The inside story of how Australia's moment to shine in the arts world went horribly wrong
On December 16 last year, Collette and Creative Australia's head of visual arts, Mikala Tai, conferred and the pair's selection was confirmed, the decision tightly held in the organisation for weeks for fear it would leak.
Among the select few with knowledge of the successful team, the decision was regarded as 'bold' or 'courageous' – Sabsabi's Lebanese heritage and public pro-Palestinian stance connected him to the Middle East at a time when conflict in that region was emotive and polarising.
But a week before the planned February 7 announcement, police lobbed their own explosive device into this febrile mix, going public with their investigations into a caravan loaded with explosives in north-west Sydney.
The incident was quickly labelled a 'terrorism threat', although later the Federal Police would describe it as 'a criminal con job'. By then, a federal election was imminent and polling showed voters were starting to turn against Labor.
Loading
Two days after the caravan discovery, Creative Australia briefed Minister for Arts Tony Burke on its upcoming announcement. Mention was made in the ministerial dispatch that Sabsabi, along with other artists, had withdrawn from the Sydney Festival in 2022 in protest after the festival accepted funding from the Israeli Embassy, 'out of solidarity with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause'.
But the minister's office was not alerted to historical works which would later be raised in the Murdoch press and in parliament, including You (2007), a multichannel video and sound installation featuring imagery of the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, in the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art.
'That the work was seen as highly ambiguous, and already nearly 20 years old … appears to have given staff confidence that any controversy connected with the work could be managed,' the report says. A staff member later left a message with Burke's office alerting them to the work's existence but appears not to have followed that call up.
A 'questionable' matter
The board of Creative Australia was backgrounded on the winning team but played no direct role in the selection process. Members were not alerted to any potential controversies.
Days after the team's announcement, as its sister tabloid paper defended allegations it tried to entrap a Sydney cafe in an antisemitic sting, The Australian described Sabsabi's use of imagery of Nasrallah as 'ambiguous' and 'questionable'.
Collette and senior members of his team were unaware of a second sensitive work, Thank you very much (2006) featuring imagery of the 9/11 attacks and US President George W. Bush, until Senate question time two days later when the Coalition's then-shadow arts minster Claire Chandler rose to her feet.
By all accounts, Chandler's questions sparked panic. Soon after, around 3pm, the CEO, chair and head of public affairs held a call with Creative Australia's external communications advisers, who concluded the negative media narrative around the artist and his prior artworks posed a significant risk to the reputation of Creative Australia if the stories continued to run.
Burke then called Adrian Collette at 3.30pm asking why he was not alerted to the contentious artwork. He later insisted he did not demand Sabsabi's head. The report found that the minister's statement was consistent with the information received by the panel during its review.
Loading
Collette later recalled in testimony to Senate estimates: 'We anticipate always that the selection of the Venice artist will be controversial. It has been from time immemorial.
'Everyone has a view on the artist, on the art. We don't resile from any of those decisions; we haven't in the past. But what happened at that moment was a recognition by me and the board that this entire process was going to be mired in the worst kind of divisive debate.'
At 6.05pm an emergency meeting of the board had been convened, and it was determined to offer the artistic team the opportunity to withdraw from the project under threat of sacking. The board did not seek the advice of the head of visual arts or its head of communications, and did not allow the artist to present his case.
It was beyond the panel's terms of reference to judge the legitimacy of the board's decision, but it's clear the board acted hastily without drawing breath. The board could have announced a review of the team's selection. Instead, it brought a gun.
'Nobody except those involved can ever know how fraught and heartbreaking that meeting was,' board member and artist Lindy Lee later recalled. She resigned the next day.
Officially, the board said it acted to avoid the unacceptable risk to public support for Australia's artistic community of a 'prolonged and divisive debate'.
The panel found the board felt compelled by 'a strongly negative narrative [that] was expected in the media around the artworks and the artist, and the decision to select the artist had become a matter of political debate'.
Another factor that may have been weighing on some board members was the potential for the controversy to be used as a battering ram to reduce the funding and independence of Creative Australia. With an election imminent, Creative Australia faced an existential threat from cuts, real or imagined, as conservatives made every noise they would follow the playbook of Donald Trump in stirring up the culture wars.
Notably, it is in a more benign political environment with Labor securing a thumping majority that Sabsabi and Dagostino have now been reinstated.
In any event, at 7.41pm on February 13, Collette contacted the artistic team and advised them of the board's decision. Sabsabi and Dagostino refused to resign. Forty minutes later, after the board's statement was prepared, Collette made three unsuccessful attempts to contact them.
Sabsabi and Dagostino later recalled being stunned by the turn of events: 'The Venice Biennale is one of the biggest platforms in Australian art,' Sabsabi told this masthead. 'To be selected and then have it withdrawn was devastating. It was heartbreaking and has caused ongoing anxiety. It's had a serious impact on my career, my wellbeing and my family's wellbeing.'
By 6pm the following day the Herald had broken the news that philanthropist Simon Mordant had resigned, along with Mikala Tai and program manager Tahmina Maskinyar. Petitions and protests followed, the outrage lasting four months until the board voted two weeks ago to rescind its decision.
Had Creative Australia been as well-prepared for the public announcement as it should have been, it is possible that its senior leadership and board may have reached a conclusion that any controversy around both works could be sensibly managed, the report concluded. The organisation was caught between its conflicting desire to do right by the artists and political realities. Ultimately, the entire mess could have been avoided if cooler heads had prevailed and due processes were followed.
Changes afoot
Former publisher Louise Adler is not the only commentator to draw parallels between the Sabsabi debacle and Antoinette Lattouf, the radio broadcaster who was last week awarded $70,000 after a Federal Court found she was unfairly sacked by the ABC for her political opinions concerning the war in Gaza.
Like Lattouf, Sabsabi's pro-Palestinian views were well known at the time of his appointment, and complaints flooded Creative Australia as soon as the appointment was publicised, cheered on by the Murdoch media.
Holding or expressing a political opinion was held by the federal court as not a valid reason for terminating Lattouf's employment, even at the national broadcaster.
Sabsabi and Dagostino had been selected by an open expression of interest process, by an organisation founded on the principle of artistic independence. Both stand as an abject lesson to the dangers of knee-jerk reactions to pressure tactics.
Sabsabi and Dagostino speak of a sense of renewed confidence that allows them to move forward with optimism and hope after a period of significant and collective hardship. The arts world feels vindicated by their intervention.
Loading
It's likely there will be changes to the Venice selection process, and there is every indication that Collette, an experienced arts administrator, will seek to make things right, and then make a diplomatic exit.
'At the end of the day, Adrian became the kingmaker,' said one campaigner. 'He brought the recommendation to the board. The buck stops with him.'
Mikala Tai made a rare statement via social media after a period of media silence in which she said she had come to learn why she wanted to work in the arts industry. 'I have also learnt a lot about cultural leadership. That we have conferred leadership on administrators and that this is a distraction from the fact that artists remain the heart of the industry and that the moment we forget the artist, we sacrifice the industry.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Is the world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe? This expert thinks so
Fitz: Lights, camera, Kevin07! MP: Yes, and in parliament, the issues of concern to my Fremantle constituents tended to be the same things I was passionate about: that Australia should be a good global citizen, protect the environment, respect human rights and animal welfare, practice good governance and [be an] advocate for nuclear disarmament. Fitz: And what propelled you to leave parliament a decade later, even though by that point you'd had a stint as the minister for international development in the second Rudd government? MP: I'd been there for three terms and felt it was time to let someone else have the extraordinary privilege of being the federal MP for Freo. And frankly I was pretty burnt out. The next year I was asked to become an ambassador for ICAN Australia, and it went from there. Fitz: Which brings us indeed to ICAN. What is the central idea? MP: The idea is to abolish nuclear weapons globally. The campaign started in Melbourne in 2007, with a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table who decided to start a campaign based on earlier successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions, as well as chemical and biological weapons – you ban these inhumane weapons, and they become morally and legally unacceptable. Within 10 years of having started that campaign, ICAN had become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva, made up of hundreds of partner organisations around the world. It won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to highlight the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for helping to get a new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at the UN General Assembly with the support of 122 countries. That treaty is basically the only bright light for nuclear disarmament, which had been stalled for decades. Fitz: And yet while half the countries of the world have signed that treaty, and many more support it, Australia still isn't one of them? MP: Not yet. Anthony Albanese, in 2018 when he was in opposition, introduced a resolution to the national ALP platform, that Labor in government would join the treaty and Anthony, I think, has a personal commitment on this issue. Labor is now in its second term of government and it has a great opportunity to honour that platform commitment and its own strong history of championing nuclear disarmament by joining the treaty. There will, of course, be resistance from the defence establishment, but Australia's current reliance on US nuclear weapons in our defence policy is both dangerous (because it makes us a nuclear target) and absurd (because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours). If Australia was to join the nuclear ban treaty we would be improving our own security and that of our region and the world. Fitz: Is Iran a signatory of the treaty to ban nuclear weapons? MP: Iran and the United States are both parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1970, which aims to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, requires nuclear-armed states to negotiate disarmament, and allows countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. Israel is not a party to the NPT. None of those countries have yet joined the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and we are encouraging them to do so. But Iran is entitled under the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Loading Fitz: The problem being it's only a small step from having a nuclear energy program to having nuclear weapons? MP: Until the attacks on it by Israel, Iran had been co-operating with international inspectors and engaging in talks with the US about its nuclear program. US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. And so the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran were clear violations of international law, since Iran had not attacked either country, had not threatened an imminent attack on those countries, and did not have nuclear weapons. These attacks were not only illegal but also counterproductive because Iran has now made a decision to suspend its co-operation with international inspections. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and it has never subjected itself to international inspections. It is arguably Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that has emboldened it to be a nuclear bully, to commit atrocities and genocide in Gaza and to attack other countries in the region, not only Iran, but also Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Fitz: But hang on, Melissa, Iran actually had launched some ballistic missiles at Israel before this strike. MP: The two incidents in April and October last year involved Iran responding to assassinations by Israel. They are entirely separate from Israel's June attacks this year, which Netanyahu himself claimed were 'pre-emptive self-defence' based on Iran being close to developing a nuclear weapon, which we know is not the case. That is, even Israel itself is not claiming the June attack on Iran was retaliation for last year's events. Fitz: I confess surprise at the strength of your language. As the executive director of ICAN it seems you're in a quasi-diplomatic role and it is rare that diplomats use very strong language like saying Israel's committing 'genocide' in Gaza. And yet you don't hesitate. MP: Well, I'm an advocate and an international lawyer rather than a diplomat. The word 'genocide' has been applied by many international legal experts to the Israel/Gaza situation, and every major international human rights organisation, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 'Genocide' is not an emotive expression, it is a legal one, applying the terms of the Genocide Convention to what is happening in Gaza, and it is very clear. The International Court of Justice has said it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You know it's not a controversial opinion in most of the world. Fitz: And you take it as absolute fact that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons? How do you know? MP: The same way we know that every other non-nuclear weapon state that is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not developing nuclear weapons, because there's a very strict inspections regime that's carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the international community trusts. US intelligence and IAEA had both assessed that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. So I'm not saying it as a guess or an assumption. Fitz: And so the net result of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities a fortnight ago? Loading MP: The world is on the brink of nuclear catastrophe right now. These events expose the double standards inherent around nuclear weapons. You had here two countries with nuclear weapons – Israel and the US – attacking another country that does not have nuclear weapons, Iran. And as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, 'There are no right hands for wrong weapons'. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. No country should be able to threaten the end of life on this planet. No country should have these nuclear weapons. And these events have shown that you can't bomb your way to nuclear non-proliferation or security. You've got to negotiate agreements. You've got to return to the diplomatic process because these illegal attacks did not make the region or the world any safer. They've made it more dangerous by undermining the non-proliferation regime and international law itself. Striking nuclear installations is specifically banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination that's harmful to human health and the environment. This misadventure by Israel and the US may well have prompted Iran to consider building a nuclear weapon for the first time. Fitz: What is the doomsday scenario that keeps you awake at night? MP: This year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to global catastrophe – and that was before the recent India/Pakistan and Israel/US/Iran confrontations. There are more than 12,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with 2000 of them on high-alert launch status. As long as any nuclear weapons remain anywhere they are bound one day to be used, whether by design or by accident or miscalculation – the situation becomes even more dangerous with the increasing integration by the military of AI into nuclear command and control systems. When the experts 'war-game' likely scenarios, there's virtually none where the firing of one nuclear weapon doesn't lead to an escalatory exchange that results in all-out nuclear war. Fitz: And the bombing of Iran makes this more, not less, likely? Well, you didn't choose your words carefully on Israel, so what about US President Donald Trump? Is he now the most dangerous man in the world? MP: We don't know. It's entirely unpredictable. For instance, during his election campaign and then in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Trump was talking about the need for denuclearisation, and saying he was going to talk to Russia and China about denuclearisation, and that nuclear weapons cost so much money that could be spent on other things, which is all true. ICAN's latest report shows that the nuclear armed states spent $US100 billion last year on their nuclear arsenals. The US is spending trillions of dollars on its nuclear modernisation program. So, Trump says he wants to denuclearise, but at the same time is approving increases to nuclear weapons modernisation programs. So we haven't seen him act consistently on this issue, and we really don't know which way it will go. He's apparently quite keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. So if he could eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, maybe [he could get one]. Fitz: So if he could do that, you'd call it all even on the card for the many shocking things that he's done?
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
There is only one worthwhile test of social cohesion. We may have just failed it
The idea that an artwork should not be 'divisive' is an extraordinary one, an anti-creative concept which, if you follow it to its natural conclusion, leads us inexorably to the end-point of propaganda. And yet anxiety over possible divisiveness seems to have been the guiding emotional principle applied by the board of Creative Australia, the government's main arts body, when it abruptly sacked Australian artist Khaled Sabsabi and his curator Michael Dagostino as Australia's representatives at the prestigious Venice Biennale next year. The board, which this week reinstated the duo in a spectacular backflip, originally said it acted to avoid the erosion of public support for Australia's artistic community that might ensue from a 'prolonged and divisive debate'. It is assumed that a prolonged and divisive debate about an artwork is a bad thing, but it doesn't have to be. To be fair, the board's anxieties were well-founded. Loading It was February 2025 and a caravan full of explosives had been discovered in north-west Sydney. This incident was quickly labelled an anti-Jewish terror plot but was later revealed to be a 'criminal con job'. The Peter Dutton-led Coalition was hammering the Albanese government (then behind in the polls) for being soft on antisemitism. Horrific pictures of burnt and maimed Gazan children aired on television nightly. Jewish-Australians were encountering antisemitism in their day-to-day lives. Pro-Palestine and pro-Israel forces were demonstrating on the streets and clashing in arts organisations. Sabsabi, stridently pro-Palestine Lebanese-Australian, had made clear his view on Israel when he decided to boycott the 2022 Sydney Festival because it took $20,000 in funding from the Israeli Embassy. His boycott was well before the horror of the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas on innocent Israelis, a day of rape, torture, kidnapping and slaughter from which more and more horror has unspooled. Sabsabi's views on Israel were known when he was chosen, as was his body of work, which includes a video and sound installation called 'YOU', owned by the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. 'YOU' features multiple versions of an image of Hassan Nasrallah, former head of Hezbollah.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Calls for more childcare regulation miss the obvious point
The cliche used to be that a predictable response would come 'like clockwork'. Surely it's time to update that in the age of artificial intelligence 'large language' models. Calls for more regulation in the childcare sector following the horrific allegations against alleged childcare rapist Joshua Dale Brown, who has caused 1200 tiny children to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases, are as predictable as ChatGPT. AI rows up everything that has been before and confidently asserts more of the same to be ideal. Similarly, childcare advocates, who too often seem to advocate for childcare rather than children or care, are suggesting that the best response to these distressing revelations is to do even more of the same, but samier. Will there ever come a point at which these advocates admit that it is not regulation which is the problem, but the system itself? Apparently not. You see, centre-based childcare is, as many of these advocates and numerous commentators have noted, at the heart of society as we have structured it. Women depend on it to be able to return to work after having babies. Families depend on it to be able to afford their mortgage or rent. Our economy depends on it because getting parents back to work increases the government's tax take. All fabulous outcomes, which have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the provision of the best possible care for young children. But say as much and the advocates will trot out another trope which is as predictable as AI: you're 'mother-shaming', blaming women for choosing to work, or making them feel bad if they can't or don't want to stop working after having children. This emotive rubbish is part of the reason we never have a proper discussion over whether the policy choices successive governments have made (centre-based childcare has been supported both financially and rhetorically by both Coalition and Labor governments) are the best for anyone forced into the system. Loading It is the reason why reports tend to find pleasing benefits from childcare, usually by rolling together studies of children from the ages of zero to five years old, so the benefits of preschool socialisation conceal concerning findings about the negative effects of rotating care by unfamiliar strangers on younger babies. That, or they roll together the benefits of a childcare environment for children from 'disadvantaged' home environments, with the effects on children without disadvantaged backgrounds, to create a homogenised result. Which inevitably fails to reflect reality. They have to be separated and they should be separated by policy. It's worth bringing in a longish quote from a literature review conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2015 to make this point.
