Yesterday, after a whirlwind six week campaign, Melbourne Uni and the National Academy of Music put out a statement the upshot of which is that the full 2009 program that the Academy had planned to run will now be run, with Brett Dean as Artistic Director, staying in its existing location, key staff remaining the same, and places to be offered to existing students. A new independent board will be appointed with a view to determining the Academy's long-term programming.

Sounds an awful lot like a complete reversal of Peter Garrett's decision to close the Academy on October 22. So how come the Minister's spokesperson told AAP last night that

"The Greens have got this entirely wrong... The government's objectives have always been the continuation of elite classical music training into 2009 and beyond but with substantial changes to the way that is governed and administered, including new management and board. The intention was never that ANAM would close, but rather that the government would redirect its $2.5 million commitment to a new organisation from 2009. That will still happen."

It's worth going through this story step by step to highlight the slow-motion backflip for what it is. Apologies for length, but I think it's worth setting out the full story.

The National Academy of Music was established in 1994 by Paul Keating - one of the very few Australia political leaders of any stripe who really appreciated and understood classical music. It was originally part of Youth Music Australia, who run the National Music Camps and Australian Youth Orchestra. The Academy had a troubled childhood and adolescence, moving from running highly-reputed short courses (with incredibly stiff competition to get in, as I can attest to as a young musician and AYO member at the time!), to a globally-renowned full-time post-tertiary 'finishing school' for music performance. While the musical standard it offered has never really been in doubt, there certainly has been justified criticism of its administration in the past. The irony is that, in the last few years, most of those issues had been resolved, and the Academy had begun to flower and perform at or close to its full potential.

Unfortunately, tied up in all this has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in parts of the local community of South Melbourne due to the fact that the Academy was located in the South Melbourne Town Hall when the Kennett Government forcibly amalgamated councils, getting rid of the local council that was based there. The Academy was tarred with that brush, and sadly, by its own acknowledgement, has not necessarily always managed its community relations terribly well.

Because of the reasonable criticisms of the Academy as it operated in the early 00's, two independent reports into its operations were commissioned - the Mills Report into its artistic merits, followed by the Grant Report, setting out a business case. Both of these reports were gently critical, saying the Academy should do more, but very clearly calling for a huge increase in funding to allow it to do so - an increase from $2.5 million to $6.5-7 million a year. Neither of these reports has ever been officially accepted by Government or published, but you can read the full Grant Report here.

There are many theories about what actually led to the specific events of recent months, including various suggestions about an unholy alliance between Prime Minister Rudd and his good friend and close adviser, Glyn Davies, VC of Melbourne Uni, a concerted campaign by unhappy locals, or cost shifting promoted by Lindsay Tanner. None of these really stack up, when you dig deep into them.

Our understanding is that certain Canberra bureaucrats had a bee in their bonnets about the Academy and, based on their understanding of the administrative problems of some years ago, had long been agitating for radical change - the closure of the Academy and its replacement by a new school. The previous two Coaltion Arts Ministers - Rod Kemp and George Brandis - were both personally supportive of the Academy and would not let this happen. However, the Minister for Uncomfortable Contortions, Peter Garrett, provided the perfect opportunity to pounce.

On August 25, Mr Garrett wrote to John Haddad, Chair of the Board of the Academy. Here is what he had to say:

I write to advise you that the Australian Government's 2008-09 budget allocation for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) is $2.545 million to be administered through two six-month funding deeds.

I have considered the reviews of ANAM and ANAM's response to those reviews. I seek ANAM's commitment to implement the significant business reforms as recommended by the reviews.

The full allocation of funding in 2008-09 will be dependant on ANAM's compliance with the terms and conditions of the first funding deed. Should the Australian Government be satisfied that ANAM has met the terms of the first deed, the second funding deed will be entered into. The period of the funding deeds will be July to December 2008, and January to June 2009.

Should ANAM accept the 2008-09 funding offer, it will be required to incorporate in its
Business Plan 2009 and Strategic Plan 2009-11 the following:
1. balanced budgets for 2009, 2010 and 2011;
2. an amended bursary policy;
3. a commitment and plan to diversify income;
4. a commitment and plan to be national leaders in classical music education and
Initiatives that support that role;
5. a framework for the review of ANAM's constitution;
6. a succession plan of ANAM Board members to satisfy geographical diversity;
7. a plan for course certification;
8. continually engage a full-time artistic director; and
9. achieve a working alumni database.

ANAM will need to provide evidence of the above by 31 October 2008.

ANAM's success in implementing the reform agenda in 2008-09 will be a key
consideration in determining any future funding of ANAM.

The sharp-eyed amongst you will note a couple of direct contradictions in this, most notably the requirement to "continually engage a full-time artistic director" when funding is not guaranteed beyond 6 month blocks! The commitment to be a national leader in classical music education is an insult - the Academy always has been! Geographical diversity of the board is code for wanting to dissolve the existing board and replace it, and the board already has members from 4 states. Diversified income is code for requiring the Academy to fundraise off its own bat to supplement Commonwealth funding. Course certification, as anyone in the industry will tell you, is irrelevant in the extreme!

On October 3, Haddad replied to Garrett:

Dear Minister

I refer to your letter of 25 August and our recent meeting at your Electorate
Office.

The Academy Board has met twice since receiving your letter and discussed its contents at length. The unanimous view of these meetings was that the Academy must apply its most strenuous efforts to meeting the concerns raised by you and your Department.

As a first step, and after speaking with your Department, we are recommending subject to your approval, that an Implementation Working Group be established to develop a Transformational Plan to enable the Academy to address the issues covered in your letter and ensure that they are actioned within your deadlines and with full joint support. The Working Group will be comprised of members of your Department along with key staff of the Academy and will be chaired by a member of the Academy Board. We believe the Working Group should also include a representative of the University of Melbourne who have already indicated their nominee would be Barry Sheehan. The Group will be assisted by the engagement of The Boston Consulting Group who have agreed to review the Academy's structure and operations, on a pro bono basis.

As part of your consideration of our response, we also hope that we can work with your Department in making some adjustments to the proposed funding drawdowns, particularly in the next three weeks, so that the Academy can continue as a going concern. As set out in our session the variation as to the drawdown schedule that was not previously identified, creates very real difficulties for the Academy as it does not accord with the actual (and historically verified) expenditure profile of the Academy and its program.

He went on to address in turn each of the concerns raised by Garrett, setting out how it was already being addressed or could not be addressed without sufficient funds.

After several phone conversations which, according to the Academy, seemed positive in tone, Garrett wrote back to Haddad on October 22:

Dear Mr Haddad

I refer to your letter of 3 October 2008 and your response to the terms and conditions of the Australian Government's 2008-09 funding for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM), as outlined in my letter of 25 August 2008.

Your letter indicates that the Board is unable to deliver on the reform agenda or meet the terms and conditions detailed in the first six-month funding agreement. In relation to your recommendation for a working group, I do not support such a proposal as ANAM has already had sufficient time to address these conditions.

Your response reflects my concern that ANAM may not be the most effective or efficient model for the delivery of national programs supporting elite level classical music training, and I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training. Consequently, and consistent with my letter of 25 August, the Australian Government will not provide funds to ANAM to conduct its training programs in 2009. I have instructed my Department to prepare a revised funding agreement to provide ANAM with sufficient funds to complete its 2008 training program. This agreement will be provided to you shortly.

I understand that cessation of Australian Government funding may result in ANAM not continuing operations in to 2009. Should this matter require clarification, you may direct your enquiries to my department.

Note in particular that final comment. Peter Garrett knew exactly what the impact of his decision was - no ANAM for 2009. Because of actual or perceived problems with the administration of the school, he was knowingly destroying a pedagogical and cultural institution that had developed a global reputation. He was tossing out 55 of Australia's top young musicians only weeks before the end of the year, with no plans for 2009.

Impact of this decision: closure of the Academy with absolutely no plan in place for a replacement to take on the students and continue the momentum of their training. The only reference to future plans was "I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training."

The outcry began. Shortly thereafter, the Greens were approached to offer what help we could. Starting with a joint motion with the Liberals, a question in Question Time and a series of Questions on Notice, we began to get involved. At the same time, musicians and artists from around the world joined the campaign.

Thanks to this outcry, Minister Garrett was pressed to outline what would happen to the students of the Academy. On November 18, Garrett released his proposal for a new body, to be called the Australian Institute of Music Performance. The AIMP would start in July 2009, with transitional arrangements sending students to the Uni of Melbourne - a totally inappropriate solution none of them were happy about. The AIMP looked strangely like ANAM, although it would take many months, if not years, to achieve the same level of performance. In addition, it had a name that uncomfortably mirrored the existing Australian Institute of Music in Sydney.

This was the first step in the backflip. There would be a new institution that would do effectively the same thing as the existing one, but under a different name and more directly controlled by Melbourne University.

The next Friday, November 28, Christine and I met with students and staff at the Academy, inviting them to bring their music to Canberra to lift the campaign several notches. We had the privilege of attending their spectacular concert that evening! But, in the meantime - at 3.30 pm on a Friday afternoon (a favourite time of Environment Ministers to release uncomfortable information) - Garrett proudly announced that he had decided to keep the name ANAM, instead of replacing it with AIMP! This was seen by students, staff and supporters as the nonsensical slap in the face that it was.

Step two in the backflip - let's keep the same name, as well as the essentially the same activities! And, hey, into the bargain, we'll let the students stay in the same place!

After a flurry of activity over the weekend, 12 students came to Canberra with Brett Dean, the Artistic Director, and staff members Bill Hennesey, Nick Bailey and Hillary Frost on the night of Monday December 1. The call was for a 12 month moratorium on the closure to allow for a proper discussion about the Academy's future without disadvantaging the students and destroying the continuity of their training.

Bright and early on the Tuesday morning, musicians welcomed MPs and Senators at the traditional "doors" media scrums on both sides of Parliament, making quite an impact. During the day, music echoed in the corridors throughout the House, with students and staff holding a press conference and simply playing beautiful music. The President of the Senate denied them permission to play at Aussie's Café, the haunt of all the lobbyists, MPs and staff. They also managed to get meetings with Labor backbenchers, Peter Garrett and, most importantly, Terry Moran, head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Finally, they secured agreement that, on Saturday December 6, there would be a meeting in Melbourne including Brett, Nick, Terry Moran, Glyn Davies and representatives of the Department.

This is where we get to the best part.

The meeting was a great success, and Brett Dean called us delighted with the outcome. The Academy would run its full program for 2009 as planned, a new, independent board would be appointed, and its first job would be to determine the next few years of programming for the Academy.

Now, there are two ways of seeing this. On one level, it is a very effective delivery of the transition strategy to a new institution, which happens to have the same name as the previous, many of the same staff, many of the same students, and be based in the same location. That's certainly what Minister Garrett's office is saying has happened - there is nothing to see, move along.

On another level, of course, it is a complete reversal. Instead of the closure of the Academy with no future plans in place, as we had on October 22, we have the Academy continuing exactly as it had planned, with the only difference being the dissolution of the board and appointment of a replacement. This is all that should have happened in the first place - Garrett should have dismissed the board and kept the Academy going while appointing a new one. Instead we had a terribly ham-fisted approach which put the students and staff through a month and a half of heartache.

All is well that ends well, I suppose.

On the bright side, they got a great introduction to the world of politics! And, as one obsessed with music and politics who used to admire Peter Garrett so greatly, I reckon this is a pretty good outcome.