OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE AND CURTILAGE HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2008–2013

D. History of the Place
Part D – Appendices
288 Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2008–2013
in the original part of building, and by 1968 the number of Ministers accommodated on this side had risen to
three. One highly significant feature of the 1965 extension was that the building now became for the first time an
asymmetrical structure. As such, it created a simple expedient for further extending the building at the expense
of making an early decision on the erection of a permanent Parliament House. This expedient was to restore the
symmetry of the structure by adding a corresponding extension to the Senate side of the building. The year 1965
also saw the erection of an additional sporting amenity for parliamentarians in the shape of two squash courts
which were built adjacent to the tennis courts. The provision of these courts was a small indication perhaps that
members and senators expected to remain in residence at the provisional building for some time to come yet. 61
Changes of the 1970s and 1980s
In August 1967, the President of the Senate, Sir Alistair McMullin approached Prime Minister Menzies in
regard to the accommodation difficulties on the Senate side of old Parliament House and the additional space
he needed to overcome them. With similar representations coming from the Speaker of the House, the matter
was referred to the Department of Works and to the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC). In
March 1968, the NCDC presented a report outlining seven options for adding further office accommodation to
the Provisional Parliament House. After a delay of nearly two years, a selection was made of one of the options
and in the latter half of 1970, tenders were called for the erection of the additions. The choice of option was
to a large, but not overwhelming, extent based on a desire to reinstate a symmetrical plan for the building;
considerations of cost and of securing as much extra space as possible for the money to be outlaid were other
important considerations. The chosen option provided for the construction of small extensions to the front
east and west corners of the building, new offices on the roof and a wing on the Senate side to match the wing
erected on the Representatives side in 1965. Construction of the Senate (or southwest) wing was to take place
first so that the Prime Minister, his staff and the Cabinet Room could be temporarily located in this wing while
modifications were carried out to the existing Prime Ministerial suite and Cabinet Room in the front eastern
section of the building. The contract for the work, amounting to $2.2 million, was awarded to Citra Australia. 62
By the time the contract was let, the accommodation shortage in the building had become quite acute. The
dire shortage was due in part to important developments in parliamentary practice. In mid 1970, largely
on the initiative of Senator Lionel Murphy, a new system of Senate Standing Committees was introduced.
This innovation, which saw seven committees in operation by October 1971, produced a demand for extra
committee meeting rooms and more spacious office accommodation for senators so that they could store the
greater quantity of papers they now had to deal with. 63 But office space was in any event already extremely
hard to come by. As at 15 April 1970, private members were using for their offices 39 single rooms, 23
double rooms and four triple rooms, while senators were using 22 single and thirteen double rooms. To
accommodate them properly, an additional 44 single offices were required, 31 for members and thirteen
for senators. 64 So great had the demand for office space become that, after the 1969 federal election, the
Serjeant-at-Arms, desperately searching for accommodation for some of the newly-elected parliamentarians,
...took one MP to a tiny space used as a cleaning cupboard, lifted out a couple of
brooms and asked the wide-eyed rookie if it would suffice. It did. 65
But even while the additions were being built, it was recognised that they were no more than a stopgap measure
and that they would still not provide enough office accommodation for the occupants of the building, notably the
Parliamentary Departments. There would, in particular, be insufficient space for the Parliamentary Library and staff
of the legislative research service. They were being ‘inexorably squeezed out of Parliament House altogether’ and
were accordingly seeking accommodation in other buildings near the House. 66 Thus, despite the plans to extend
the building once again, it was clear that its effective life as the nation’s Parliament House could not be sustained
much longer. Employing a colourful phrase to emphasise the imminence of this event, Sir John Overall, Chairman
of the NCDC, likened the old building to ‘a battleship with its guts worn out.’ Further, he and others advocated
that the provisional building should be demolished once it had ceased its function as the nation’s legislature. 67
Yet there was still no concrete progress on plans to build the permanent Parliament House. Despite
the abandonment in October 1968 of the lakeside site that Holford had favoured for the building, deep
divisions existed among parliamentarians and the Parliamentary Departments as to an alternative location
for it. The competing sites were Camp Hill and Capital (formerly Kurrajong) Hill. In 1970, the Joint
61 Sparke, Canberra 1954-1980, pp. 114-5; House of Representatives file 1/105 part 1, OPH; The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Government Printer, 1968, under heading ‘Parliament House’; House of Representatives file
71/195, OPH; file ‘Squash Courts at Parliament House’, CRS A4940/1, item C4112.
62 Debates of the Senate Estimates Committee, 21 September 1972, p. 69, in House of Representatives file 72/318, OPH; Canberra News, no. 589, 22 February 1972.
63 Souter, Acts of Parliament, pp. 488-90.
64 File note, ‘Parliament House Extensions: Accommodation for Private Members and Senators’, 15 April 1970, Senate file 25/1/3, OPH.
65 David O’Reilly, ‘What to do with the old place’, The Bulletin, 5 June 1990, p. 40.
66 Minute, W.J. Aston, Speaker, to the Hon, P.J. Nixon, Minister for the Interior, ‘Additional Accommodation - Parliament House’, 22 May 1970, Senate file 25/1/3, OPH; Noel Pratt, ‘Hobson’s choice in Canberra’, Australian, 9 September 1972.
67 Sir John Overall, quoted in article by Sally McInerney, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 July 1983, p. 32.