Doubts Surrounding Creative Australia’s Peer-Review Grants Process

Recent controversies have cast a shadow over Creative Australia’s peer-review process for distributing arts grants, raising questions about transparency, fairness, and the risk of stifling artistic freedom. The backlash, particularly following the Khaled Sabsabi Venice Biennale debacle, has exposed flaws in the organisation’s decision-making, prompting calls for reform to restore trust in its funding model.

The Creative Australia (CA) peer-review system, designed to ensure impartiality in arts funding, has been criticised for inconsistent application and susceptibility to external pressures. The decision to initially rescind Sabsabi’s 2026 Venice Biennale appointment, only to reinstate it after public and sector outcry, highlighted a lack of robust governance. An external review by Blackhall & Pearl found no single governance failure but noted “a series of missteps, assumptions and missed opportunities,” including the absence of a contentious issues report, a standard practice for other grant processes. This flip-flopping, as arts commentator Esther Anatolitis remarked, “undermines the integrity of the process and erodes public confidence in CA’s commitment to artistic independence” (The Guardian, 2025).

Critics argue that CA’s response to controversy risks prioritising risk management over creativity. The review’s recommendation for a formalised risk identification policy for future Biennale selections has sparked fears of a “corporate-style” approach that could marginalise bold or politically challenging artists. “If grants are tested against vague public accountability criteria, it opens the door to censorship,” warned Professor Callum Morton, a former Biennale selection panel chair. Such measures could favour “safe” choices, potentially sidelining diverse voices and stifling innovation.

The current Labor government’s oversight of CA has drawn scrutiny, with some arguing it has failed to address these systemic issues effectively. Shadow Arts spokesperson Julian Leeser has called the process “deeply flawed,” questioning CA’s credibility as a vehicle for cultural diplomacy. The lack of clear feedback for unsuccessful applicants, as seen in the struggles of regional galleries facing funding cuts, further fuels perceptions of opacity.

Restoring trust will require CA to strengthen its peer-review framework, ensuring transparency and independence from political or public pressures. Without reform, the arts sector risks losing its vibrancy, as artists and institutions face growing uncertainty in securing vital funding.