Opposition demands Creative Australia face ‘independent review’

Opposition arts spokesman Julian Leeser has demanded an independent inquiry into the nation’s top taxpayer funded arts body.

Opposition arts spokesman Julian Leeser. Picture: Jeremy Piper

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Opposition arts spokesman Julian Leeser has demanded an independent inquiry into the nation’s top taxpayer-funded arts body, saying the organisation appears to suffer from “systemic governance issues” in its grant processes.

His call comes after The Australian revealed that the artists judging government grants for other artists have themselves been recent recipients from the same pool of taxpayer funds, raising concerns that the body is susceptible to “cronyism”.

Mr Leeser said there had not been the “necessary distance” between some of the grants that would give the public “confidence … that arts grants are being administered with proper governance and probity”.

The fresh challenge for Creative Australia comes after the recent Khaled Sabsabi saga, where the organisation chose, dumped, and then chose again Sabsabi to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale, a decision Arts Minister Tony Burke has backed.

Sabsabi was terminated from the role after a furore over an earlier work depicting a slain Hezbollah leader, which Mr Burke has said did the “exact opposite” of promoting ­terrorism.

“There seems to be real and systemic governance problems at Creative Australia,” Mr Leeser told The Australian. “Creative Australia was established by Tony Burke and he hand-picked its board members.

“Earlier this month, Creative Australia received a damning report about the processes they used to determine who should represent Australia at the Venice Biennale. And now, The Australian has revealed that there appears to be systemic governance issues in their grant processes.

“There is nothing wrong with peer reviews, but when those who assess grant applications one year are awarded grants the next, it lacks the necessary distance for the public to have confidence in the current Creative Australia grant process and its outcomes.

“I am writing to Tony Burke to ask him to launch an independent inquiry. Taxpayers and the broader Australian community need to have confidence arts grants are being administered with proper governance and probity.”

Mr Burke dismissed the demand. “Oh dear. You can tell Mr Leeser is new to the portfolio,” he said. “ The processes used to determine who should represent Australia at the Venice Biennale were the same processes that have been used for years, including under the previous government.

“The process … is the same process of peer review used by the previous government. If Mr Leeser has found a way to conduct peer review without involving peers, he should explain this.”

The Australian revealed the peer assessment model meant 32.6 per cent of panellists who recommended grants had been recipients themselves in the past six years. This amounted to $17.7m of a total $102m given to individuals during this time.

Analysis also revealed there had been numerous instances of artists receiving grants after being judged by creatives they had previously assessed.

Creative Australia defended its “rigorous” peer assessor process.

“Creative Australia has strict processes in place to ensure every application is assessed on its merit, guided by clear, published criteria and independently scored by panels of high qualified assessors,” a spokeswoman said. “These assessors are drawn from a diverse national pool of experts, including artists, cultural leaders and practitioners across disciplines, locations and communities. We have rigorous systems in place to manage potential conflicts of interest.

“Assessors must declare any personal or professional connections to an application or applicant and where there are clear conflicts – actual or perceived – the assessor will not participate in scoring or deliberations.

“Creative Australia operates with strong public accountability and transparency. The names of peer assessors, awarded grants and policies around conflicts of interest are available on our website.”

One artist identified has since told The Australian he did not know the other artist – who had been on a panel to recommend him a grant and then, years afterwards, he served on a panel that recommended a grant to her – and he did not realise that she had been on the panel. “I didn’t even check that,” Ouyang Yu said. “I didn’t do anything wrong. If I made any decision on anything, it was purely based on merit.”