Censorship in the Queensland Arts (1)

Minister for Education and the Arts

PO Box 15033

City East QLD 4002

Dear Mr Langbroek,

Censorship in the Queensland Arts

We refer to reports, such as that on the ABC website on 27 March 2025 that the Brisbane City Council has withdrawn its funding from the Queensland Music Awards, following musician and award winner Kellee Green’s acceptance speech for her composition ‘River to Sea’.

We understand that the Queensland Government is considering whether it will continue to provide funding for the QMAs going forward.      

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties (QCCL) is alarmed to hear about the actions of the Council and concerned about the prospect of similar action by the State Government.

We urge you not to withdraw funding from the QMA for reasons of principle and law.

Lord Mayor Schrinner is reported to have claimed the song by Ms Green was an offensively anti-Jewish song. However, the phrase is subject to different interpretations. Pro-Palestinian activists say it's a statement of reclaiming their homeland, while pro-Israeli activists say it's advocating for the abolition of the State of Israel.

It is relevant to note that on 15 August 2023 the Dutch Court of Appeal has given legal protection to the Palestinian liberation chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, on free speech grounds.

The Dutch appeal court – whose rulings are final and cannot be appealed – acquitted Thomas Hofland, a pro-Palestine activist who used the chant in a speech he delivered at a Nakba day rally in Amsterdam in May 2021.The ruling upholds an earlier decision by a lower Dutch court not to prosecute Hofland. That Court concluded that the pro-Palestinian slogans Hofland had used in his speech “are subject to various interpretations” and “relate to the State of Israel and possibly to people with Israeli citizenship, but do not relate to Jews because of their race or religion”.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act protects the right of all Queenslanders to free speech and applies to any decision that might be made by you or your Department to cancel the grant because of this speech.

Ms Green’s remarks clearly fall within the bounds of protected speech.[1] Criticising government policy is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and attempts to suppress such criticism, particularly within artistic expression, set a dangerous precedent. While public institutions may not always agree with the views expressed by individuals, it is wholly inappropriate for governments to use the withdrawal of financial support as a tool to punish or silence speech.

In our view then any decision to cancel the funding of the QMA based on the giving of this speech would be a clear violation of the Human Rights Act

We also point out that section 101 of the Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits the State Government from discriminating on the basis of political belief or activity in the conduct of any of its programs. Again, we would submit a decision of the kind mooted in the media would be unlawful for this reason as well

It is a core belief of the QCCL that democracies are strengthened, not weakened, when space is made for peaceful dissent. A decision by the State Government to withdraw funding from the Queensland Music Awards due to one artist’s lawful political expression during an acceptance speech would set a deeply concerning and dangerous precedent. If artists must now fear losing employment, funding or grant eligibility for expressing deeply held convictions, it represents a serious infringement on their right to free speech. It also sends a chilling message to all artists, particularly those from marginalized communities or with lived experience of conflict, that their voices are welcome only if they are non-political or convenient to those in power.

We trust that you will give these matters your urgent and serious  consideration.  

Please direct correspondence concerning this letter to president@qccl.org.au

[1] The High Court has consistently affirmed that the implied freedom of political communication extends beyond traditional political settings. In Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579, the Court recognised that political expression can occur through conduct, protest, or symbolic acts, including within artistic and cultural contexts. What matters is whether the communication concerns political or governmental matters capable of influencing public discourse. See also Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 and Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1.