ensuring (artists and staffers) have a safe workplace.”
The review, headed by South Australia, “will examine the governance, management and practices of the APYACC and its member art centres as well as allegations made against the APYACC in relation to these matters.”
Ms Michaels is set to announce on Monday that two Indigenous people, Megan Krakouer from Western Australia and Cameron Costello from Queensland, will sit on the panel alongside the senior South Australian barrister, Anne Sibree.
Ms Krakouer, a Menang woman, is an expert on Indigenous trauma and worked on the National Justice Project; Mr Costello, a Quandamooka man, is deputy chair of the Queensland Tourism Council.
The three panellists have limited direct experience in the arts, although Mr Costello worked for four years as a program manager in Indigenous Arts for the Queensland government. Ms Sibree, from Selby St Chambers, had been the senior counsel at the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement.
None has anything like the decades of arts experience of Professor Croft, who had been approached by Ms Michaels to be the key arts adviser on the panel more than a month ago.
The ANU academic is one of Australia’s most respected and experienced Indigenous arts figures and at the end of the year she will go to the US to take up the Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser Chair of Australian Studies at Harvard University, only the second Indigenous person, after Mick Dodson, to be appointed to the prestigious post.
“And now all my skills and expertise are not worth a dime,” Professor Croft said.
She said she believed she was excluded because she was demanding a proper investigation and that Ms O’Meara should step down.
“Right from the outset I told them that I was not here to pussyfoot around and to make friends,” she said. “I told them that I would not sign a confidentiality agreement … I didn’t want it to be another Bringing Them Home report, another Black Deaths report, where they say ‘thanks very much for all your hard work’, and then do nothing.”
Professor Croft said she had suggested a number of people for the panel including professor Peter Yu, a former director of the Kimberley Land Council; former minister for Aboriginal affairs, Fred Chaney; and the Northern Territory Treaty Commissioner, Tony McAvoy SC. None of them was appointed.
Ms Michaels told The Australian that while she had approached Professor Croft to be on the panel, she was one of a number of people approached.
“She was never appointed to the panel and so she has not been removed,” Ms Michaels said.
The panel needed to be open-minded to get to the truth and there was a view that Professor Croft was too set in her views.
“I really just want them (the panel) to find out the truth,” Ms Michaels said.
“And the panel we appointed is a panel we believe will get to the truth.”
Professor Croft said this claim was “bullshit” and that Ms Michaels knew of her strong views when she first approached her to be on the panel.
