Henry Atkinson: That’s true, and in our case it was magnified by the tyranny of distance. At that stage, we were two to three miles from the University. It was very difficult to get there. And there had been a philosophy that only the Dean went to Professorial Board and other University meetings, and so you only had one staff representative present. ‘Tucky’ and Harold Down were delighted not to go.

I started going, because I’d always been to those sorts of meetings. And Tony [Storey], Peter [Reade] and I went to every meeting we possibly could to take our case to the University. It was the only way of getting funds and so on. We had to make our position heard.

John Harcourt: For the first eight years of my working life I was employed by the Australian College of Dentistry, essentially on year-long contracts. Although the money came from the University, my allegiance was to the College. In 1963, we became University employees.

Henry Atkinson: I was the head of a University Department of one, and I had a staff of about seven. That way madness lies!

Peter Reade: Some of these sorts of things led to the Faculty losing its Faculty [status] and becoming a School within the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry [in 1989], which later became the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences [in 1991].

Henry Atkinson: In the Commonwealth, Melbourne is one of the few [Dental] Schools which has had a [Dental] Faculty. I don’t think there are any [universities] in England or Scotland that had a Dental Faculty. Dentistry was often a department within medicine. Certainly that was the case in Manchester.

Peter Reade: But in Australia, we were all separate Faculties.

I’d like to ask the question of what people still working in the system think of the amalgamation and the formation of a megafaculty? Has it been an advantage or disadvantage?

Mike Morgan. It depends on the issue that’s being discussed. And quite often the Faculty sees us as part of it when it wants, and not part of it when it suits them. It’s been mixed and, at the moment, there’s a feeling that we’re not being served well by the Faculty. But it really depends on the issue. It probably impacts less on the teaching staff than on the professional staff. Sandra might – or might not – like to comment.

Early on, when I was a junior staff member, it seemed to be quite an advantage being part of a bigger system. At that stage it was only the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, and then Health Sciences joined. Now we have about seven Schools within the Faculty.

The Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences at this University is bigger than some universities. It’s an enormous organisation and, sticking my neck out, it’s probably just too big.

Henry Atkinson: How many representatives do we have on the top Faculty body, say the executive?

Sandra Turner: Eric [Reynolds] and myself. There’s always a representative of the School, either academic or professional staff, at Faculty meetings.

Henry Atkinson: It’s not much.

Mike Morgan: No. And I think it’s true to say that the power still lies with the Medical School, rather than with any other School.

Garry Pearson: If it’s not too delicate, what impact on the [Dental School] budget does that [megafaculty] have, say in terms of the income from valuable research done [in the Dental School]. How much is hived off and not available to the School, but redirected elsewhere?

Mike Morgan. This is always a point of contention that the School is not getting the financial support it deserves. I believe that the figures demonstrate that we punch above our weight. There are historical aspects [to the income distributed].

Peter Reade: Part of the motivation for a megafaculty was to bring medicine and dentistry closer together – perhaps one absorbing the other. Has anything happened to produce more common courses?

Witness to the History of Australian Medicine