Sending Sabsabi to Venice is a decision that is ‘capable of being defended’

I teach ethical leadership for a living. Which is why the controversy surrounding Creative Australia’s selection of Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino to attend the 2026 Venice Biennale initially caught my attention. Then, continued to hold that attention as the Creative Australia board rescinded its decision and then, having commissioned a report into its decision-making process, changed their minds again.

Everyone makes mistakes. What matters is how you recover from error.

This article is about two things. Firstly, whether Creative Australia made a mistake in how or what it decided about who would represent Australia in Venice. Secondly, if the Creative Australia board did err, how is it recovering from that error?

The review of the governance and decision-making process that Creative Australia commissioned in the wake of the controversy found flaws in the organisation’s processes:

"There was… a series of missteps, assumptions and missed opportunities that meant neither the leadership of Creative Australia, nor the Board, were well placed to respond to, and manage in a considered way, any criticism or controversy that might emerge in relation to the selection decision," reads the key findings of the review (page six).

While Creative Australia typically flags and formally assesses contentious issues, this was not done at any stage in the Biennale process:

"The [Review] Panel was unable to find any evidence that a formal assessment of any potential ‘Contentious Issues’ was undertaken for the Biennale selection process. Nor were any ‘Contentious Issues’ identified in materials that went to the Executive or the Board," the report continues (page 18).

The report says the reason the selection wasn’t flagged was because there was a fear within Creative Australia that identifying the risk associated with artist Sabsabi and curator Dagostino would lead decision-makers to decline to choose the pair.

There is also a lot of misunderstanding within parts of Creative Australia and the broader creative community about what “risk identification and management” mean. Put simply, it was assumed that risk management means that, once a potential risk is identified, no action is taken that might incur that risk.

"In other words, if during a grant assessment or artist selection process a potentially sensitive or contentious matter is identified, in the eyes of the assessor, then the grant is not made or the artist is not selected," reads page 31.

Notably, the report says this is not what should happen when controversy is flagged for decision-makers.

Instead, it says that in the case of Sabsabi – while his works, “are clearly sensitive and contentious, they are also ambiguous and, potentially at least, capable of being defended”.

The most fascinating part of the review is the attention it calls to the ethical issue at the heart of Creative Australia’s operations. Namely, an ever-present potential for conflict between the organisation’s duty to promote artistic freedom and its duty to promote the proper use and management of public funds to achieve the organisation’s purpose, which is to “champion and invest in arts and creativity to benefit all Australians”.

These tensions were at the heart of the controversy that erupted over the 2026 Venice Biennale, which the report identifies as the “highest profile decision” that Creative Australia makes and the “Olympics of the Arts”.

"There are unresolved tensions within Creative Australia between upholding a key statutory function of promoting freedom of expression in the arts, and broader responsibilities and accountabilities, including for promoting the proper use and management of public resources and promoting the achievement of the purposes of the entity," reads page six of the report.

The report wisely notes that resolutions to these conflicts require value judgements that must take account of the context surrounding the decision.

It concludes that while there needed to be better processes and governance practices to support those judgments, ultimately, it is the board’s role to make those difficult judgement calls and to be prepared to defend them. And this didn’t happen.

Arguably, this is still the case. Or at least, the board has not shown its work in a way that offers reassurance that behind the decision to reverse its reversal, it has weighed the competing equities, and made a judgement call that is defensible.

I’d like to back up this assertion by quoting from the press release that accompanied this latest turn of events, but I can’t. Why? Because Creative Australia has removed it from its website without giving reason.

However, my clear memory is that in announcing its reinstatement of Sabsabi and Dagostino, the board did not confirm that it had confronted the ethical conflict identified in the report.

Nor did it explain if and how it had wrestled with competing equities to arrive at a decision to reverse their previous decision. A reversal that the report they commissioned did not recommend.

This resolution of the controversy – if indeed the issue has been put to bed – is disappointing.

While Creative Australia is to be commended for hiring consultants to investigate its decision-making, and for making the report from that inquiry public, the report identified a shortcoming in Creative Australia's decision-making that we still don’t know if the board has resolved.

What’s missing, and what the reversals have made the public particularly keen to understand, is how Creative Australia arrived at its current decision to reinstate Sabsabi and Dagostino. What did the Board consider or give weight to that changed their collective judgement from a “no” to a “yes”?

It may be that by not publishing its reasons, the board was trying to foreclose the possibility of another rancorous public debate.

But while this may have been the expedient choice, I’d argue that it’s not what good leadership – and the long-term good of the communities divided by the episode – require. What they need is answers.

The board’s decision, the report notes, is “capable of being defended”.

What's needed now is for Creative Australia to defend it.