Eight Indigenous directors have been removed from the boards of major Queensland cultural institutions, sparking allegations of a coordinated effort to diminish First Nations representation in government. Leading barrister Joshua Creamer has identified the trend as “Project Invisibility,” a term he says is used internally to describe the systematic removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders from senior public roles. The Queensland government has not denied the existence of such a campaign, with the arts minister’s office citing cabinet confidentiality regarding board appointments.
Did You Know?
Four of the eight Indigenous directors were removed from their positions midway through their appointed terms without a stated reason for their dismissal, according to reports.
Which institutions are affected?
The removals have impacted the Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC), the State Library of Queensland, the Queensland Museum, and the Queensland Art Gallery and Gallery of Modern Art (QAGOMA). At QAGOMA, both Indigenous trustees were removed earlier this year, leaving the board without any First Nations representation. Similarly, there are currently no Indigenous trustees serving on the QPAC board. At the Queensland Museum, three Indigenous representatives have been replaced by a single appointee, Lorraine Hatton.
Why the changes matter
Critics argue that removing senior Indigenous voices risks undermining the cultural governance of institutions responsible for sensitive tasks. University of Queensland academic Jackie Huggins highlighted the Queensland Museum’s role in managing the repatriation of ancestral remains and sacred objects, noting that these processes require deep-seated community networks. Cheryl Buchanan, an elder and former State Library board member, described the removals as a move toward a “Eurocentric” policy environment that silences dissenting voices. Conversely, the government maintains that board changes are standard practice to ensure an appropriate balance of skills and experience.
Expert Insight:
The shift from multi-member Indigenous representation to singular or non-existent presence on these boards marks a significant departure from previous governance models. This transition likely signals a change in how these institutions will handle future cultural projects, such as the upcoming First Nations Gallery at the Queensland Museum, where the absence of senior Indigenous board oversight could lead to friction between institutional leadership and community expectations.
What happens next
The government is likely to continue citing cabinet-in-confidence protocols when questioned about specific board appointments, meaning the criteria for these removals may remain undisclosed. Observers may watch for how the remaining single-representative boards, such as the Queensland Museum, navigate complex cultural duties like repatriation. Given the public nature of the “Project Invisibility” allegations, pressure may grow for the government to provide greater transparency regarding its appointment processes for public boards.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who first raised concerns about the removal of Indigenous directors?
Leading Indigenous barrister Joshua Creamer first raised the alarm regarding what he termed “Project Invisibility,” a campaign he alleges is designed to remove First Nations leaders from public roles.
What is the government’s official response to these allegations?
The office of Arts Minister John-Paul Langbroek stated that board decisions are made by cabinet and are confidential. The government also noted that cultural centers maintain Indigenous advisory panels and staff.
How many Indigenous directors have been removed?
Eight Indigenous directors have disappeared from the boards of four major state cultural institutions, with two replacements appointed in their place.
How do you believe the loss of these voices will impact the future of Queensland’s cultural institutions?