Creative Australia: ‘First Nations First’ on paper… second in practice?

“First Nations First” is the headline promise of Australia’s national cultural policy. After the Venice saga, the test is whether Creative Australia’s culture and systems actually deliver on it day to day.

What ‘First Nations First’ commits to
The federal Revive policy sets five pillars, placing First Nations First at the centre, which promises self‑determination, including a First Nations governance body within Creative Australia to make funding decisions.
In September 2024 the government established the First Nations Board to oversee First Nations Arts inside Creative Australia, with aims that include cultural safety, protocol leadership and workforce development.

Leadership signal
In July, Wesley Enoch AM (a Quandamooka man and practising artist) became chair of the Australia Council Board, the first First Nations person to hold the role. That appointment matters symbolically and operationally.

Where operations fell short
The Blackhall & Pearl review is blunt: Creative Australia wasn’t prepared for foreseeable controversy and had blurred responsibilities around risk. The selection process was tightly held by a small group; the board was briefed late and lightly; there was no formal contentious‑issues assessment before the announcement.
The review also urges extra support for staff “especially those of First Nations and/or recent migrant heritage”, signalling that cultural safety and workload pressures are real inside the organisation.

Was the First Nations Board in the room?
The review details the roles of management and the Australia Council Board in both the selection and the rescission. It does not record any formal role for the First Nations Board in the Venice decision path. That absence doesn’t prove it wasn’t consulted informally, but it shows the process wasn’t designed to trigger First Nations governance when risk spiked.

Risk of ‘playing it safe’
After reinstatement, industry figures warned that Creative Australia could drift towards “safe” choices if risk settings become corporate and conservative. That would hit artists who challenge national myths — including many First Nations artists.

What closing the gap between policy and practice looks like

• Hard‑wiring First Nations governance: create a standing trigger that requires consultation with the First Nations Board on major appointments, exhibitions and crises with cultural‑safety implications, and document that step in board papers. (This aligns with Revive’s self‑determination intent.) Office for the Arts
• Publish the risk framework and escalation map: show who owns “contentious issues”, when Audit & Risk is briefed, and how artists are supported through controversy. (The review recommends exactly this.)
• Invest in cultural safety and training: roll out the review’s advice on supporting staff and artists, including those from First Nations communities, and tie it to performance measures.
• Transparent panels and outcomes: report membership and demographics of assessment panels and the First Nations share of funding decisions across programs, year on year, to track whether “First Nations First” is real in results. (This responds to policy goals and sector expectations.)

The bottom line
Revive promised First Nations leadership in decisions that affect First Nations arts. With a First Nations chair now in place and the review’s roadmap on the table, Creative Australia has the chance to move from slogans to systems – if it bakes First Nations governance, cultural safety and clear risk ownership into every big call.