Christensen House: A Case Study for Inclusive Decision-making within Professional Associations

Accounts of dental history in Queensland are few and almost invariably authored by those who either held or hold power. The focus is 'who, what, when' rather than 'why and how'. House-related developments as a case study provide an opportunity to assess aspects of the Australian Dental Association Queensland Branch's (ADAQ) model of administration in the early 1970s. The authors use literature review and historical methods. The ADAQ's articles of association, codes of conduct and memoranda centralized Brisbane-based authority and elite leadership into its management. The ADAQ council's decision to build Christensen House in Brisbane, prompted by the posthumous benevolence of George Christensen, was informed, logical, measured and appeared timely. The advocates for the house were innovative, optimistic, resolute, and well-intentioned, with their design and selected location of the building being appropriate. However, the decision occurred at a time of latent discontent within the membership, many of whom did not support the project financially. Distance in Queensland dictates that provincial members either accept or tolerate Brisbane-based centralized authority within ADAQ administration. Nonetheless, when it comes to policy warranting membership subscription, the Christensen House experience demonstrates that the modus operandi of the ADAQ council should be, as far as possible, inclusive, and representative.