Cultural boards seem determined to get it wrong
Yesterday morning I learned via the r/Adelaide sub-Reddit (shame face) about the Adelaide Festival's (AF) board decision to drop Palestinian Australian author, lawyer and activist Randa Abdel-Fattah from this year's Writers' Week program. The board's full statement is here but the summary is that in the interest of 'promoting community cohesion' and deferring to 'cultural sensitivities' in the wake of the Bondi Beach shooting, Dr Abdel-Fattah would be un-invited to Writers' Week. Though compact, the AF board's statement is littered with suspicious and fatuous passages. One particularly egregious example is this:
Whilst we do not suggest in any way that Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah’s or her writings have any connection with the tragedy at Bondi, given her past statements we have formed the view that it would not be culturally sensitive to continue to program her at this unprecedented time so soon after Bondi.
The AF board gives no specific examples of Abdel-Fattah's 'past statements' but they are likely referring to her fierce support of the Palestinian people in the midst of genocide and her vocal opposition to politicised rhetoric that equates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism. One wonders how long Dr Abdel-Fattah will have to remain under self-imposed house arrest before it is acceptable for her to speak about her writing once again.
It is worth noting that writers M Gessen, Clare Wright, Chelsea Watego, Jane Caro and many others who have decided to boycott Adelaide Writers' Week since Abdel-Fattah's cancellation have also voiced support for the Palestinian people and have denounced the Israeli government's actions and policies in Gaza and beyond. Yet none of them were un-invited by the AF board. I wonder what the difference could be...
A paragraph that launched a thousand questions
As bad as the immediate situation is, there's a far more ominous passage in the AF board's statement:
The Board has also now formally established a sub-committee to oversee the ongoing Board-led review, and guide decisions about Adelaide Writers’ Week in the near and longer terms. This includes ongoing engagement with relevant Government agencies and the appointment and/or advice of external experts.
It seems the board has been undertaking a 'review' of the Writers' Week program for some time. This raises a host of questions. Who instigated the review and under what pretext? Was the Writers' Week staff informed about the existence, nature and scope of this review? (Who am I kidding? Letting the staff know what the board is up to would be flirting with transparency and we certainly can't have that.) What, exactly does 'guide decisions' mean in relation to Writers' Week operations and programming? Which government agencies will be deemed 'relevant' for weighing in on Writers' Week content? What criteria will be used to determine the appropriateness of the 'advice of external experts'? And where will the funding for their appointment come from? That's just off the top of my head.
Admittedly that's not 1,000 but it is a lot of questions to have been spawned by a 45-word paragraph. But it's the silences in that paragraph that are doing the heavy lifting. This is by design. Those accustomed to wielding power rely on unquestioned silences into which mechanisms of control can be slipped. By the time you realise it, the opportunity to object has long passed. This paragraph signals, in as many words, the board's intention to continue its interference in the Adelaide Festival's operational decisions. Its silences signal a far more insidious agenda.
Premier Peter probably played a part
To learn that SA's Premier Peter Malinauskas fully supports the AF board's decision, and in fact may have pushed for it, is both deeply concerning and frankly infuriating. That the state's premier should hold no sway regarding the content of the Writers' Week program should go without saying on the basis of statute and the arm's-length principle upon which cultural policy decisions are allegedly based across so-called Australia. But more to the point, a review of Mr Malinauskas' priorities and decisions during his term as premier should lead to the obvious conclusion that the man has not the faintest idea what culture is about or of what it consists. To call him culturally uninformed would be generous; he is out of his depth here. Throughout his tenure as premier he has demonstrated via policy and enthusiastic attendance that his priorities are loud fast cars that go round in a circle, sports ball tourism and hosting a golf tournament directly supported by the Saudi monarchy. Oh, what's that? The Saudi monarchy that intelligence agencies and a UN special rapporteur named responsible for the murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018? Yes, the same one. I guess that tiny detail doesn't matter to our premier, who claims he doesn't 'support the inclusion of those who actively undermine the cultural safety of others, who celebrate the death of innocent civilians'. Somebody should probably also tell him about former LIV Golf CEO Greg Norman's high opinions of the White House occupier, assuming he'd care. Oh, and maybe add something about Israel's human rights record. Just a thought.
While the loud silences in the AF board's statement sent my eyebrows skyward, the subtext in these Malinauskas quotes from InDaily's coverage inspired suspicious squinting:
Malinauskas said the Adelaide Festival Board engaged with the State Government on this issue.
“By law, I as Premier am prevented from directing the board. I support the intent of this legislation, and have made it clear at every juncture that I would not seek to direct the board,” he said.
“However, when asked for my opinion I was happy to make it clear that the state government did not support the inclusion of Dr Abdel-Fattah on the Adelaide Writers’ Week program.
This undercuts the arm's-length principle that is (again, allegedly) in place between government and statutory cultural organisations. Why did the board feel compelled to ask for his opinion at all? The AF board already has one government observer installed; why seek further input? If they were in such hand-wringing distress over Dr Abdel-Fattah's presence that they wanted a sounding board, why not start with Minister for the Arts Andrea Michaels?
Maybe it's because of public statements Malinauskas made in 2023 detailing how he considered defunding Writers' Week over the inclusion of Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa. Instead of simply acknowledging that the Writers' Week program is beyond his purview, Malinauskas made a point of discussing his discomfort over Abulhawa's inclusion and the rational, measured conclusion at which he arrived:
"If I make that decision to withdraw funding from a cultural event on the basis of the fact its contents don't accord with my taste, or the government-of-the-day's taste, we start to go down a very dangerous path," he said.
"Event organisers, festival promoters – particularly those that are premised on the whole idea of freedom of speech and contest of thought and debate – they would live in fear that at any moment, if they've got someone appearing that the government of the day doesn't agree with, they'll withdraw funding."
Personally, I don't think bragging about how he thought about but didn't enact government censorship is the flex he thinks it is. Why elaborate on how he pulled himself back from the Orwellian brink if not to issue a warning for the future? The paternalistic undercurrent in his statements is quite clear: I'm not telling you what to do, but if it were me... Now, in 2026, he doesn't need to 'seek to direct the board'; they seek his direction and defer to his provincial preferences. This makes for a poisonous cocktail: a board that's happy to interfere and a government only too eager to help them.
This time won't be the last time
The ongoing slow-motion end-over-end train wreck instigated by the AF board's decision is one more example of actions taken by yet another cultural board that needs a short, sharp reminder of the difference between governance and operations. This behaviour has been all too common across the Australian cultural landscape in recent years. It has become clear that many cultural sector organisations have become playthings for the petty despots who populate their boards, armed with rigidly conservative worldviews and a pathological inability to stay in their lane. Too many of the prominent individuals installed on arts boards have come to view and treat organisations founded in the public interest as little more than their personal fiefdoms, as evidenced by the way they wield their undue power over projects, programming and the sector's workers.
This is not a uniquely Australian problem. Research in the UK reveals a similar culture of abusive leadership across the arts sector. (Pro tip: if it's abusive, it's not leadership. It's authoritarianism.) And where would I even begin to discuss the madness and cruelty currently being endured by cultural workers in the US?* This problem arises everywhere money, power and influence become concentrated and where those with all three are allowed to operate unchecked.
What are we prepared to do to check them?
*I could attach a link to every letter in that sentence and still not scratch the surface. Attacks on the Smithsonian are simply the most prominent example. Along with a federal goon squad renditioning people or shooting them in the face, whichever suits them best in the moment.
