So far as I know, The Australian National University had no previous experience of a joint headship, and there were those of the god–professors who said it would not work. In fact it did.

The system was that we would each do two years as head, turn and turn about, subject to each other’s study leave absences. In those days Research School professors had every fourth year away. When we were both in Canberra, we consulted on all major questions: only once in the ten years do I remember our disagreeing, and I soon knew that he was right and I was wrong. We had identical rooms across from the department’s small office, and it was easy to be constantly in touch. As my colleagues and I soon knew, his judgment was very sound.

When he came, the department was in better shape than it had been five years before. We were still in an era of major Commonwealth government spending for The Australian National University, and our School had been among the beneficiaries. Crawford had been generous, and I think he felt that the money had been mostly well spent. The staff was bigger and more professional. There was, however, an underlying feeling in the Research School that we were not doing enough research in the regional area, particularly in Southeast Asia.

From the start, my opinion about this had been that international relations as a feature of the world affairs was too great to be contained within a program which concentrated on a particular geographical area. Whatever, the superpowers did affect other states, including all those in our region, however that might be defined. We were then the only International Relations department in any Australian university. It was our duty, where possible, to make our students aware of the many conflicting currents of international politics, so that when they went out to teach in other universities, they would be better equipped than as regional specialists.

Hedley fully agreed. Indeed, he aided the process. He brought to the department a more international focus than it had previously been possible to give it. His own recognition in Britain and the United States ensured this, as did his own previous work. He made the bipolar aspect of the world situation, with all its implications, plainer to all.

It was emphasised by at least two things during his time in Canberra. One was his own study leaves—one at Columbia University in New York, one at Jawaharlal University in New Delhi, and one at All Souls, Oxford. His contacts on these occasions provided us with new staff in one case and a variety of Visiting Fellows as well. There were also some from his time in London, the most notable of whom was Adam Watson, a former diplomat who shared with him the editorship of later books.

However, in looking for Hedley’s influence while in Canberra, one must take full note of his influence on students—all post-graduate and all on scholarships. Here he was as successful and as effective as he had been in London and was later to be in Oxford. He was prepared to take pains and time to provide the criticism and encouragement which any student needs who is proceeding towards a PhD. He took a personal interest in each one, as they would all now acknowledge. John Vincent and Des Ball gave him special pleasure.

His influence was not confined to those for whom he was supervisor. Each week the department had a seminar, which all staff and students were expected to attend. One of us would write a paper on his or her current concerns, and cyclostyled copies of this would be distributed to all in advance. At the seminar the author would speak to the substance of the paper, and then there would be general discussion.

The benefit was not only to students, but also to staff, whose papers would not only benefit from criticism, but also provide material for later publication, not least, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Hedley acknowledged this in his own case, but also saw what advantage the rest of us gained from it. That gain, again and again, would come from his analysis of the paper, to which he had given close attention, and his suggestions for improvement. He was receptive to all criticism, and rarely showed that ferocity which some scholars, especially Americans, had experienced at conferences. He was a mentor of the highest order.

Hedley’s sense of the importance of students was manifest in his advocacy of an MA course as a possible precursor of any embarcation on the PhD. Here his and my awareness of the American system came into play. He was worried to find that the students to whom we awarded scholarships at the end of their BA course had rarely, if ever, done any work in international relations. They had usually done history or economics. The few Americans whom we attracted were exceptions, but few meant few.

Hedley’s wish was that we would institute an MA degree by coursework which would provide scholarships in advance of PhD work. I agreed. There were two obstacles. One was that the Research Schools had provided scholarships only for the PhD, the other was that the MA had been the domain of the Faculty of Arts and obtained only by a dissertation.

It took much time and trouble before we could get our MA established in 1975. We could not make it a mandatory requirement for the PhD, but it soon took off in its own right as The Australian National University’s second Master’s degree by coursework. Now the university is awash with them.