Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01868:reg:4:p24
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01868
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 4 (pt 24/63)
Character Range: 414397–417213

Works, had consistently maintained from 1904 through to his appointment to the Sulman committee in 1921 that the government should not build any sort of temporary structure, but should start with the nucleus of a permanent structure and gradually add onto it. It is likely that Murdoch, who had joined the department in 1904 and had later helped to draft the guidelines for the design competition for a permanent parliament house, supported Owen in this stance. For his part Owen, by his

  9         Murdoch in evidence to PSCPW, 'Report … relating to the proposed Erection of Provisional Parliament House, Canberra', p. 101– 02, 112–13.
    10      Owen, Ross and Sulman in evidence to PSCPW, 'Report … relating to the proposed Erection of Provisional Parliament House, Canberra', pp. 5, 47–48, 73–74, 120.
    11      Griffin in evidence to PSCPW, 'Report … relating to the proposed Erection of Provisional Parliament House, Canberra', p. 114
    12      PSCPW, 'Report … relating to the proposed Erection of Provisional Parliament House, Canberra', p. xx.
    13      WI Emerton, 'Report by the Secretary of the Joint House Department', 7 September 1956, in 'The Case for a Permanent Building', Canberra, Government Printer, May 1957, p. 7; McDonald, Canberra Historical Journal, March 1985, p. 23.
  own account, only came to accept the idea of a provisional building during his work as a committee member. Owen's change of mind points strongly to the idea for a Provisional Parliament House arising among the five members of the committee. As Owen himself was not responsible for the idea and it probably did not arise from the Surveyor-General, JT Goodwin, or New South Wales's Chief Engineer for Water Supply and Sewerage, EM de Burgh, the suggestion probably originated with Sulman, who was a consulting architect and town planner by profession. Sulman may have received support from the remaining committee member, HE Ross, who was also an architect as well as being a consulting engineer. Certainly, Sulman and Ross were the strongest responsible parties of the provisional scheme. Moreover, the two of them were specifically asked at one point to consider Owen's proposal for the nucleus of a permanent parliament house and had come down decisively in opposition to the idea.14

  Hand in hand with the committee's recommendation for a provisional building to house Parliament went a need to fix on a site for it. The site issue was somewhat more complicated now that the committee had dispensed with the proposal to erect an 'eminently temporary' structure. As it had always been understood that this temporary structure would be demolished after a decade or so, its position had not been not a matter of vital concern. By contrast, the provisional building was intended as a semi-permanent structure,