This Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020 is based heavily on the previous version; please see a copy of Version 1.0 (2008-2013) for a full list of original contributors.
This Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020 (Version 2.0) is the result of a review, including public consultation, and update by Old Parliament House staff.
For further information or enquiries regarding this plan please contact:
Deputy Director, Business Operations & Heritage
Old Parliament House
King George Terrace, Parkes ACT 2600
www.moadoph.gov.au
Old Parliament House is an agency of the Australian Government
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015
ISBN 0 642 75366 0
Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan
Version 1.0: Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2008-2013; published 2008
Version 2.0: Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020; published 2015
Maps by Hannah Gason
Design and layout by giraffe.com.au
Printed by New Millennium Print
We are shaping a fresh role for the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House as a new kind of town square for Canberra and the nation.
During Canberra’s early years, Old Parliament House was the social, geographic and political heart of the new Australian capital. In its heyday, the building was like a town within the city of Canberra: it had its own library, post office, barber, carpentry workshop, bars and dining room. By the 1980s, thousands of people worked in the building including politicians, parliamentary staff, Hansard reporters, journalists, dining room and bar staff.
Since Parliament moved to its new and permanent home, an active and award-winning program to conserve the heritage fabric of the National Heritage Listed building has been undertaken, alongside the launch of dynamic exhibition galleries and unique learning programs for schools. Today, through the lens of living democracy, we are working to build a vibrant community and attract new audiences through an active program of exhibitions, events, partnerships and online engagement.
The Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020 is a key expression of this vision, and our ongoing commitment to achieve progress in harmony with heritage values which recognise, preserve and communicate the spirit of place and support the broader mission.
I commend the staff and stakeholders who have generously contributed to important and timely update of the Heritage Management Plan.
Daryl Karp
On 20 June 2006, the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, announced the addition of Old Parliament House and Curtilage to Australia’s National Heritage List. The assessment of the heritage values demonstrated that Old Parliament House and Curtilage had met eight of the nine National Heritage List criteria. Old Parliament House and Curtilage had previously been included in the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2004 and is a significant feature in the Commonwealth Heritage Listed Parliament House Vista.
Old Parliament House was opened in 1927. It was designed by John Smith Murdoch the first Commonwealth Government architect, as the first purpose built home of Australia’s federal parliament. It is one of the foundation government buildings from the early development of the national capital under the Griffin Plan. Old Parliament House is a substantial building containing some 500 rooms; including formal Parliamentary Chambers with associated executive offices, Parliamentarians’ rooms and functional support spaces. Its National and Commonwealth heritage values are expressed in a complex overlay and are manifested in the fabric, collections, history and intangible associations.
Old Parliament House is a Commonwealth owned property. From July 1996 to November 2007 it was administered by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, from November 2007 to June 2008 it was administered by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. From July 2008 Old Parliament House is an Executive Agency; the curtilage area is administered by the National Capital Authority. Old Parliament House and Curtilage is a heritage site and museum with a primary focus to provide the Museum of Australian Democracy. The heritage values of the site and museum strategic vision are expressed through an array of interpretation, exhibition, online, learning, research, and commercial activities and events available to the public 364 days a year. The place is also home to the Australian Prime Ministers Centre in the House of Representatives Wing.
This Heritage Management Plan satisfies Old Parliament House’s and the National Capital Authority’s obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for Old Parliament House and Curtilage. Assisted by heritage consultants and an expert advisory panel, the original plan was written by Old Parliament House staff for the Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
The assessment of heritage values and the Statement of Heritage Significance in this plan draw on research undertaken for previous management plans and heritage analyses. The heritage values tables are drawn from the National and Commonwealth Heritage Listings.
The plan provides a management and administrative framework ensuring all the heritage values are identified, well managed, interpreted and made available for community appreciation and enjoyment. It acts as a companion to Old Parliament House managers and staff for daily use, underpinning and informing management decisions. Through zones, which support the policies, the plan provides a framework for assessment and approval of proposed uses or actions against the heritage values. This ensures effective use and appropriate actions that protect and interpret the heritage values. This framework also provides opportunities for ongoing community involvement.
Under the plan there will be ongoing monitoring, reporting, and where appropriate or necessary, improvement of the condition of the listed heritage values of Old Parliament House and Curtilage.
During the life of this plan there will be an increase in conservation, interpretation, exhibitions, learning, political scholarship and outreach programs associated with the place and the strategic vision for the Museum of Australian Democracy.
This plan will remain in place for five years and will be reviewed and updated as required.
The content and decision making tool developed for this Heritage Management Plan is a response to a variety of influences; these are outlined in Figure 1.
This Heritage Management Plan provides a framework to assist staff to make informed decisions about changes to use and actions and activities in and on the place. Decision making and research for the place should be done using both this plan and the associated online interactive that links to detailed information about the values and history of specific rooms and collection pieces. Figure 2 briefly outlines some of the ways the plan can be used.
The Old Parliament House Heritage Management Plan is a document required by legislation that outlines how the place will be managed in the years ahead. The scope of this plan is dictated by the requirements for: National Heritage listed places under Section 324S of the EPBC Act and Schedules 5A and 5B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2003 (No 1); Commonwealth Heritage listed places under Section 341S of the EPBC Act and Schedules 7A and 7B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2003 (No 1) (see Appendix A); and is guided by the Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Burra Charter.
This plan replaces the 2008 version which was the most comprehensive heritage plan for the place previously and the first plan under the EPBC Act.
This plan aims to accommodate many of the needs and aspirations that people have for the place and to facilitate their enjoyment and appreciation of the heritage values in a sustainable way. To this end, management is directed at maintaining many areas of the place in its pre-1988 physical form. Decisions concerning the management of use and proposed changes are to be based on an understanding of the heritage values, their sensitivity to change and the results of research, rather than anecdotal evidence.
Since 2009, Old Parliament House has also been the site for the Museum of Australian Democracy and the Australian Prime Ministers’ Centre.
The plan will remain in force until such time that a new plan is adopted.
Australian democracy values political and social rights and active citizenship for all. It separates legislative, executive and judicial powers and provides a framework for an inclusive society. Much that is now the essence of democratic practice worldwide has strong roots in Australia–the secret ballot, votes for women, salaried parliamentarians, and the principle of constitutional change by majority vote.
Old Parliament House provides the physical connection with the long tradition of parliamentary democracy in Australia. It speaks of ideas of democratic leadership, the right to argue and express dissent, and the orderly succession of governments through the democratic process. It is a place in which people can reflect on and be proud of the Australian achievement.
Old Parliament House was fundamental to the development of Canberra–the opening of Parliament heralded the symbolic birth of the nation’s democratic capital. Parliament is a place where political conflict is inevitable. Old Parliament House stands for the right to argue and express dissent, and for the seven peaceful changes of government that took place during the years in which Parliament sat in the building. These values exemplify the theme of building the Australian nation– creating an Australian democracy.
Old Parliament House is a nationally significant heritage place and is one of a select group of places on the National Heritage List.
On 20 June 2006, the Hon John Howard MP, Prime Minister of Australia, stated that:
Old Parliament House will always be an important part of our political history with its rich collection of original furniture, art and memorabilia helping to illustrate the story of Australia’s political customs and functions ... it is appropriate that this place of outstanding significance to our nation receives Australia’s most prestigious heritage recognition.
Old Parliament House is also recognised on the Commonwealth Heritage List (22 June 2004), the Register of the National Estate (1987), the National Trust of Australia’s (ACT) Register and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ Register of Significant Twentieth Century Architecture.
To most people, the significance of a place arises from a combination of many qualities such as social, and historical, and other values derived from these. However, management and statutory obligations require explicit information about each value and its attributes to ensure important values can be conserved and management efforts can be targeted and prioritised.
Duke and Duchess of York in the Senate Chamber for the opening of Parliament House, 1927
Photographer: William Mildenhall. Source: Mildenhall Collection, National Archives of Australia
The key principle that forms the foundation of this Heritage Management Plan is the imperative to integrate conservation and interpretation of the heritage values with keeping the place relevant and vital. Directly or indirectly, the policies in this plan are aimed at achieving this core principle. The provisions of this plan are also based upon recognition of a broad range of uses and social value linked to these uses.
The core principles developed for this plan are intended to build upon the various conservation initiatives established by previous conservation management plans for the place and also to meet the management principles and management plan requirements for Commonwealth and National Heritage listed places.
The management policies, strategies and objectives contained in this plan are based on these principles:
House of Representatives Courtyard Garden, 2002.
Source: Auspic, Old Parliament House Collection
The implementation of the policies in this plan seek to achieve the conservation of the heritage values through the following outcomes:
Conservation of heritage values through:
Demonstrate a mechanism for sound ongoing heritage management practices by:
Compliant mechanisms for decision-making through:
Appropriate records are kept of actions, public reporting of implementation plan and trends in the condition of heritage values through:
Appropriate interpretation and communication of the heritage values of the place will be achieved through:
The public will have access to the place and will be kept informed about and will have a voice in the proposed use of the place through:
Collections sector standards and statutory requirements will be met through:
Manage the impacts of use and change through:
Engender sound environmental practices through:
Old Parliament House is situated in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory which is surrounded by New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Canberra is 150km inland from the coast, 287km from Sydney, and 660km from Melbourne. Canberra is the seat of the Australian Federal Government.
Old Parliament House is in the suburb of Parkes, bounded by King George Terrace to the north, Queen Victoria Terrace to the south and Parliament Square to the East and West.
There are a number of important relationships between the building and its wider setting. Old Parliament House sits in an important and extensive landscape stretching between Mount Ainslie and Capital Hill. As a result, Old Parliament House has a strong relationship to Parkes Place, which is the area between it and Lake Burley Griffin and includes the reflection ponds and components of the National Rose Gardens. It has a strong relationship with the flanking Senate and House of Representatives Gardens which were integral to the social development of the place and were private gardens frequently used by parliamentarians and their families during the time Old Parliament House was a functioning parliament.
Old Parliament House has an historical and architectural relationship to the former two Secretariat buildings (East Block and West Block) and there is a relationship to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy located on King George Terrace. The encircling roads and garden areas immediately adjacent to the building are part of the practical and significant curtilage of the building.
Photo courtesy of Chris Meadham
This plan includes the building and its collections to the outer edges of the built structure, the internal gardens and the surrounding area to the central line of the surrounding roads. The various management and legal boundaries within this area are outlined below and in Figure 5.
Old Parliament House is a large three storey rendered brick building with the main floor on the intermediate level. The strong horizontal pattern of the white painted main façade is symmetrical and features four original bays with arched bronze windows, verandahs and balconies enclosed with glass and end bays which are stepped forward, creating a rhythm of stepped cornices and parapets. The balanced masses of the Senate and House of Representatives Chambers rise above the surrounding offices and other rooms.3
The building has strong symmetrical planning based around a number of major spaces. The major axis through the building, aligned with the Land Axis of the Parliamentary Triangle, features a series of spaces–King’s Hall, Parliamentary Library and the Dining Rooms. The cross-axis features the Senate and House of Representatives Chambers which are placed symmetrically either side of King’s Hall. All of these spaces are on the main or intermediate level. Surrounding these spaces are many smaller meeting rooms, offices and other service areas which are placed on the lower ground, main and upper floors.
There are two enclosed courtyards located between the North Wing of the building and the South Wing. Dining Rooms are features of the South Wing. A vestige of the Library courtyard also survives as a link between the larger courtyards. The original flat concrete and membrane roofs have been covered with low pitched metal roofs.
Old Parliament House has undergone many changes over its life (see plans in Appendix D). There have been major additions to the building on both sides, front and back (the southeast, southwest, northeast and northwest wings), which contain many offices and meeting rooms. These have generally maintained the construction, external finish, height and rhythm of the façade but have changed the mass of the building. These extensions house the Prime Minister’s Suite and President of the Senate’s Suite. Other changes include the enclosure of verandahs and balconies. There have also been changes to, and loss of, original finishes in many rooms, though not the major spaces.
Major interior spaces of architectural interest include: King’s Hall, Library, Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, Dining Rooms and Bar, Senate Opposition Party Room, Speaker’s Office, Clerk of the Senate’s Office, Leader of the Government in the Senate’s Office, Prime Minister’s Office, Cabinet Room, and the President of the Senate’s Suite. The interiors feature impressive Tasmanian blackwood finishes.
The contents of Old Parliament House include furniture, signs, light fittings, carpets, office furnishings and equipment. Many of these items have been retained in their original location. Significant among the collection are items presented to Provisional Parliament House to mark the opening of the building in 1927 and the large collection of original furniture and fittings specifically designed for the building and installed in 1927. Subsequent additions to the original collection document important stages in the adaptation of the building to meet the ever increasing demands of accommodating more members and their staff. This process continued until the relocation of the Australian Parliament to the new Parliament House, where new furniture and fittings were provided.
The collection of contents in Old Parliament House also includes fittings and fabric which have become disassociated from their original location or function.
Old Parliament House is an example of Inter-War Stripped Classical style architecture. Key features of the style displayed by the building include: symmetrical façade, division into vertical bays indicating classical origins, vestigial classical entablature, simple surfaces and spandrels between storeys subdued to emphasise verticality. Some of the 1927 interior furnishings include: timber wall panelling; division clocks; feature carpets in the Chambers and feature rubber and parquetry flooring in the Lobbies; built in sink, coat and locker cupboards and bookshelves. Some of the interior features added during the refurbishments and extensions in the 1970s include: timber wall and ceiling panels; roped wallpaper; and built-in desk units.
The building is surrounded by garden areas, footpaths, car-parking and roads. The garden areas are generally either rose gardens, trees or lawn.
To the north or front of the building is an area sometimes called the forecourt comprising a wide internal roadway with parking on either side and garden areas adjacent to the building. This area is separated from King George Terrace by a garden bed, retaining wall and footpath. Between the forecourt and King George Terrace, at either end, are two modern (post 1988) rendered masonry pillars which display information signs about Old Parliament House.
3 This description is based on Lennon, Marshall, O’Keefe and Pearson 1999.The central area of Canberra is an extensive cultural landscape comprising buildings, roads, parks and a lake. The area is designated for parliamentary and national capital uses.4
The major features of the area include: the current Parliament House with its gardens and paved areas, State Circle road cutting (geological feature), Old Parliament House and gardens, East and West Blocks, John Gorton Building (formerly Administrative Building), National Gallery of Australia, High Court of Australia, National Science and Technology Centre, National Library of Australia, Treasury Building, National Rose Gardens, King George V Memorial, Aboriginal Tent Embassy, Parkes Place, Reconciliation Place, Australian War Memorial, the Central Basin of Lake Burley Griffin, the series of memorials along Anzac Parade, Aspen Island and the Carillion, King’s Park, HMAS Canberra Memorial, Merchant Navy Memorial, Blundell’s Cottage, Commonwealth Park, Regatta Point exhibition building and restaurant, Captain Cook Memorial water jet, the National Police Memorial, extensive mature plantings and avenues of trees such as those along Anzac Parade, and the Peace Park and lakeshore promenade.
The area also includes fountains, roads, car parks, landscaped areas, a restaurant, kiosk and the residence of the Catholic Archbishop.
The central national area has a strong sense of symmetry based on the Land Axis. Parliament House, Old Parliament House and the Australian War Memorial are located on the axis. In addition, the landscape features of Federation Mall, Parkes Place (the landscape feature not the roads) and Anzac Parade are also located on the axis. These places form part of the Parliament House Vista, a place on the Commonwealth Heritage List. Other major features in the area are generally balanced about the axis such as: East and West Blocks, the gardens of Old Parliament House, the eastern and western parts of the National Rose Gardens, Administrative and Treasury Buildings, the National Gallery/High Court group and the National Library/National Science and Technology Centre group, as well as the Carillion and Captain Cook Memorial water jet. The road system also generally reflects the symmetrical planning of the area based on the Land Axis.
Erection of the original Aboriginal Tent Embassy, 1972
Source: Newspic.
The architect of Old Parliament House and the politicians and public servants who supervised and advised him planned a building which would meet the needs of the Commonwealth Parliament for at least fifty years; they largely succeeded even though major changes to the use of parts of the building began within a few years, and within a decade overcrowding had become an issue. The building proved to be adaptable and always remained hospitable, even though the number of users soared well past what had been predicted and the nature of their work changed in ways that were unimaginable in the 1920s. The complex interplay of space and function with consistent and changing uses of spaces at Old Parliament House, mirrors the rich political and parliamentary history of Australia between 1927 and 1988. Largely intact and with a well-documented history, Old Parliament House is a unique artefact of Australian twentieth century political heritage.
Although planning for Australia’s new capital began in 1912, infrastructure work had hardly commenced when World War I began. Burdened by huge war debts, Billy Hughes’ post-war government needed to move to Canberra quickly and cheaply, and therefore decided to build a ‘Provisional House’. The design task went to John Smith Murdoch, Chief Architect in the Department of Works. Discussion of his first proposal by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in 1923, with evidence from a wide range of experts, including the presiding officers of the day, is a key document for understanding how Parliament functioned at the time.
Construction began in 1923 and was completed in 1927. Five million bricks made at the Yarralumla brickworks went into the building, along with
2 000 tons of cement. Australian timbers were used, coming from every Australian state except South Australia. Construction cost £644 600, and another £250 000 was spent on fit-out: a substantial sum, but not much more than the £478 449 allocated in the 1926-27 budget for the costs of running Parliament for one year.
Although Murdoch included offices for the Ministry,
it was planned to locate the Prime Minister’s principal office and the Cabinet Room, along with a small nucleus of staff from major departments, in a separate building known as the Secretariat (now West Block). This was a temporary measure pending construction of an Administration Building, which would house most of the public service when it moved from Melbourne. The Depression made these plans redundant, and the major move of public servants did not begin until the 1950s. Hence, over subsequent decades, ministers and their staff stayed in the building, becoming a major source of overcrowding as Parliament House also became the heart of executive government in Australia. It was probably the political tensions of the Depression years however which induced Prime Minister James Scullin to also leave the Secretariat for his small suite at Parliament House; cramped it might have been, but it was close to the Labor Party Room and the chambers. Every subsequent Prime Minister has worked in similar close proximity.
Other significant changes also followed the election of the Scullin Government in 1929. The defeated Country Party moved out of the Third Party Room on the Government side of the House of Representatives into the Opposition Party Room in the Senate, the room was divided, and two senior ministers and their staff moved in. The erstwhile party room later became the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Whether in government or not, the Country Party and its successors operated from the Senate Opposition lobby from then on. As a result, in about 1938 when the Senate Club became the Senate Opposition Party Room, tacit recognition that the ideal of senators meeting across party lines to represent the interests of their states was waning in the face of the party system.
Although pressure on accommodation grew through the 1930s with complaints that the party rooms were unsuitable working spaces for backbenchers, it was the growth of government during World War II which produced the first major additions. Two-storey wings were added to each side in 1943, principally to provide ministerial accommodation but also with a few offices for private members and senators. This broke the connection between the internal garden courts and the rose gardens on either side of the House. Meanwhile, conversions of verandahs and loggias into offices continued. The building had reached ‘saturation point’, the Serjeant-at-Arms reported in 1940, and the wings only provided momentary respite. In 1948 a further floor was added to the new wings and they were extended. One factor in this expansion was growth in the number of parliamentarians in 1948, which for the first time took the size of the parliament beyond what had been predicted in the 1920s. Because parliamentarians had individual seats, the chambers themselves became crowded with seats and desks. Demand for offices meant that even though two new outer wings were added to the 1940s extensions in 1965 (House of Representatives) and 1970 (Senate), many backbenchers were forced to share their tiny rooms with each other and with their staff. In 1970 four rooms even had three Members sharing them.
These issues, the constant growth in the size of ministerial staff, and the substantial cost of maintaining an ageing building, revived the question of a permanent Parliament House after 1956. An extension of the north wing of the building in 1972 created only a modest new Prime Minister’s suite along with a larger Cabinet Room and new accommodation downstairs for the Treasurer, where Hansard had previously been located. Matching works gave the President of the Senate a small new suite and created a large committee room downstairs, in constant use as the Senate committee system grew: it also provided space for press conferences. Security also became an issue in the 1970s. Blast screens over some windows and a new security-screened entry under the front steps were stop-gaps, and the need for new communications facilities created further problems. Secure wiring of an ageing building in which much of Australia’s defence, foreign policy and security decisions were made was difficult, and the media crowding into a warren of shabby rooms on the top floor of the building also needed new facilities. In 1983 Prime Minister Bob Hawke laid the foundation stone for a new Parliament House, which the Queen opened in 1988. After 61 years, much as had been predicted in the 1920s, the time had come for Old Parliament House to move into a new era of its eventful history.
A full history can be found in Appendix D.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, with Prime Minister Robert Menzies at the state ball in Kings Hall in 1958
Source: National Archives of Australia
The extensive research on the political, social and construction history of Old Parliament House (see Appendix D) provided a comprehensive body of work from which several Statements of Significance have been developed.5 These statements of significance, along with the analysis of the heritage values for the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List, formed the basis for the current Statement of Heritage Significance. Figure 6 shows the process to assess the heritage values.
Old Parliament House has outstanding heritage values shaped by its pivotal role in the political and social history of Australia and is an important place in the evolution of Australian democracy (Criterion A). Old Parliament House possesses outstanding heritage values related to its history, design, location, collection of movable items, social values and associations.
As the original location of the Australian Parliament in Canberra, Old Parliament House symbolises and reflects the development of Australia as a nation, and was the first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament (Criterion A). Old Parliament House was witness to 61 years of Australian legislature, with a myriad of associated events. It was also central to the development of Canberra, the opening of Parliament heralding the symbolic birth of the nation’s capital (Criterion A). It has become a national icon, symbolic of the Commonwealth Government in Australia, and of Canberra itself, for many generations of Australians (Criterion A).
The building occupies a prominent and strategic location at the southern end of the main Land Axis of Walter Burley Griffin’s city design, and contributes to the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle (Criteria D and E). Its setting, primarily the gardens, circling roads and parking areas were integral to the style and use of the place (Criteria E and G).
Old Parliament House was intimately associated with the course and pattern of the nation’s political, social and historical development from its opening in 1927 until 1988 (Criterion A). The Chambers of the House of Representatives and the Senate and Kings Hall have been the venues for significant events in the shaping of Australia’s democratic history and traditions (Criterion A). The layout of each chamber provides an insight into the workings of the Australian Parliament (Criterion A). Apart from serving as the seat of Commonwealth Parliament, the building bears witness to the demands of accommodating the executive arm of government within the legislature’s sphere, making it rare among parliamentary buildings in Australia and in other parts of the western world (Criterion B).
Old Parliament House represents a significant creative achievement. Although intended as a provisional structure, it was designed as a simple yet dignified building, endowed with appropriate aesthetic and formal qualities for its location and function (Criterion E). Old Parliament House is exemplary of the Inter-War Stripped Classical style of architecture and is the most prominent instance of the work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch (Criteria D, F and H).
5 Pearson, M, Betteridge, M, Marshall, D, O’Keefe, B, & Young, L 2000 Old Parliament House Conservation Management Plan 2000, prepared for the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and subsequent studies (Appendix K).The design of the building, with its complementary fixtures and fittings including Australian timber panelled walls, raked galleries, Australian timber and leather furniture, suspended light fittings, high coffered ceilings, parquet floors, skylights and clerestory windows, demonstrates the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament (Criteria D, E, and F). The former Members’ Private Dining Room contains the remains of rare 1927 hand-painted wall features (Criterion B). The furniture and internal fabric of Old Parliament House reflect the everyday use of the building for 61 years and the hierarchical nature of parliamentary staffing practices (Criterion A). Research to date indicates that the furniture in Old Parliament House is part of a rare, intact surviving record of heritage fabric comprising both furniture and documentation (Criterion B). The significant collection comprises: original documentary evidence including plans; photographs; and files that are directly related to the design, construction, changes and use, provide important historical research information (Criterion C). Specific spaces of the building are directly linked with events that shaped Australia’s political and social history, and have strong associations with prominent Australians, including prime ministers and parliamentarians who served between 1927 and 1988 (Criteria A and H).
Many surviving parliamentarians, support staff and media representatives have strong associations with the building and its contents (Criterion G). Its choice as the venue for important recent events, such as the Constitutional Convention 1998, also indicates its contemporary social value (Criterion G). The ongoing relationship with the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, established in 1972, is unique in western democracy (Criterion B). The entrance, as a venue for many demonstrations, reflects the role of protest in the history of Old Parliament House (Criterion A).
The use of Australian materials and labour in the building of Old Parliament House and the manufacture of its contents contributes to the promotion of a sense of national identity (Criterion A). This national identity is complemented with the inclusion in the collection of the President of the Senate’s Chair, presented by the Dominion of Canada, and the Speaker’s Chair, presented by the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, as indicative of the relationships that bind the Commonwealth of Nations (Criterion A).
For these reasons, Old Parliament House has outstanding heritage values that consolidate its place in Australia’s political and social history.
The joint sitting of both houses of the Australian Parliament in the House of Representatives Chamber, 1974
Source: National Library of Australia
When listing a place on the Commonwealth or National Heritage List, the Australian Heritage Council makes an assessment of the place and advises the Minister with responsibility for Heritage of the values that the place holds. Places on the National Heritage List have demonstrated to have values rated as outstanding against the criteria; places on the Commonwealth Heritage List are places managed by the Commonwealth and have shown to have values rated as significant against the criteria.
This table shows how the attributes of the place – either tangibly in the physical fabric or intangibly in the associations and uses – support the National and Commonwealth Heritage Listed Values of Old Parliament House (refer to the Glossary in Appendix J).
The text is taken from the citations published by the Commonwealth agency responsible for administering the EPBC Act at the time of the listings (see Appendix C for citations).
| National heritage listed values | Commonwealth heritage listed values |
|---|---|
| Criterion A–Events, Processes Old Parliament House as the Provisional Parliament House was the first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament. It was central to the development of Australia as a nation from its opening in 1927 until the opening of the new Parliament House in 1988 and demonstrates Australia’s [parliamentary] political process. Old Parliament House is a site that has provided a physical focus for events that reflect Australian democratic values, and political and social rights. It also stands for the right to argue and dissent, and reflects the orderly succession of governments through the democratic process, as reflected by the seven changes of government that took place during the years in which Parliament sat in the building. The building set the pattern of combining the functions of the executive arm of government and the legislative function in the one building. This commenced with the provision of ministerial offices at the design stage followed by Prime Minister James Scullin moving Cabinet meetings into the building in 1930-31. These actions initiated the major expansion of the building to house both the legislative and executive functions of government, a pattern that continued in the design of Parliament House. The North Wing has historic importance as the main venue for parliamentary functions from 1927-88. The Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, and King’s Hall are highly significant as venues for the debates, petitions and votes associated with 61 years of Australian legislature. Old Parliament House is an important place in the story of the creation of the Australian democracy and has associations with several related defining events. Landmark political events associated with the building included legislation in 1942 adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the declaration of War in 1941. The building was also the place of 61 years of national legislation shaping Australian society, the extension of the voting age to 18 year olds in 1973, and the establishment of new political parties such as the Democratic Labor Party in 1950s, the Australian Democrats in 1977 and the Liberal Party of Australia in 1944-45. Old Parliament House saw the growth of Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal affairs. Key events included the Bark Petition sent by the Yirrkala community to the House of Representatives in August 1963 protesting bauxite mining in Arnhem Land, and the Referendum in 1967 that overwhelmingly supported Commonwealth power to legislate for Aboriginal people. Amongst other developments, the Referendum result led to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, proclaimed on Australia Day 1977. With the new responsibilities arising from the 1967 Referendum, the Commonwealth Parliament became the focus of Aboriginal political protest. The siting of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy outside Parliament House in 1972 was a part of this protest. |
Australia’s first Federal Parliament building was designed as the grandest element and central focus of a fully planned capital city. Old Parliament House is a place of outstanding heritage values related to its history, design, landscape context, interiors, furnishings, courtyards and gardens, collection of movable items, social values and associations. As the original focus of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government in Canberra, Old Parliament House is intimately associated with the political history of Australia, and the development of Canberra as the capital of Australia, from its opening in 1927 until the opening of the new Parliament House in 1988. The Old Parliament House was the second home of the Parliament which was located in the Victorian Parliament House in Melbourne from Federation in 1901 until 1927, and was the first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament. |
Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold
| National heritage listed values | Commonwealth heritage listed values |
|---|---|
| The front façade of Old Parliament House and the immediate grassed area to its north have been the scene of numerous events, gatherings, protests and demonstrations. Significant events included the formal opening of the Provisional Parliament House in 1927 and the address by the former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, on the front steps of the building after his dismissal by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in November 1975. Old Parliament House, in particular King’s Hall and Chambers, has been the venue of important ceremonial events including the public mourning for the deaths of Prime Minister John Curtin in 1945 and former Prime Minister Ben Chifley in 1951; state receptions held in honour of Queen Elizabeth II in 1954 and 1963; and events associated with royal visits in 1927, 1935, 1945, 1954, 1963, 1974 and 1977. Old Parliament House has a richness of internal fabric and collections that convey the way in which parliamentary functions were conducted and the everyday use of the building. In particular these features include the purpose-designed furniture and furnishings that maintained their original setting and purpose for over sixty years. King’s Hall and the Chambers have features that reflect both the austerity of the time and a dignified formality. These features include the decorative skylights, elegant pendant lights, and parquet flooring, as well as the high ceilings accentuated by the raked galleries, the timber wall panelling, and the extensive, restrained and subtle decoration. The Hall features bas-relief busts of prominent personalities (related to Federation, the judiciary and of the first Parliament in 1901) on its colonnades, and portraits of former Prime Ministers as well as a statue of King George V. The Chambers demonstrate (through their fabric, furnishing and objects) the growth of Parliament over 61 years, including the evolution of communications technology applied to the reporting of parliamentary debates and events to all Australians. Significant furniture of Old Parliament House includes the John Smith Murdoch designed furniture and fittings; the HMAS Australia table; the Country Party Table (Murdoch’s original cabinet table from West Block) and the Cabinet table (used by the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke Cabinets). Furniture items which underlie the significance of Australia’s role initially as a member of the British Empire and later as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations include the President of the Senate’s Chair (presented by the Dominion of Canada) and the Speaker’s Chair (presented by the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association). Furniture and fittings designed or purchased for the extension or alterations to the building, including those items associated with the Senate and House of Representative Wings and the President of the Senate and Prime Minister’s suites are of particular value. Old Parliament House has a rare record (documented in the Old Parliament House) which is made up of both furniture and a variety of documents related to the furniture. The documents include initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture. The Old Parliament House Library is of heritage significance, in particular, the remaining features of the original library and the later additions or changes to the library up to and including the 1958 extension are of value. |
Old Parliament House was the venue for and witnessed both the course and pattern of the nation’s political, social and historical development through the major part of the life of the Commonwealth to date. The movable items associated with the building are also intimately associated with these events. Apart from serving as the seat of Commonwealth Parliament, the building bears witness to the physical encroachment of the executive arm of government into the legislature’s proper sphere. This was the primary cause for the extensive additions and modifications that had to be made to the building. These additions and modifications are manifested in such elements as the southeast and southwest wings, the northeast and northwest front pavilions, and a great number of internal changes. The relocation of the Parliament to Canberra was the focus of an intense period of development of the nation’s capital. The opening of Parliament heralded the symbolic birth of Canberra as the capital. The intended importance of Old Parliament House is reflected in its design, its prominent siting in the landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, and in the treatment of the areas around Old Parliament House, particularly the Senate and House of Representatives Gardens, and the National Rose Gardens. |
Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold
| National heritage listed values | Commonwealth heritage listed values |
|---|---|
| Criterion B–Rarity Old Parliament House is uncommon in that it housed both the legislative and executive functions of government. This is reflected in the construction of the House of Representatives (southeast) and the Senate (southwest) Wings, the front pavilions and in a great number of internal changes. The House of Representatives Wing provides extensive and relatively intact evidence of the accommodation provided for Members and Ministers at various periods and the working conditions of parliamentarians and staff over the period 1943-88. The former Members’ Private Dining Room contains the remains of the 1927 hand-painted wall features. These decorative features are rare. They are the only examples of these features in the building and are also rare within the ACT. There are important records of both furniture and its documentation relating to initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture. |
Among parliamentary buildings in Australia and in other parts of the western world, Old Parliament House is an uncommon place in that it eventually housed both the legislative and executive functions of government. Research carried out to date suggests that the furniture in Old Parliament House is part of a rare, intact surviving record comprising both furniture and documentation. The documentation (held by others) relates to initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture of items. |
| Criterion C–Research Old Parliament House has a significant collection of documents which are associated with the place. This collection is an important source of historical information. The documents include plans, photographs and files that are directly related to the design, construction, use, and alteration of the Chambers and King’s Hall. An inventory of the collection is documented in Old Parliament House. | N/A |
| Criterion D–Principal characteristics of a class of places Old Parliament House is a primary example of the Inter War Stripped Classical style of architecture. This style was dominant in Canberra’s government architecture of the 1920s-1940s. It is also an example of how this style was varied in Canberra during the 1920s-1940s. This style variation was a major stylistic feature of Federal Capital Architecture in Canberra. The Inter War Stripped Classical style of architecture was varied to include the influence of Garden City ideals. In the case of Old Parliament House, this included courtyards with loggias and pergolas, verandahs, internal courtyards and adjacent gardens. Despite these influences the central stylistic expression of the building retained its classical orderliness. The characteristics of the building’s style and their expression in Old Parliament House’s exterior and interior, are due to the design work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch. Murdoch’s design is modest, embracing classical symmetry and forms, having balanced masses with projected bays with arched bronze framed windows. The architectural detail between the storeys (spandrels) also emphasises the verticality of the elevations. Old Parliament House and its curtilage also forms the central feature of a precinct. This precinct includes the two Secretariat buildings (East and West Blocks), the Old Parliament House Gardens, Constitutional and Magna Carta Places and the National Rose Gardens. There is some commonality in the design of early buildings within this precinct. This precinct reflects a period when there was an increase in Commonwealth Government power and an increase in the public’s interest in Canberra. | Old Parliament House is a good example of the Inter-War Stripped Classical style of architecture. The building reflects the embracing of classical symmetry and forms without the adoption of the full classical vocabulary and in this way it expresses a modest but refined architectural style. Key features of the style displayed by the building include: symmetrical facade, division into vertical bays indicating classical origins, vestigial classical entablature (being the horizontal decoration towards the top of the walls including the cornice), simple surfaces and spandrels (the panel between the top of a window on a lower level and the bottom of a window on a higher level) between storeys subdued to emphasise verticality. |
Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold
| National heritage listed values | Commonwealth heritage listed values |
|---|---|
| The essential character and symmetry of Old Parliament House have remained intact despite several substantial additions. The design of the building and its layout, its curtilage spaces and its interior rooms all demonstrate the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament. The building’s Chambers reflect the roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The seating arrangements particularly indicate the formal and adversarial nature of debate. The Public and Press Galleries illustrate the nature of public and press access to formal Parliamentary processes. This access is further demonstrated by the spaces allocated to the recording of Parliamentary sittings. The presence of Executive Government staff indicate the major involvement of the Executive in the processes of Parliament in Australia. The House of Representatives Wing comprises two blocks constructed in three phases: 1943, 1949 and 1965. The Senate Wing comprises two blocks and these were constructed in three phases: 1943, 1949 and 1972. These building Wings retain much of their internal layout and some fittings. They are an unusual physical record of the difficult working conditions of parliamentarians, staff and press representatives over the period 1943-88. Early surviving interiors of the building include King’s Hall, the Library, Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, Dining Rooms, Senate Opposition Party Room, Ministerial Party Room, Clerk of the Senate’s Office, Member’s Bar, Senate Government Party Room and Leader of the Government in the Senate’s Office. King’s Hall and the Chambers are important for reflecting the austerity of the times and the building’s style. The rooms tend to be simple spaces with little decoration and have subtle and repeated classical references. For example, the use of Greek key patterning is evident in the Chambers and in the external metal and rendered balustrades. Some of the rooms have a certain grandeur resulting from generously proportioned spaces with clerestory windows. The use of timber for wall or ceiling panelling and furniture also distinguishes some rooms. These variations in interior detail highlight the hierarchy of parliament. The importance given to the Parliamentary Library as a source of information for Parliament is demonstrated by its position within the building. The key positional features are its location on the central axis of the building, its close proximity to both Chambers and its access to and from King’s Hall. Its designated importance is also demonstrated by the design and fit-out of the Library rooms which feature extensive timber panelling and fittings. These fittings were normally reserved for high-status spaces such as the Chambers, the Party Rooms, and office holders’ rooms. The building is also of interest for surviving features consistent with, if not influenced by, Garden City ideals. These features include the courtyards with loggias and pergolas and the courtyards with verandahs. These features express aspects of the garden city principles and in particular the typical linking of internal spaces with the landscape setting. The adjacent Senate and House of Representatives gardens are a part of this landscape setting. These gardens have been substantially redeveloped but they contain the original garden layout. |
The essential character and symmetry of Old Parliament House have remained intact despite several substantial additions. The design of the building and its spaces, and the movable items associated with its operations demonstrate the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament. The divisions within Parliament and the hierarchical system of government are reflected in the categories and styles of both the rooms and furniture available to individuals of different status. |
| National heritage listed values | Commonwealth heritage listed values |
|---|---|
| Criterion E–Aesthetic characteristics Old Parliament House is an iconic national landmark that has a major role in the symbolic physical representation of democracy in the Parliamentary Triangle. This landmark importance has been strengthened by the setting and design of the new Parliament House building. These two buildings are read together as part of the land axis vista and they are also a part of the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle. Old Parliament House is a major component of public and familiar views of Canberra. In particular, Old Parliament House is appreciated for its crisp lines, stark white colour, pronounced vertical patterns and classical form. It makes a major contribution as a viewpoint towards the Australian War Memorial and in the other direction to Parliament House. The building is highly valued by the Australian community. This value is reflected in the popularity of its image, as documented in countless tourist and other imagery. These popular images include those made since the construction of Parliament House, completed in 1988. These post 1988 images of Old Parliament House are enhanced by the presence of Parliament House. |
The Old Parliament House is an important landmark in Canberra, Australia’s national capital. It is part of the significant cultural landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, partly reflecting Griffin’s design which placed the Government Group of buildings in this corner of the Triangle. This scheme represents in physical form on the ground the conception of the principal components of parliamentary government – the legislative, executive and judicial – the strict separation of these components and the hierarchical relationship between them. Old Parliament House is highly significant as an integral part of this scheme and, standing near the apex of the Triangle, symbolises the primacy of parliament or the legislature over the other two components. The building also occupies a prominent and strategic location at the southern end of the main Land Axis of Griffin’s city design, and contributes to the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle. The axis is arguably the pivotal feature of the design. Old Parliament House is one of four buildings sited on the axis. The other buildings being the Australian War Memorial, Anzac Hall and the current Parliament House. Accordingly, the Old Parliament House makes a major contribution as a viewpoint towards the Australian War Memorial which, together with the reverse view, are some of the most important views in the planned city. Its landmark status was recognised and enhanced by the design and siting of Australian Parliament House which integrated the building as part of the terminal feature of the North South vista along the Land Axis. The success of the building in fulfilling this landmark role is due in part to its stark white colour and symmetry, its privileged siting on the Land Axis and the open landscaping between the building and the lake. The role of the Old Parliament House as a national icon is reinforced by its central location in the nation’s capital. |
| Criterion F–Creative or technical achievement Old Parliament House is a significant landmark in Canberra. It is a major component of Walter Burley Griffin’s designed landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle which was designed to hold the principal components of parliamentary government. In particular the Griffin design sought to demonstrate the strict separation of the legislative, executive and judicial components of government and the hierarchical relationship between them. Old Parliament House demonstrates a high degree of achievement in combining built features into a designed landscape to achieve an aesthetic purpose. Erected at the base of the former Camp Hill on the main Land Axis, Old Parliament House symbolised the primacy of Parliament (or the legislature) over the executive arm of government. In this way the building contributed to the planned democracy symbolism of the Parliamentary Triangle now fulfilled with the construction of Parliament House on Capital Hill. This new Parliament House upholds Griffin’s design intention and embraces the Old Parliament House as an integral feature of the Land Axis vista. The success of Old Parliament House as a landmark is also due in part to its modest scale and aesthetic qualities, and the open landscaping and gardens between the building and the lake. Intended as a provisional structure, Old Parliament House was deliberately designed as a simple yet dignified building possessing appropriate exterior aesthetic and formal qualities for its use and location. It is a significant component of the designed vista along Canberra’s Land Axis. The Land Axis is one of Griffin’s main city design components which sets the order of the Federal Capital’s design. Although manifesting building failures in the past, with a constantly leaking roof, Old Parliament House demonstrates a high degree of achievement in combining built features into the designed landscape to achieve an aesthetic purpose. Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold |
Old Parliament House also represents a significant creative achievement. Intended as a provisional structure but occupying such a prominent location, it was deliberately designed as a plain yet dignified structure so that it possessed appropriate aesthetic and formal qualities for its location, but not to such an extent that it would enhance the possibility of the building becoming a permanent fixture in the landscape. |
| Criterion G–Social value Specific rooms and spaces within the building are directly associated with events that shaped the political and private lives of prominent individuals in Australia’s political and social history. Many of the former parliamentarians’ support staff and media representatives retain strong associations with the building and its contents. The importance of Old Parliament House to the Australian community was demonstrated when organisations and individuals rallied to support the retention of the place when it was threatened with demolition in the 1970s. |
Old Parliament House has been a strong symbol of Commonwealth Government in Australia, and of Canberra itself, for many generations of Australians. While its original function has shifted to the current Parliament House, the earlier building remains an important and familiar feature because of the memories of its former role, its new roles in the public realm, and its major contribution to the most familiar views in Canberra, from and to the building along the Land Axis. Elements of the building that particularly reflect this value are the front façade, the entrance portico, King’s Hall and the Chambers. The façade of the building is significant as a widely recognised symbol of Commonwealth Parliament and Government from 1927 to 1988. The façade is also important as the backdrop for media interviews, protests and other events associated with the Parliament and Government. These events include the establishment of an Aboriginal Tent Embassy in nearby Parkes Place in January 1972 and the address by Prime Minister Whitlam on the front steps of the building after his sacking by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in November 1975. |
Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold
Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating in the Prime Minister’s Suite
Photographer: Robert McFarlane. Source: Department of the House of Representatives
Sketch, front elevation of Old Parliament House, circa 1976
Source: Old Parliament House collectionThe Farmers’ Demonstration of 1985 was the largest held at the front of Old Parliament House and expressed farmers’ anger about the impact of government policies on the rural sector
Photographer: Michael Jensen. Source: In the Picture Exhibition, Old Parliament House Collection
| Criterion H–Significant people Old Parliament House has an important association with many people, particularly national politicians. Prime Ministers of Australia who served their term in Old Parliament House include: Stanley Bruce from 29/10/1922 to 22/10/1929 James Scullin from 22/10/1929 to 6/1/1932 Joseph Lyons from 6/1/1932 to 7/4/1939 Earle Page from 7/4/1939 to 26/4/1939 Robert Menzies from 26/4/1939 to 29/8/1941 Arthur Fadden from 29/8/1941 to 7/10/1941 John Curtin from 7/10/1941 to 5/7/1945 Frank Forde from 6/7/1945 to 13/7/1945 Ben Chifley from 13/7/1945 to 19/12/1949 Robert Menzies from 19/12/1949 to 26/1/1966 Harold Holt from 26/1/1966 to 19/12/1967 John McEwen from 19/12/1967 to 10/1/1968 John Gorton from 10/1/1968 to 10/3/1971 William McMahon from 10/3/1971 to 5/12/1972 Gough Whitlam from 5/12/1972 to 11/11/1975 Malcolm Fraser from 11/11/1975 to 11/3/1983 Bob Hawke from 11/3/1983 and continued beyond 1988 when Federal Parliament moved to the new building. Prominent individuals associated with the Wings include Senator Neville Bonner AO, the first Aboriginal parliamentarian elected in 1972, and Dame Enid Lyons and Senator Dorothy Tangney, the first women elected in 1943. The building is the most prominent example of the work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch. Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold |
As the home of the Commonwealth Parliament from 1927 until 1988, Old Parliament House is significant for its associations with Commonwealth Governments, Oppositions, political parties, individual politicians and the press. Specific rooms and spaces within the building are directly associated with events that shaped the political and private lives of prominent individuals in Australia’s political and social history. Many of the surviving parliamentarians, support staff and media representatives feel strong associations with the building and its contents. Old Parliament House is also significant as the most prominent example of the work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch. To a lesser extent, it is significant as an example of the work of the Chief Architect of the Department of the Interior, Edwin Henderson, who devised the scheme for adding the southeast and southwest wings in their original two-storey form. |
Attributes Key: Fabric shown in green Associations and Use shown in bold
Front view of Old Parliament House, 2003
Photographer: Auspic. Source: Old Parliament House Collection
In order to strengthen heritage management at
Old Parliament House development of the 2008–2013 Heritage Management Plan included a values mapping process. This involved an analysis of how the identified heritage values are embodied in different aspects of the place, its setting and its fabric. The analysis resulted in a series of maps which illustrate where the different values are located in the place and, importantly, where a wide range of values overlap. In addition to the mapping process, this analysis also considers how robustly the identified values are embodied in the place and the fabric. This concept has been termed the ‘sensitivity of the values to change’6. Areas with a high sensitivity to change are those areas where even a small level of change has the potential to impact on the heritage values. These areas are likely to be ones with a high level of intact fabric which demonstrates, for instance, a range of technical and creative values and historical associations. On the other hand, areas with a low sensitivity to change are those where the values can tolerate a higher level of change without detrimental impact. These may be areas where the values are not so strongly embodied in the extant fabric. The mapped values are outlined on the following pages.
Government Party Room
Photographer: Auspic. Source: Old Parliament House Collection
Following the mapping of the values areas were grouped together, on the basis of the values embodied and their level of sensitivity to change, to form Zones. The Zones are a management tool designed to assist in the action assessment process by delivering a quick overview of the values which need to be managed in a particular area and their level of sensitivity to any proposed changes. The Zones are set out in Chapter 6.
An analysis of the implications of the risks to the heritage values at Old Parliament House was undertaken as an important early step in the development of the 2008–2013 Heritage Management Plan. Consultation was undertaken with a range of internal stakeholders. The views gathered provide different perspectives on the interaction of heritage management, maintenance and works and the promotional needs of the place. These views are synthesised in the Heritage Management Plan.
The risks to the identified values at Old Parliament House generally fall into two categories:
The effects of risks to the fabric and form of the place tend to be measurable. They also tend to be the risks that are more readily identifiable in advance and therefore can be prevented. Examples of these risks include:
The second category of risks relates principally to the less tangible values of Old Parliament House, and the need to ensure its ongoing use and the interpretation of its values to a wide audience. The risks identified in this regard include:
Reconstructed Country Party Room
Photographer: Auspic. Source: Old Parliament House Collection
The risks to the heritage values of Old Parliament House are generally manageable through proper planning.
In relation to the management of risks to fabric and form, an opportunity for the streamlining and formalising of assessment processes in-house has been identified, and has been realised through the development of an action proposal form with associated assessment procedures applied through a single responsible committee.
Other opportunities for minimising identified risks relate to the promotion of the place in the mind of the public. In particular, the harnessing of its symbolic status, and by telling the story of Australian democracy and the place’s history in an engaging and exciting manner will help minimise risks to some of the less tangible values of Old Parliament House. These types of activities will be carried out in partnership with other bodies as appropriate. They will need to be supported by an ongoing research program, which will also ensure that important associations between spaces, things and people are not lost.
It has been recognised that changes in use (including new tenants, functions, events and other activities) need not necessarily be regarded solely in terms of risk. New uses can also enhance the heritage values of Old Parliament House and provide opportunities for its improved ongoing community use, conservation and interpretation.
The outcomes of the risk analysis are manifested in the Heritage Management Plan at a number of levels. They have informed the design of the zones, statements of intent and the objectives devised to manage the heritage values within them. Similarly, they have informed the many policies contained within the Heritage Management Plan, as well as other agency management documents for collections, learning, disasters etc. Together, the objectives and policies (and the action framework developed to give them effect) proactively address the identified threats to Old Parliament House’s heritage values. They establish an assessment procedure for all actions and provide clear direction in relation to conservation, consultation, interpretation, monitoring of works, training and general management. They also respond to the identified opportunities for improved heritage management by identifying steps that might be taken to more effectively tell the stories of the place while making appropriate use of its internal spaces and movable heritage without impact on heritage values.
A school group in the House of Representatives Chamber, 2002
Photographer: Heide Smith. Source: Old Parliament House Collection
Based on the detailed assessment, a general statement can be made that Old Parliament House displays fair condition and a medium level of integrity.
However, such a general statement masks a more variable story when considering individual elements and spaces. For example there are some elements in only poor-fair condition (eg. Senate lower floor of the North Wing) or with low integrity (eg. the main floor in the Southwest Wing), while others are in good condition (eg. the Prime Minister’s Suite) and have high integrity (eg. the Chambers).
In such a large and complex building it is important to recognise the range of condition and integrity.
In terms of trends, in the period 2007-2013 there is an impression that the condition of the values of OPH is generally stable, with some improvement or decline in particular components. There has been an improvement in condition of some components, but because of conservation or refurbishment works, in some cases while condition has improved, integrity has declined. In addition, a number of minor changes were noted which do not affect the overall rating of a component but nonetheless impact on condition or integrity. The range of associations recalled by general knowledge or interpretation has improved.
Appendix H describes the detailed assessment, including methodology and a comparison with the 2007 assessment.
The management framework for Old Parliament House and Curtilage is entirely exercised by the Commonwealth with two parties administering the area; these are the National Capital Authority and Old Parliament House as an Executive Agency.
The place sits in a broader Commonwealth Heritage Listed area known as the Parliament House Vista of some 260 hectares administered by the National Capital Authority–and is adjacent to other important places, buildings and landscapes.
The place must be managed as a feature in the broader landscape, as well as an individual element with its own heritage values. The key relationships are determined by its symbolic place in the landscape together with the social and historic functions performed in the place over time, that have a broader community appeal across Australia and internationally.
The role of management is to continue to express and maintain the heritage values of the place by ameliorating risks and maintaining the attributes of the place in its setting; and to interpret and communicate the values across the broader Australian community so the place continues to be alive and meaningful to the existence of the nation.
The management of the place is also guided by the Old Parliament House Advisory Council. This council is an advisory body which meets several times a year and provides advice to the Director on the strategic directions of Old Parliament House.
The principal legislation governing the management of Old Parliament House is the EPBC Act. Under this Act Old Parliament House is responsible for ensuring the protection of the National and Commonwealth heritage listed values pursuant to the Act. The key objectives of the Act relevant to Old Parliament House are to:
The EPBC Act also identifies and defines the principle of ecologically sustainable development that should underpin management decision-making and defines key heritage management principles.
In association with the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2003 (No 1) inform the practice of meeting the Act’s requirements. Relevant sections are: Schedules 5A and 5B for National Heritage listed places and Schedules 7A and 7B for Commonwealth Heritage listed places (see Appendix A).
Other government legislation relating to finance, native title, administration, security and work health safety, disability access and building regulations influence and direct activities of management.
This plan sets in place a formal administrative process for the assessment and approval of actions for the day–to–day activities of Old Parliament House. Matters that require approval under the EPBC Act are to be referred to the Commonwealth agency responsible for administering the EPBC Act.
The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, establishes the National Capital Authority (NCA), and requires the NCA to prepare and administer a National Capital Plan. The National Capital Plan defines Designated Areas and sets out detailed policies for land use and detailed conditions of planning, design and development within them. Works approval must be obtained from the National Capital Authority for all ‘works’ proposed withia Designated Area.
Old Parliament House and Curtilage is part of the Parliamentary Zone, a Designated Area as defined in the National Capital Plan. Therefore all external ‘works’ require written approval from the National Capital Authority.
Works proposed in the Parliamentary Zone also require approval of both Houses of Federal Parliament. The Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories may inquire into development proposals within the Parliamentary Zone and make recommendations for their approval. Specified works require approval from Parliament. In general, these provisions apply to external works, and matters of minor impact, including maintenance and repair which may be reported to the Joint Standing Committee.
The management of Old Parliament House is further guided by a number of national and internationally recognised conservation guidelines, standards and codes of practice.
Old Parliament House is an executive agency of the Australian Government. Old Parliament House is divided into two branches – Business Operations & Heritage and Audience, Programs & Partnerships. The Business Operations & Heritage branch is responsible for governance and strategic planning, and the management of human resources, finance, facilities, IT, heritage and collections. The Audience, Programs & Partnerships branch is responsible for content development and commissioning, facilitating community engagement and developing and implementing lifelong learning programs.
Living democracy. Community building.
At a time of global political upheaval, we play a significant role in exploring and communicating the intrinsic value of democracy – the capacity for people to govern their own lives, to have their say. With an Australian perspective, in a country made up of over 200 nationalities, the Museum provides a space not just to celebrate our democratic traditions, but also to truly collaborate with our audiences and stakeholders. We will embrace this opportunity to connect communities, encourage participation and value freedom.
Through the lens of living democracy, we will build a vibrant community through exhibitions, talks, festivals, artists, celebrations, tours, films, markets, concerts and memorials. We want to enrich the quality of Australians’ lives by providing a place to connect with family and friends, and offer unprecedented opportunities to make this iconic building a rich and central part of our civic and individual experience.
The Strategic Plan provides a five year plan to implement the agency vision based on being the following:
Our collection, events, exhibitions, interpretation and learning programs will tell stories and provoke conversations that inspire and help Australians to remember, reflect on, celebrate and value the spirit of democracy.
Enhanced visitor experiences – onsite, online and through outreach activities – will be created for, by and about the people, community and democratic spirit of Canberra, the nation and the world. Our targeted activities will be timely and relevant, encouraging active engagement and dialogue.
In this nationally significant place, we will create a vibrant and welcoming Town Square as a rich and central part of our civic and individual experience. Progress will be achieved in harmony with heritage values which recognise, preserve and communicate the spirit of place.
Our organisational culture will enable the Museum and its valued staff to be nimble, courageous, democratic and efficient. Our actions and relationships will ensure ongoing relevance and financial sustainability, advancing the Museum and the building as a critical asset for diverse sectors.
The Heritage Management Plan should be referenced in other planning and policy documents (ie section plans, content plans, learning plans etc) that sit beneath the Strategic Plan 2013-18.
The key statutory planning document influencing the management of Old Parliament House and Curtilage is the National Capital Plan, administered by the National Capital Authority.
The object of the National Capital Plan is to ensure that Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance. In particular, the plan seeks to preserve and enhance the special characteristics and those qualities of the National Capital which are of national significance. Areas of national significance are identified as ‘Designated Areas’, which include both ‘National Land’ (managed by the Commonwealth) and ‘Territory Land’ (managed by the ACT Government).
The plan describes the broad pattern of land use to be adopted in the development of Canberra and other relevant matters of broad policy. The plan also sets out detailed conditions for the planning, design and development of National Land.
Works within a Designated Area require written approval from the National Capital Authority and must meet these detailed conditions. Such works include:
Old Parliament House is one of a number of heritage listed properties in the region and one of many important buildings in the local environment. There are a number of organisations and partnerships that work together to foster an appreciation of, and improved management outcomes for, cultural heritage in the region. Old Parliament House maintains an active role in these organisations in order to pursue continuous improvement in the management of heritage properties and to enhance the capacity and skills of people involved in the management of heritage places within the region.
Old Parliament House management acknowledges that the community and particularly the volunteers and associates of the place contribute significantly to its living history and help keep the place alive. They are crucial to the informed interpretation and management of the place.
This potential use plan provides a broad sense of the current and possible changes to the use of place. Changes to the use of the place will be informed by the organisational strategic vision and elements in the Heritage Management Plan including the core principles, policies and zones. Any changes to the use of the place must consider the long term integrity of the heritage values of the place and be subject to approval through the Actions Proposal Process and must consider Policy 5 in this Heritage Management Plan.
The use of the place, in particular any changes, will be reviewed and analysed in conjunction with the 5 year review of the Heritage Management Plan.
Future uses will consider:
Future uses may trend towards:
The following drawing shows the activities current for 2013 including:
Interpretation – long and short term displays encompassing the existing heritage fabric
Exhibition – long and short term displays about the heritage values and/or democracy
Learning – spaces for school programs, school holiday programs and life-long learning
Storage – for the collection and museum support
Australian Prime Ministers Centre – library, Fellows rooms
Support services – kitchens, plant rooms, lifts, stairs
Commercial – catering facilities, retail, functions
Office – Old Parliament House staff and tenants
Public Circulation
The policies are derived from a consideration of:
The policies form a framework for the management of the heritage values of Old Parliament House in their socio/cultural, commercial and environmental context. See Appendix I for the rationales and commentaries supporting the policies.
The policies inform the zones and their statements of intent and objectives (see Zones, Chapter 6). The zones enact the intent of the policy framework in relation to the conservation and management of the different areas of the building which embody the diverse aspects of the heritage values.
The specific tasks associated with these policies are described in the Implementation Plan (Chapter 10).
There are eight key policy areas:
This policy provides the framework for the physical conservation of the heritage values of Old Parliament House for making decisions about conservation work, conservation management activities and undertaking ongoing research.
This policy provides the framework for assessing and making robust decisions about action proposals.
3 Documentation and Monitoring
This policy provides for the recording of change at Old Parliament House and for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the Policies.
This policy provides for consultation with community and stakeholders and the interpretation and promotion of the heritage values of the place.
This policy provides the framework for the continuation or cessation of existing uses and the facilitation of new uses.
This policy provides for the conservation of the heritage values of Old Parliament House in the context of facilitating access, security requirements, plant and services.
This policy provides direction for accessioning, de-accessioning, leasing and other forms of disposal or acquisition of parts of Old Parliament House, including movable heritage.
This policy provides for the co-ordination of heritage management and sound environmental management.
Front of Old Parliament House
Old Parliament House management must conserve the heritage values of the place in accordance with the EPBC Act and the ACT (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. Old Parliament House management will recognise and adopt the official heritage values and statements of significance as a basis for management of the place through: applying the Burra Charter; employing competent heritage managers and advisors; undertaking appropriate research and assessment prior to making decisions which may impact upon heritage values; and seeking funds to manage the place based upon a nil decline in the condition of heritage values.
| Conservation Approach | |
|---|---|
| 1.1 Principal management documents | 1.1.1 The heritage values of Old Parliament House must be conserved and managed in accordance with the Heritage Management Plan and the Burra Charter. 1.1.2 Old Parliament House management must review and update the Heritage Management Plan every five years or as necessary and annually report on its implementation as specified in the EPBC Amendment Regulations 5A (10.01C) and 7A (10.01E). |
| 1.2 Conservation Processes |
1.2.1 Conservation, maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation works (as defined by the Burra Charter) must be carried out in accordance with the Burra Charter. The respective need for conservation, preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation must be determined by reference to Old Parliament House’s heritage values and their sensitivity to change. |
| 1.3 Specific elements of the conservation processes | 1.3.1 Conserve, protect and maintain all heritage fabric (attributes of the values) of the building pertaining to the functions and occupation of Parliament including: a the existing external and internal fabric, spaces, objects and servicing; b the interwar, stripped classical architectural style, symmetrical style, form, massing and details of the building in its open vista setting; and c all rooms of design, architectural and functional interest and their juxtapositions. |
| 1.4 Retention of fabric in situ | 1.4.1 Heritage building fabric (pre-1988) must be retained in situ commensurate with its heritage values and sensitivity to change, unless precluded by legislative requirements, health and safety considerations, threat of vandalism or theft, and/or severely deteriorated condition. 1.4.2 Any proposal to remove fabric to protect it from threats of deterioration, theft or vandalism will be an Action which must be assessed. 1.4.3 A representative sample of in situ fabric must be retained where feasible. 1.4.4 Traditional techniques and materials for the conservation of fabric of heritage value must be preferred, except where modern techniques and materials offer substantial conservation benefits (Burra Charter, Article 4). |
| 1.5 Removing heritage fabric | 1.5.1 Where fabric of heritage value is removed as a result of an Action, which has been assessed following the procedures contained in the Heritage Management Plan, this must be preceded by, and carried out with, appropriate documentation and monitoring. 1.5.2 All removed fabric must be assessed and protected in accordance with its heritage values. 1.5.3 All removed fabric which is assessed as possessing heritage value must be stored on site, as far as possible (Burra Charter, Article 33). 1.5.4 In situ evidence of removed fabric of heritage value must be retained where this is consistent with the heritage values of the place. 1.5.5 New/replacement fabric must be labelled and discernable as such on close inspection. |
| 1.6 Intrusive fabric | 1.6.1 Intrusive fabric must be removed where to do so does not cause greater adverse impact on heritage values than its retention (for example through damage to heritage fabric) unless: a it plays an essential role in the operation or management of the place; or b its retention is necessary to maintain operational or safety standards. 1.6.2 Intrusive fabric is fabric which detracts from, or diminishes, the heritage values of the place. For example, post-1988 fabric. |
| 1.7 Protection of the setting | 1.7.1 The setting will be protected by: a maintaining the relationship with the adjacent House of Representative Gardens and Senate Gardens b ensuring the Parliament House Vista is unimpeded by works on Old Parliament House c ensuring no additions or extensions are made to the external boundaries (elevations and roof) of the building and its curtilage; and d conserving and protecting views to and from Old Parliament House. |
| 1.8 Conserving the layered history of Old Parliament House | 1.8.1 Wherever possible the conservation of one ‘layer’ of the Old Parliament House story should not compromise the conservation and interpretation of other ‘layers’. Maintenance or capital work must be undertaken in accordance with the identified heritage values of the layers. 1.8.2 Where maintenance or capital work or physical intervention in the building has the potential to expose earlier, hidden layers of fabric, this work will be assessed using the procedures in this Heritage Management Plan. 1.8.3 Such Actions may be approved with appropriate conditions which ensure that: a the work is undertaken by an appropriate person; and b the heritage value of the newly revealed fabric is assessed and is subsequently managed in line with this Heritage Management Plan. |
Conservation and reconstruction of the hand painted wall features in the Members’ Private Dining Room, 2003
| Treatment Approach |
|
|---|---|
| 1.9 Treatment of specific components of the building fabric |
1.9.1 All treatment of components must be carried out in accordance with the corresponding Permitted Action Schedule or seek approval of approach via an Action Proposal Form (see Chapter 8). 1.9.2 A cleaning program must be implemented in accordance with the Permitted Action Schedule. 1.9.3 The treatment of specific components of the building should be carried out as outlined below. This is not an exhaustive list of treatments, but rather a specific list of key components. a The roof line must remain below the height of the parapet line. The roof cladding and structure should be repaired where feasible, or modified and replaced as necessary. b Where feasible, pre-1988 floor fabric should be conserved, with appropriate finishes. Sample areas of rubber flooring should be retained in use and on display where their ongoing conservation can be achieved. Where rubber or parquet floor materials are unserviceable and it is intended to lay new and different floor coverings (eg carpet in place of rubber), consideration should be given to methods of laying new floor coverings on top of old which might maximise conservation of the earlier flooring. Every effort should be made to conserve in situ at least a sample of original flooring treatments if more extensive conservation is not feasible. If flooring has been assessed by Actions Committee for removal due to poor condition, then a replica must be considered the most appropriate alternative (see also policies 1.4.1 and 1.5.5). c Ceilings in spaces with high individual heritage value should be retained at their existing height or reconstructed to the height that reflects their significance. In other areas existing lowered ceiling heights may be retained if needed to conceal mechanical or electrical services. d Evidence of former colour schemes should be researched and documented to the highest standard of heritage practice. The colour schemes applied to the exterior or interior spaces of heritage value in Old Parliament House should be based on a documented former scheme. Painting of interior spaces in sympathetic but non-historical new colours is an acceptable component of adaptation to new uses where the level of sensitivity to change allows, and where interpretation of the building is not a primary function of the space. e Frequent painting of pre-1988 surfaces for exhibition purposes should be discouraged or other techniques used, to retain pre-1988 architectural textures. Painting exhibition messages on pre-1988 walls should not be undertaken. f Skylights should be maintained to allow natural light to enter the building. g The external fabric of the building should be stabilised using the most effective conservation techniques. |
| 1.10 Conservation and management of movable heritage and collections | 1.10.1 The collection development plan and collection management procedures must reference these policies and be the principal guides for management of the agency’s collection. 1.10.2 Collection management must be guided by the AICCM Code of Practice, the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums and the Museums Australia Code of Ethics, Resource Description and Access, Library of Congress Subject Headings, the Australian extension to LCSH, Dewey Decimal Classification, MARC21, and other Libraries Australia cataloguing standards. 1.10.3 Development of the museum collection through acquisitions must contribute to:
1.10.5 Acquisitions must be recommended to the delegate by the Acquisitions Committee before becoming part of the museum collection (excluding library material). 1.10.6 Old Parliament House will not collect conditional donations, ‘permanent loans’, items with inadequate provenance, items that cannot be appropriately cared for, items transferred in contravention of any Australian law. 1.10.7 The collection will be documented to international standards. 1.10.8 All items accepted into the collection must have clear transfer of ownership documentation. 1.10.9 All inward and outward loans will be documented. 1.10.10 Old Parliament House will in the first instance use its collection for display, augmenting programs with borrowed items. 1.10.11 Loans will only be made on a short term basis. 1.10.12 Access and use of collection items will be balanced against their conservation, care and security requirements. 1.10.13 Staff, volunteers and contractors will be trained in working around collections. 1.10.14 Old Parliament House will provide appropriate levels of care, storage conditions and display conditions for its collection and loaned items, including appropriate environment, physical conditions, handling and security. 1.10.15 Old Parliament House will store its collection on-site whenever possible. 1.10.16 Old Parliament House will regularly monitor items on display and make changes as necessary to protect the condition of the items. |
| 1.11 Use of original items of movable heritage | 1.11.1 The use of original items of movable heritage in display, interpretation, exhibition etc may be considered where adequate safeguards for their physical security can be provided. 1.11.2 The use of original timber and leather upholstered items of furniture in general office operations must be encouraged unless; a items are part of the Reference Collection b the continued use would adversely impact on the heritage values of the items or place; or, c where precluded by health and safety considerations. 1.11.3 Access to the Chambers furniture is restricted to:
Replicas must be labelled and discernible as such on close inspection. |
Parliamentary Library
Photographer: Auspic. Source: Old Parliament House Collection
| Qualifications and Expertise | |
|---|---|
| 1.12 Heritage expertise | 1.12.1 Old Parliament House must maintain a staff solely responsible for heritage and collection management. 1.12.2 Only appropriately competent people may: a provide advice to Old Parliament House personnel with respect to the carrying out of heritage conservation works b determine the appropriateness of Actions in heritage terms c certify heritage assessments or assess Actions; and/or d supervise or carry out conservation work. 1.12.3 Senior heritage staff must be able to demonstrate competence and experience in heritage matters. 1.12.4 Competent direction and supervision must be maintained at all stages, and any changes should be implemented by people with appropriate knowledge and skills (Burra Charter, Article 30). 1.12.5 Relevant Old Parliament House staff must have access to conservation-focussed periodic in-service training. 1.12.6 All staff and tenants must attend heritage awareness training on induction. 1.12.7 Where requisite in-house skills or knowledge are not available, external consultants must be engaged to provide the skills or knowledge. 1.12.8 Old Parliament House may maintain an Expert Advisory Panel in order to provide expert advice, peer review and support to Old Parliament House staff. 1.12.9 Old Parliament House may seek advice from the Commonwealth agency administering the EPBC Act. |
| 1.13 Training | 1.13.1 Old Parliament House management must pursue an active and ongoing training program for all new and existing staff, and contractors where relevant, which reflects the content and intent of the Heritage Management Plan and which is responsive to the changing needs of the place and new technologies. Source: Old Parliament House Collection |
Collections staff assessing the condition of movable items in storage
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
| Research | |
|---|---|
| 1.14 Research | 1.14.1 Old Parliament House must prepare a schedule of priority research areas to encourage research activity into areas that will assist in the management of heritage values. 1.14.2 Old Parliament House must complete and maintain the room by room/area and movable collection research and documentation. 1.14.3 Old Parliament House may facilitate research through partnerships with tertiary institutions. 1.14.4 Old Parliament House must store research data in a sustainable and permanent form and make it publicly available, subject to the requirements of security and privacy, where this is culturally appropriate. 1.14.5 Old Parliament House must maintain its Reference Collection of highly significant items of movable heritage and examples of common movable items in good condition, for research and conservation purposes. 1.14.6 Old Parliament House will make its collection available for research where that research builds upon the current knowledge of the item or collection. |
| 1.15 Managing research impacts | 1.15.1 ‘Disturbance of significant fabric for study, or to obtain evidence, should be minimised. Study of the place by any disturbance of the fabric, including archaeological excavation, should only be undertaken to provide data essential for decisions on conservation of the place, or to obtain important evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible’ (Burra Charter, Article 28). 1.15.2 Research in Old Parliament House must be considered an Action requiring the assessment of an Action Proposal Form, unless specifically permitted in the Permitted Action Schedule. |
The dining room in the President of the Senates’ Suite is part of the 1970s extensions to the North Wing featured here with a selection of the 1970s furniture collection purchased for the new suite
Source: National Archives of Australia Series A6180/2 date: 27-8-1973
| Archaeology and Flora | |
|---|---|
| 1.16 Potential archaeology | 1.16.1 Ground disturbance must be preceded by an archaeological assessment and, where archaeological potential is identified, carried out in accordance with the assessment’s recommendations for archaeological heritage management. 1.16.2 Archaeological assessments must be undertaken by a competent archaeologist. 1.16.3 A competent archaeologist shall supervise any ground disturbance in areas identified as being archaeologically sensitive. |
| 1.17 Flora species | 1.17.1 Old Parliament House management must liaise with the National Capital Authority to develop and implement a plan to protect and propagate flora species of heritage value in order to maintain the heritage values of the gardens and plantings at Old Parliament House. 1.17.2 Old Parliament House management must prepare a program for the maintenance of the gardens in the curtilage area. |
The House of Representatives Wing Courtyard Garden, 2005
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
Old Parliament House management must maintain a cross organisational committee to ensure the protection of heritage values through robust participatory management, decision making procedures and the assessment of action proposals and manage tenders and contracts through appropriate application of the EPBC Act and other relevant legislation and codes.
| Management Mechanisms | |
|---|---|
| 2.1 Actions Committee | 2.1.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain a committee to make recommendations about Action proposals made up of at least the managers responsible for the following functional areas: a building services and capital works b heritage conservation and collection management c events, learning and public programs; and d exhibitions and interpretation. 2.1.2 A log of recommendations made by the committee and decisions made by the delegate must be kept. All committee deliberations and recommendations must be minuted. 2.1.3 The committee will meet regularly to: a oversee the routine maintenance program and the carrying out of a cyclical maintenance program b oversee the program for capital works, maintenance and repairs, informed by heritage considerations and the risk-based resource allocation program c resolve conflict arising from action proposals and permitted action schedules d assess all Action proposals including events, exhibitions and interpretation, proposed maintenance and repair, against heritage values, and make recommendations as to the viability and appropriateness in heritage terms of proposed Actions; and e consider and review reports and programs. 2.1.4 Delegations for approvals will be made in the Actions Committee Terms of Reference. |
| 2.2 Assessment of proposals | 2.2.1 Unless they are permitted actions, all proposals for works, conservation and other activities are Actions requiring assessment and approval. 2.2.2 All proposals, including those for new uses, must include an assessment of the heritage values sensitivity to change as outlined in the Action Proposal Form and Mapped Values. 2.2.3 Actions must be assessed and certified following the procedures established in the Action Proposal Form unless specified in Permitted Action Schedule. 2.2.4 Action Proposal Forms must be certified by a competent person and approved by a delegated officer. |
| 2.3 Permitted Actions | 2.3.1 Permitted Actions are Actions that will not have an adverse impact on the heritage values. These must be undertake in accordance with the scheduled guidelines without the need for an Action proposal (see Chapter 9 for permitted action schedule). 2.3.2 Actions may be added to Permitted Action Schedule if determined to have no adverse impact on the heritage values by the Actions Committee. |
| 2.4 Zones | 2.4.1 Policies must be enacted through the implementation of zones. |
| Contracts and Tenders |
|
|---|---|
| 2.5 Works programs | 2.5.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain a Capital Works Plan, a Routine Maintenance Program and a Cyclical Maintenance Program, based on the Life Cycle Cost Plan, consistent with this Heritage Management Plan. |
| 2.6 Conservation safeguards in contracts and tenders | 2.6.1 Ensure the work methods are consistent with the conservation of the heritage values of Old Parliament House. In general, contracts must ensure that: a contractors are appropriately trained and supervised for work in a heritage building b contractors are appropriately attired during works (for example white gloves or soft soled shoes in some circumstances) c proposed work methodologies are reviewed by Old Parliament House Actions Committee prior to commencement of works d Old Parliament House management has access to the work place in order to supervise, monitor and direct works as necessary e A risk assessment is undertaken and proof of heritage induction training is provided prior to commencement of works; and f Old Parliament House management can terminate the contract on reasonable grounds, including failure to observe acceptable standards of conservation work. |
| Allocating Resources | |
| 2.7 Resource allocation | 2.7.1 A risk-based resource allocatioprocess must be used to prioritise conservation works programs. |
| 2.8 Cost to conserve | 2.8.1 Old Parliament House management must adopt the approach of nil decline in the condition of the listed heritage values, and in the heritage management infrastructure necessary to conserve and maintain these values, in accessing and seeking the funding required to maintan the heritage values. |
| Building Standards | |
| 2.9 Building Code of Australia and Disability Discrimination Act | 2.9.1 Old Parliament House management must adopt the Building Code of Australia (BCA) as a certification standard for building works unless it conflicts with the heritage values. 2.9.2 Where change is required to achieve compliance with the BCA and/or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), confine those changes, as much as possible, to areas with a low sensitivity to change. 2.9.3 Where compliance with the BCA or DDA would cause a significant adverse impact on the heritage values, Old Parliament House management must liaise with the certifier/consent authority to achieve an outcome for the conservation of the heritage values of Old Parliament House which adequately satisfies the objectives of the certification standard without unduly compromising the heritage values. |
| Business | |
|---|---|
| 2.10 Business continuity | 2.10.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain and update the Old Parliament House Business Continuity Plan to be consistent with the Heritage Management Plan. |
| 2.11 Disaster preparedness planning | 2.11.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain its Disaster Management Plan through: a regular updating b ensuring training and exercises are completed on schedule c regular auditing of equipment and consumables for compliance; and d reporting to the executive management group on preparedness. |
Spot cleaning carpet after a minor water leak in the Government Party Room, 2005
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
| Documentation |
|
|---|---|
| 3.1 Use of the processes and documentation contained in the Heritage Management Plan | 3.1.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain a database of Action Proposals and decisions made. 3.1.2 Old Parliament House management must record all works documentation in a suitable database as part of the works program. 3.1.3 Through the Human Impact Management Program, Old Parliament House management must maintain chronological records of events, functions and conferences identifying and documenting impacts where they occur. |
| Monitoring |
|
|---|---|
| 3.2 Evaluation Strategy | 3.2.1 Old Parliament House management must monitor all Actions that are carried out at the place to ensure that they are effective and consistent with the heritage values, as part of an ongoing program. |
| 3.3 Condition of Values | 3.3.1 The condition of Old Parliament House and its heritage values must be monitored as part of an ongoing condition assessment program. 3.3.2 Old Parliament House management must re-evaluate the condition of the heritage values at five yearly intervals and report on trends against the baseline and make recommendations regarding the findings of the re-evaluation. 3.3.3 Old Parliament House management must implement the Human Impact Management Program. |
| 3.4 Cyclical Maintenance Program |
3.4.1 The effectiveness of the Cyclical Maintenance Program must be monitored. |
| 3.5 Recording works in progress and on completion | 3.5.1 All works undertaken at Old Parliament House must be monitored and documented, during the works and upon completion, in order to create a record of change at Old Parliament House. The standard of recording will be that required in the Permitted Action Schedule or conditions of approval for an Action. |
| 3.6 Exhibitions and interpretation | 3.6.1 Old Parliament House management must conduct evaluations of exhibitions and interpretation programs to assess their effectiveness in meeting their stated objectives. 3.6.2 Old Parliament House management must use the data collected in evaluation studies to update and improve interpretation and exhibition programs. |
| 3.7 Works and events audits | 3.7.1 Works and events must be randomly audited to ensure that heritage conditions in contracts and approvals are met. |
| Leases |
|
|---|---|
| 3.8 Monitoring lessees | 3.8.1 Old Parliament House management must undertake regular inspections of leased areas and identify and rectify improper Actions undertaken in leased areas. |
Old Parliament House management must maintain ongoing consultation with community and government bodies regarding Actions affecting the place and will undertake a comprehensive program of interpretation of the heritage values to the community, both on-site and through a variety of outreach programs.
| Consultation | |
|---|---|
| 4.1 No actions without relevant consultation | 4.1.1 Action Proposals must fulfil the internal and external consultation requirements contained in the Heritage Management Plan (through the Action Proposal Form). |
| 4.2 Community and stakeholder consultation | 4.2.1 Old Parliament House management must pursue an active program of community consultation in relation to proposed actions that may have a significant adverse impact on the heritage values and may trigger the need for referral under the EPBC Act through which statutory community consultation will be undertaken. 4.2.2 Actions with the potential to impact on Indigenous heritage values must be preceded by appropriate Indigenous community consultation. 4.2.3 Old Parliament House management may establish a web-based information service that includes a notifications section on forthcoming events, open workshops, proposed actions (which may have a significant impact on the heritage values of the place) and provides opportunities for public comment on any matter. 4.2.4 Old Parliament House management may place public advertisements in relevant media, in addition to a web-based information service, to disseminate information regarding proposed actions and invite public comment. 4.2.5 Old Parliament House management may conduct an open public workshop as part of revising the use of a part of the place. 4.2.6 Old Parliament House management must consult with, and keep informed, the volunteers and staff at Old Parliament House in relation to proposed actions which may have a significant adverse impact on the heritage values. |
| Partnerships and Memberships | |
|---|---|
| 4.3 Partnerships and memberships | 4.3.1 Old Parliament House management may actively pursue partnerships and memberships with private industry, universities, professional bodies and related institutions with a view to ensuring information sharing, the promotion of the place to all sections of the community and enhancing heritage management outcomes at Old Parliament House. 4.3.2 Old Parliament House management may become a member of, or maintain its existing membership of relevant organisations. 4.3.3 Old Parliament House management may explore commercial partnerships with other institutions in Australia and elsewhere, and private enterprise, that are likely to generate resources for the continued conservation of Old Parliament House and which will assist in promoting and telling the story of Australian democracy and Old Parliament House. |
| Volunteers | |
|---|---|
| 4.4 Volunteer programs | 4.4.1 Old Parliament House management may maintain and enhance its volunteers program. |
| Information Management | |
|---|---|
| 4.5 Sensitive information | 4.5.1 Old Parliament House management must recognise that it owns or controls a large body of potentially sensitive data. It must: a store all potentially sensitive documentation in an secure environment b disseminate and manage that data in an ethical manner c obtain written consent from relevant parties before recording or disseminating potentially sensitive data, and d act in accordance with the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information requirements and the Commonwealth Protective Security Manual. 4.5.2 Old Parliament House management must identify appropriate stakeholders and community representatives and conduct appropriate Indigenous consultation in relation to the recording, storage or dissemination of information that may have Indigenous cultural values. |
| Interpretation | |
|---|---|
| 4.6 Interpretation, exhibition and learning | 4.6.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain and implement an interpretation plan that includes learning and exhibitions consistent with the Heritage Management Plan. 4.6.2 Old Parliament House management must engage in an active program of interpretation to advocate for and present the heritage values of the place, employing a wide range of media and aimed at a wide audience, including scholars, families, special interest groups and the public. 4.6.3 Old Parliament House management may, as part of the interpretation plan, explore ways of delivering interpretive material electronically including the development and implementation of a web-based interpretation program, accessible to the public. 4.6.4 Old Parliament House management may, as part of the interpretation plan, develop a program of interpretation based on the Old Parliament House zones based on a thematic approach and emphasising the identified heritage values. 4.6.5 Old Parliament House management may develop and implement as part of the learning plan specific learning strategies which are integrated with the national curriculum (primary and secondary schools) and university teaching programs. 4.6.6 As resources permit, Old Parliament House management may expand its off-site audience development through:
|
| Promotions | |
|---|---|
| 4.7 Promotions and outreach | 4.7.1 Old Parliament House management must maintain a marketing plan and an events plan, which includes the identification of ‘target audiences’ and the most effective means of engaging them. These plans must be consistent with the intent, objectives and Policies of the Heritage Management Plan. 4.7.2 Old Parliament House management may facilitate functions and events which do not cause aadverse impact on the heritage values of the place and where the functioor event may promote the heritage values to a new audience. |
| 4.8 Signage/ banners | 4.8.1 Historic signage of heritage value must be conserved and retained in situ unless to do so would be inconsistent with significant health and safety considerations. 4.8.2 All new signage in zones with a high sensitivity to change must be minimised. 4.8.3 Proposals for new signage and advertising banners at Old Parliament House, including tenants require an Action Proposal Form. |
A heritage sign in the stairwell to the House of Representatives Visitors Gallery
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
Old Parliament House management must allow and facilitate only those uses of the place that are compatible with the heritage values of the place.
| Uses | |
|---|---|
| 5.1 Existing uses | 5.1.1 Existing uses that are compatible with the heritage values of Old Parliament House may be maintained and enhanced. 5.1.2 Existing uses are: a Interpretation and exhibitions – permanent and temporary b Public programs – events, tours c Learning – school programs, community learning, holiday programs d Storage – for the Movable Heritage Zone e Support services – plant rooms, amenities, lifts, stairs and light wells f Commercial and public facilities – catering, functions, fine dining, café, kitchen areas and retail outlet g Office areas – for Old Parliament House Staff and tenants 5.1.3 Existing uses that are incompatible with the heritage values of the place must be discontinued or phased out. |
| 5.2 Future uses | 5.2.1 New uses are appropriate at Old Parliament House where they are consistent with the conservation of the place’s heritage values. This may include modifying an existing use or reinstating a former use. 5.2.2 New uses (including potential new tenancies) are proposed actions and must be assessed using the Action proposal process described in the Heritage Management Plan. 5.2.3 Old Parliament House management must locate new uses (including potential new tenancies) in areas identified in the Heritage Management Plan as having a low sensitivity to change and/or where zone objectives facilitate it. 5.2.4 Old Parliament House management should implement a 5 year spatial plan as approved by the Actions Committee. |
| Uses | |
|---|---|
| 5.3 Assessing Compatible Use | 5.3.1 The relative compatibility of existing and potential new uses (including tenancies) should be assessed based on their likelihood to maximise the conservation and understanding of the heritage values. The following three questions should be addressed for each proposal:
5.3.2 The relative compatibility of uses should be assessed using the following definitions: Very highly compatible: historically appropriate uses that continue or echo pre-1988 uses and retain the significant fabric and spaces of Old Parliament House in their pre-1988 state. Highly compatible: appropriate uses that, while not necessarily continuing pre-1988 uses, allow significance to be recognised, and utilise unaltered 1988 spaces or spaces altered after 1988 and subsequently reconstructed to their 1988 configuration. Moderately compatible: appropriate uses, or new uses that allow significance to be recognised, that require limited adaptation works. Less compatible: uses that are not sympathetic to pre-1988 uses (such as the use of offices for storage), or require the substantial alteration of fabric (such as the removal of walls between rooms). Least compatible: uses that are actively unsympathetic to pre-1988 uses (such as the use of ministerial rooms as kitchens), or that require large scale alteration of fabric (such as the removal of walls between two or more rooms, or between corridors and rooms). |
ANU College performing House Arrest: sex, spies & lies, based on the Petrov Affair in the Senate Government Party Room, 2004
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
Old Parliament House management must facilitate reasonable public access to the place and the movable heritage with full regard to the requirements to provide for public safety and security.
| Access | |
|---|---|
| 6.1 Public access to the place and the movable heritage | 6.1.1 Public access to parts of Old Parliament House, and its movable heritage, is integral to conserving the heritage values of the place and must be facilitated consistent with the identified sensitivity to change, unless precluded by security or health and safety reasons. 6.1.2 Old Parliament House management may facilitate functions and events at Old Parliament House where they are consistent with the conservation of the heritage values. 6.1.3 Old Parliament House management must include a provision in all leases at Old Parliament House that ensures ongoing access to leased areas for conservation, maintenance, monitoring and bona fide research purposes. 6.1.4 Old Parliament House management must avoid functions and events that would restrict public access to the place or parts of the place for an extended period, and those that may place undue stress on the fabric of the building. 6.1.5 Old Parliament House management may encourage functions and events that enhance the interpretation of heritage values of Old Parliament House. |
| 6.2 Security | 6.2.1 Security requirements for Old Parliament House must be guided by Commonwealth security management guidelines and directives and, from time to time, special security assessment and management will be required. Proposed security management measures may require an Action Proposal Form to be submitted. 6.2.2 Old Parliament House management must tailor security measures so that they impact as little as possible on the heritage values, visitor access and interpretation programs. 6.2.3 The Old Parliament House security plan must ensure the protection of persons and assets and, as far as possible, be consistent with the Heritage Management Plan. |
| 6.3 Transport and traffic | 6.3.1 Old Parliament House management must ensure a traffic and parking management plan in conjunction with the National Capital Authority which maintains the historical connection with motor traffic and meets the contemporary demands of visitor access and is consistent with the statement of intent and objectives of the Landmark Zone. |
| 6.4 Building services | 6.4.1 Pre-1988 building services must continue in use where they contribute to Old Parliament House’s heritage values, unless; a the continued use would adversely impact on the heritage values; or, b where precluded by health and safety considerations. 6.4.2 Old Parliament House management must provide services to meet optimum environmental parameters for the conservation of the heritage values at Old Parliament House, in a manner consistent with the conservation of heritage values. 6.4.3 Existing services must be maintained and potential new services assessed and introduced, in accordance with the procedures of this Heritage Management Plan. 6.4.4 The introduction of new services requires an Action Proposal Form unless stated in the Permitted Action Schedule. 6.4.5 Redundant pre-1988 building services should be conserved and retained (see policies 1.4 and 1.5) and labelled as no longer in use. |
| 6.5 Plant | 6.5.1 New and replacement plant and plant rooms must be accommodated iexisting pre-1988 plant rooms, where this is feasible and where this does not adversely impact on the heritage values of those areas. 6.5.2 Generally, accommodate new plant and plant rooms in areas identified as having a low sensitivity to change in this Heritage Management Plan where existing pre-1988 plant rooms cannot be utilised. |
Conservators working on the hand painted wall features in the Members’ Private Dining Room
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
Old Parliament House management must ensure that all forms of disposal, acquisition and leasing are consistent with: the conservation of the heritage values of the place; with the overarching legislative and administrative requirements of government.
| Movable Heritage | |
|---|---|
| 7.1 Movable heritage (disposals) | 7.1.1 De-accessioning from the collection will be considered if the item:
|
| Leases | |
|---|---|
| 7.2 Leases | 7.2.1 Leasing parts of Old Parliament House is an action requiring assessment. 7.2.3 Where Old Parliament House management leases parts of the place, Old Parliament House management must ensure that the heritage values of the place are protected through: a compliance with the EPBC Act (sections 341ZE and 324ZA) b a lease or Memorandum of Understanding that contains appropriate clauses c a lease purpose which is compatible with the heritage values (see policies 5.1 to 5.3). d a lease purpose which is consistent with corporate vision of Old Parliament House. |
| 7.3 Access to leased areas | 7.3.1 Old Parliament House management must include a provision in all leases at Old Parliament House that ensures ongoing access to leased areas for conservation, maintenance, monitoring and bona fide research purposes. |
Old Parliament House management must endeavour to maintain best practice in sustainable environmental management, with a strong emphasis on disaster preparedness planning, consistent with the conservation of the heritage values of the place.
| Consumption of Resources | |
|---|---|
| 8.1 Environmental management system | 8.1.1 Old Parliament House management must introduce an environmental management system that provides for the effective management of renewable and non-renewable resources, through identifying base level use and emissions and providing strategies to improve performance to meet identified targets. |
| building Waste | |
|---|---|
| 8.2 Heritage value | 8.2.1 Old Parliament House management must assess all building waste for potential heritage value prior to disposal, in accordance with Policy 1.5. |
| Pest Management | |
|---|---|
| 8.3 Pest control | 8.3.1 Old Parliament House management must ensure that pest control is undertaken as part of an ongoing program, and in a manner that does not compromise heritage values or the environment through:
8.3.3 Old Parliament House management must liaise with the NCA to ensure that the gardens are regularly inspected for evidence of pests and treated accordingly. |
As an initial snap shot of the heritage values of the place, and how spaces can and cannot be used or changed, the zones are the first point of call in the process of undertaking an action. The zones are a quick reference to provide a critical understanding of a space or object necessary to begin the action assessment process. The zones are supported by permitted actions that apply to particular zones as the sensitivity of the mapped values allows.
The zones have been developed based on the mapped heritage values of the place and their sensitivity to change. Effectively the zones provide a summary of the layering of these heritage values and emphasise areas where multiple values exist. The zones also encapsulate the over arching framework of linked management requirements and policies.
The zones seek to convey these heritage values and managerial requirements by providing statements of intent supported by objectives. These statements of intent and objectives capture the intent of the policies and core principles to assist in planning and decision making.
Old Parliament House is divided into six zones:
Landmark Zone – the setting, the façade and other external faces, front, rear and side entrances, courtyards and lightwells, plantings
Chambers Zone – the House of Representatives and Senate Chambers, King’s Hall, stairs leading to King’s Hall, Public and Press Galleries
Politics and Party Zone – All offices, suites and lobbies surrounding the Chambers Zone on the Main Floor, the Parliamentary Library, all offices and committee rooms on the lower floor surrounding the House of Representatives and Senate under-chambers and downstairs areas
House of Representatives and Senate Wing Zone – the House of Representatives and Senate Wings
Ancillary Functions Zone – the Members’ Dining Room and Kitchen, Billiard Room, Members’ Bar, Members’ Private Dining Room, Non-Members’ Bar, plant rooms, storage rooms, courtyards
Movable Heritage Zone – All objects and furniture designed and built for, or acquired during the period of time Parliament resided in the place
Many management objectives are common across
all of the zones.
House of Representatives Chamber (in Chambers Zone)
Source: Old Parliament House Photo Library
This zone brings together a discrete suite of architectural, symbolic and landscape elements coherently and logically when considered as a single unit. The external appearance and setting of Old Parliament House is essential to the landmark status of the building and to the integrated urban design of the capital city conceived by Walter Burley Griffin. The façade and exterior faces are the most public, prominent and recognisable elements of the building and have been maintained in a single style and colour through different phases of modification and additions. As a result, the exterior of all periods share the same heritage values and demand the same or similar management regimes. The front and rear entrances are integral. Significant exteriors are also located within the building defining the courtyards. These courtyards reflect a continuity of Murdoch’s aesthetic. The immediate curtilage to the building, including grassed areas, trees and rose gardens is an important remaining component of the setting within the landscape.
Spaces: the setting; the façade and other external faces; front, rear and side entrances.
To conserve and interpret the values of Old Parliament House through the management of its external appearance within its setting.
The House of Representatives Chamber, Senate Chamber, King’s Hall, its stairs and the Galleries comprise a suite of contiguous spaces linked by Murdoch’s design, symbolic association and historical function. They serve as the physical and functional core of the building since its construction and represent the workings of Australia’s democratic system in physical and symbolic terms. The two debating Chambers are linked by a ceremonial space and are accessible to the public through the galleries and formal entrance. This collection of spaces is where the core ceremony of government and the primary function of debating and passing of legislation occurred. The spaces in this zone represent all the heritage values of the place.
Spaces: the House of Representatives and Senate Chambers; King’s Hall; stairs leading to King’s Hall; Public and Press Galleries and offices.
To conserve and interpret the values so that the zone remains the aesthetic and symbolic core of the place, and continues its role as a principal tool for telling the story of Australian democracy.
The spaces within this zone were historically occupied by politicians and staff integral to the functioning of parliament and the political process. Some spaces were occupied by those attached to the Senate, others to the House of Representatives; by ministers, the opposition and their staff. They collectively embody the same predominant heritage values for the same or similar reasons. It was within these spaces that the machinery of party politics operated, less publicly than in the spaces in the Chambers Zone (the debating chambers). It was in this zone that essentially ‘party-political’ decisions were made within a confined space that created a distinctively intimate environment.
The spaces, their furnishings and fittings share many of the same heritage values. They form a clearly readable spatial arrangement that encircle the House of Representatives and Senate Chambers on the Main Floor, and Lower Floor. They were witness to major events of Australian political history often played out behind closed doors and were occupied by some of the most prominent figures in Australian political history. The spaces, furnishings and fittings within this zone comprise a suite of related spaces which share former functions and a common history.
Spaces: all offices; suites and lobbies surrounding the Chambers zone on the Main Floor; the Parliamentary Library; all offices, lobbies and committee rooms and ABC Recording Studio on the lower floor surrounding the under-chambers and downstairs areas.
To conserve and interpret the values within this zone, while ensuring public access.
The House of Representatives Wing and Senate Wing were occupied principally by ministerial and members’ offices from their construction in the 1960s until 1988. The construction was the result of the expansion of the parliament and government in response to the growing population of Australia. As such they share many characteristics of the Politics and Party Zone, although with a shorter history and generally fewer associations. Collectively these offices have a shared history and function and similar social values and associations. The location, spatial arrangement and confined spaces within this zone collectively reflect the growing and changing needs of the parliament from the original construction as a purpose-built parliament through to the move in 1988. The wings were an addition to the original building and stand alone from the original design concept. The heritage values embodied in this zone have been compromised by recent contamination remediation works which removed large amounts of original fabric and consequently reduced the ability of the fabric to demonstrate its values and associations.
Spaces: the House of Representatives and Senate Wings.
To facilitate new uses consistent with the heritage values of the zone, while conserving and interpreting those values and ensuring the interpretation of former uses.
The spaces and other elements within this zone collectively relate to the activities undertaken essentially outside of the direct functions of government and of the Parliament. The zone principally embodies those areas relating to services, dining, recreation and storage.
The spaces for these activities are grouped together at the rear of the building on the Main Floor and on the Lower Floor for staff and non-members. This is a reflection of design intent and is supported by the continuity of use. The designation of these facilities within a single zone conforms with the spatial, historical and functional logic of the areas, while the values embodied by this zone are common to all its principal areas. Many of the spaces were designed to be utilitarian work spaces or areas intended to be modified on an ongoing basis in response to the changing needs of the place. Many parts of the zone have also been modified over time with the result that the heritage values have been compromised to varying degrees.
Spaces: the Members’ Dining Room and Kitchen; Billiard Room; Members’ Bar; Former Members’ Private Dining Room; Non-Members’ Bar; plant rooms; storage rooms; and courtyards.
To continue to provide services and facilities consistent with the heritage values of the zone, while ensuring the conservation and interpretation of heritage values.
The movable heritage at Old Parliament House comprises a collection of artefacts with strong mutual associations between each other and to the building which together represent all the phases of the place’s development and its occupants. The mutual associations of the individual pieces of the collection mean that their value is greater than the sum of the parts. As a result they may be regarded as a suite of related items requiring management. The collection embodies all of the heritage values at Old Parliament House and comprises an excellent representative sample in the broader context of Australian twentieth century interior design and the fine and decorative arts. Individual items embody some or all of those values in their own right.
To conserve and augment the movable heritage collection, while using it to tell the story of Old Parliament House.
Drawing of the FB37 Easy Chair
Source: National Archives of Australia
Easy Chair with design number FB37
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
The action proposal process has been derived from consideration of the:
The action proposal process is designed to fulfil the requirements of:
and for external proposed actions:
This process will capture all relevant proposed actions in and on Old Parliament House and provide a robust, transparent process for planning and decision making.
The action proposal process is constructed around the zones and policies that provide relevant information on the place. The steps to follow when proposing an action are outlined below in the flowchart in Figure 7. A full outline of the action proposal process and the form is at Part C Chapter 8.
A guide explaining the discolouration of the bronze statue of King George V to a tour group, 2001
Source: Old Parliament House Collection Source: Tanner #198 Old Parliament House Collection
new.png)
The Permitted Action Schedule provides detailed guidelines on how permitted actions are to be undertaken. Permitted actions are those actions which if carried out according to the Permitted Action Schedule, will have no adverse impact on the heritage values and therefore do not require formal action assessment and approval. Formal assessment and approval has been deemed granted for Permitted Action Schedule under this plan. In other words, most routine or well defined and planned actions that have been developed and refined for the place have been assessed for their ability to comply with the policies of this plan and their impact on the heritage value and documented as permitted in these schedules. The Permitted Action Schedule provide a mechanism for implementing the policies and zone objectives set out in this plan.
The Permitted Action Schedule provides guidance for new staff and contractors and a way of reinforcing appropriate heritage management practice during daily or regular activities for existing staff and contractors.
Any proposed action that is not outlined in the Permitted Action Schedule must be referred through an Action Proposal Form for approval.
New permitted actions may be added to this schedule following formal assessment and approval by a delegate under this plan. The Permitted Action Schedule is in Part C, Chapter 9.
In addition to the hard copy version of the Heritage Management Plan, a desktop interactive version is also available for staff and approved users. This desktop interactive is linked electronically to the Old Parliament House collection and building database. These links will assist users to access current relevant information for the day-to-day management of the place. Users can navigate through the place via maps of each floor which show the zones; associated links will always be accessible to the side of the map. From this point, it is possible to access parts of the Heritage Management Plan or other relevant documents to:
Press Offices in 1985, set up in the 1939 extension to the Press Galleries, refurbished in the 1970s as the ABC Studio
In 2013 the first version of this Heritage Management Plan was reviewed by Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House staff. The main factors involved in the review were:
The feedback and results from these processes informed the amendments that in turn became the second version of this plan. Much of the feedback centred on the refinement of the implementation tools for the plan, with very little change to the policies and zones.
Another review of the plan will commence five years after it has been adopted. This review may be conducted by an external party. All subsidiary plans will also be reviewed on a five-yearly basis or as outlined in the policies. This review will principally be confined to possible amendments associated with:
The plan will remain in force until such time as a new plan is adopted.
The action proposal process has been derived from consideration of the:
The action proposal process is designed to fulfil the requirements of:
This process will capture all relevant proposed actions in and on Old Parliament House and provide a robust, transparent process for planning and decision making.
The left shoe of the bronze statue of King George V is constantly touched by visitors, and was leant on or touched regularly by staff and politicians when Parliament sat in the building
Source: Old Parliament House Collection
The action proposal process is constructed around the zones and policies that provide relevant information on the place. The steps to follow when proposing an action are outlined below.
Actions include activities, projects, developments and undertakings that will occur on or in Old Parliament House and are more fully defined in the Glossary (Appendix J). The Implementation Plan (Part C
Chapter 10) is a list of tasks that are derived directly to enact the policies (Chapter 5). While the Implementation Plan may be a starting point from which action proposals begin it is no way comprehensive and does not capture many of the events undertaken in the operation of Old Parliament House.
The action proposal process begins with the identification of a proposed action and location. The next step involves reference to the Heritage Management Plan to determine the zone in which the proposed action will take place – this can be done either via the desktop interactive (see Chapter 7) or via the hardcopy plan. The determination of the zone will give an overview of the values and appropriate activities of the space.
From the zones, a check of the Permitted Actions Schedule (Part C) will allow the responsible party to determine whether the action is allowed – following the guidelines of the schedule – or if the action will require assessment by the Actions Committee.
If the action is not specified in the Permitted Action Schedule, the action will need to be assessed and approved by the Actions Committee before it can proceed. To do this, the Action Proposal Form must
be completed and submitted to the committee.
The committee will make an assessment and either: allow the action; allow the action with modifications; not allow the action; recommend to delegate; or refer the action to the Commonwealth agency responsible for administering the EPBC Act. A referral to the Commonwealth agency responsible for administering the EPBC Act is necessary for actions that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the heritage values of the place.
| Application Number | |
| Assigned by Actions Committee secretariat | |
| Project Title | |
| Project File Number | |
| Responsible Party Name and |
|
| Position/Section | |
| Date | |
| If not OPH staff member |
| Notes Please see the Actions Committee secretariat for assistance in completing this form. Also, there is a completed example of this form on the intranet. This form is required under Policy 2.2 of the Old Parliament House & Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020 to assist OPH in meeting its obligations under the EPBC Act 1999. This form must be completed when an Action is not previously approved in the Permitted Action Schedule; be sure to check the Permitted Action Schedule before beginning this form. An Action may be an activity, works, event or other change to the building, its setting or use. Approval of this application constitutes internal OPH approval only and does not constitute approval under any legislation. The Responsible Party should be aware that other statutory approvals may be required. Please save this document in the folder at G:\HERITAGE\EPBC Act\HMP\Actions Committee\Draft Action Proposals |
| PART A: APPROVALS |
|---|
| Section A1: Recommendation – Certifier to complete |
| To be completed after the Actions Committee meet and make a recommendation. |
This application has been reviewed and certified by a competent person. Signature Name  Manager, Heritage Job title Date I have considered the range of obligations that arise under the EPBC Act and conclude that the action is not one that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment which includes heritage values. and it is recommended that the delegated officer:  Approve the action with the conditions set out in Section 3.8 below. Does not approve the proposed action and seeks An alternative proposal; or A referral under section 15B of the EPBC Act. For the following reasons: And: Seek approval under Section 12(1)(b) of the ACT (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. Seek approval under the Parliament Act 1974. |
| PART A: APPROVALS |
| Section A2: Approval – Delegated Officer to complete |
| To be completed as the final step after the certifier makes Actions Committee recommendation. |
| In accordance with Policy 2.2 of the OPH HMP the Action Proposal Number Title has been certified by a competent person and is therefore: Approved; Approved with conditions as specified below; see Section B3 Not approved. An alternative proposal is required. A referral under section 15B of the EPBC Act is required. Signature Name Job title Date |
| PART A: APPROVALS |
|---|
| Section A3: Closure report – Certifier to complete |
| To be completed after the action has been completed or if it is decided to not go ahead with the approved action. All approved actions will remain as a standing item on the Actions Committee agenda until this form is completed. |
| This Action has been reviewed and certified by a competent person. Signature Name Job title Date I have considered the action closure report and conclude that: The action has been completed in accordance with the approved action. The action completed was not conducted in accordance with approved action and requires remediation. Is no longer impending and the approved action proposal is no longer valid. |
| PART B: ACTION PROPOSAL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section B1: Action description and associated values – Action responsible party to complete | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.1 Location of the proposed action | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Describe the exact location of the proposed action. Provide plans if relevant. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.2 Zone and Use. Identify the Zone and approved Use of affected area | Use: Zone: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Use the 2014 Use Plan (or approved updated plan) and Zones. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Is the Action consistent with the Use Plan? | Yes No |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| If No, note the compatibility of the proposed action with the Zone Objectives | Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective 5: Objective 6: Objective 7: Objective 8: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Zone objectives found with the HMP online interactive. Definitions of compatibility outlined in HMP Policy 5 Existing and Future Uses. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.3 Provide the Statement of Heritage Values for the affected area | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Values information can be found with the HMP online interactive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.4 Describe the proposed action | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Provide a written description of proposed physical and content changes, including any drawings, plans, photographs and supporting research prepared. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PART B: ACTION PROPOSAL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.5 Reason for the action | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| event exhibition function conference learning lease disposal of assets major capital works research maintenance and repair refurbishing new work conservation work acquisition fire safety WH&S other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.6 Consistency with OPH Strategic Plan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote parts of relevant strategic/section plans being complied with. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.7 Action context | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Describe similar actions, other actions in the same or nearby locations or other relevant contextual information not covered above. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B1.8 Time frame | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Note key dates for delivery of action. If relevant include critical milestones and a time line. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PART B: ACTION PROPOSAL | |||||||
| B1.9 Nature and extent of likely impacts on the listed heritage values | |||||||
| This is critical information for determining the appropriateness of the action to the heritage values. Information can be found by reading the values, zones and sensitivity to change in the HMP and/or clicking on the room in the HMP online interactive. The Actions Committee secretariat can assist in locating the correct information. | |||||||
| NATIONAL AND COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE LISTING CRITERIA | ATTRIBUTES | SENSITIVITY TO CHANGE | LIKELY IMPACTS | MITIGATIVE MEASURES | ALTERNATIVES | Other COMMENTS | |
| POSITIVE | ADVERSE | ||||||
| Describes how the values are manifested. Upload room data from the HMP online interactive. | Describes how robust the attributes are. Note room data from the HMP online interactive. | Ways in which the action will enhance the heritage values. | Ways in which the action will adversely impact on the heritage values. | Measures in place to reduce adverse impact on values. | Any alternative approaches. | ||
| A History | High Low N/A |
||||||
| B Rarity | High Low N/A |
||||||
| C Research potential | High Low N/A |
||||||
| D Characteristic value | High Low N/A |
||||||
| E Aesthetic characteristics | High Low N/A |
||||||
| F Technical achievement | High Low N/A |
||||||
| G Social | High Low N/A |
||||||
| H Significant people | High Low N/A |
||||||
| PART B: ACTION PROPOSAL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section B2: Stakeholder consultation – Action responsible party to complete | ||||
| B2.1 Identify the internal and external stakeholders consulted that this action will involve/affect by name and any comments made. | ||||
| Consulting with affected stakeholders prior to submission to the Actions Committee will assist the responsible party to develop the proposal and will also assist the Committee to make a better informed decision in a timely manner. Colleagues (usually the manager) from the first four sections list must be consulted. Please note that comments collected in this consultation phase should not be construed as a decision from the Actions Committee. | ||||
| SECTION/EXTERNAL | NAME | DATE | STAKEHOLDER COMMENT | RESPONSIBLE PARTY COMMENT |
| Heritage | ||||
| Facilities | ||||
| Lifelong Learning | ||||
| Content | ||||
OPH Other:  |
||||
| OPH Other: |
||||
External:  |
||||
| External: |
||||
| PART B: ACTION PROPOSAL | |
| Section B3: Actions Committee report – Actions Committee secretariat to complete | |
| The following section is to be completed with information from the meeting of the Actions Committee. | |
| B3.1 Is sufficient information available to proceed with the assessment? | Yes, the project is sufficiently developed to proceed to assessment. No, additional development is required. |
| B3.2 Comments on compliance with OPH Strategic Plan | |
| B3.3 Comments on other approvals required | EPBC Act Yes No N/A NCA Yes No N/A Comment: |
| B3.4 Comments on context of the Action | |
| B3.5 Summary Comments from the Actions Committee | |
| Include details of committee discussion or attach excerpt from meeting minutes to this form. | |
| B3.6 Conditions for actions | Photographic documentation Drawings Specialist reports Other: |
| B3.7 Proposed Action Final Certificate | |
| The compliance of the action with the conditions will be monitored according to the following schedule. | |
| B3.8 Is additional information required? | No, proceed to certification. Yes. The Committee has requested that the following additional information: Heritage Impact Assessment Conservation advice Engineers report Access report Work Health and Safety assessment Other: (List) |
| B3.9 Archiving | |
| Insert the file location for the electronic location of this form. Insert the location of the paper archive. | |
| PART C: Closure | |
| Section C1: Closure Report – Action responsible party to complete | |
| The following section is to be completed once the action has been completed. All approved actions will remain as a standing item on the Actions Committee agenda until this form is completed. | |
| C1.1 Action completed | Yes No |
| C1.2 Conditions for actions met | Photographic documentation Drawings Specialist reports Other: |
| C1.3 Action final certificate | Action complied with original approved action proposal |
| Notes on the compliance of the action with the conditions and other details of the approved action | Action did not comply with original approval action proposal. Reasoning: |
| C1.4 Action inspection/cancellation | |
| List the dates when the action inspection occurred and the inspector’s name and position or the name and position of the person cancelling the need for the action. | |
| C1.5 Supporting material | |
| Attach any supporting material, i.e. images. | |
| Section C2: Closure Report – Actions Committee secretariat to complete | |
| The following section is to be completed once the action has been completed and Actions Committee informed. All approved actions will remain as a standing item on the Actions Committee agenda until this form is completed. | |
| C2.1 Date Closure Report submitted to Actions Committee | |
| C2.2 Summary Comments from the Actions Committee | |
| Include details of committee discussion or attached excerpt from meeting minutes to this form. | |
new1.png)
This permitted action schedule provides specific guidelines on how certain actions should be undertaken. If carried out in the manner described below, actions will enhance the condition of the heritage values while mitigating any adverse impacts, and will not require any further heritage approval.
These permitted actions have been determined by a risk assessment, monitoring of activities, research, recognised conservation practice and the policies and zone objectives stipulated in Section B of this Heritage Management Plan.
Any staff member is welcome to make a submission to the Actions Committee with a proposal to undertake any action that falls outside the limits of these permitted actions. Any action not described below must be considered in the context of managing the risk to the heritage fabric and the heritage values. This schedule can be updated with the approval of the Actions Committee.
Contractor – a person or business which provides goods or services to Old Parliament House or otherwise operate in Old Parliament House but are not staff, tenants or volunteers.
Exhibition – displays of exhibition material that includes but is not limited to showcases, objects, labels, plinths, multimedia equipment; usually long term, i.e. greater than 1 month display time.
Handling – physical movement of heritage items.
Heritage fabric – any pre-1988 building or
collection material.
Heritage values – physical and intangible values
as described in the National and Commonwealth Heritage Listing for the place (See Section A).
Housekeeping – maintenance through cleaning and preventive conservation.
Interpreted spaces – rooms that have been conserved and recreated to a particular era to interpret the history and values of Old Parliament House; will include heritage furniture and may also include showcases, labels and multimedia equipment.
Movable heritage items – all pre-1988 collection
pieces associated with the place.
Events (short-term) – regular or one-off events or repeated programs in the place that include but are not limited to catered events, theatrical performances, concerts, lectures.
Programs – repeated programs in the place that include school groups, tours, life-long learning activities.
Routine maintenance – tasks and activities that are carried out at regular, defined intervals or in an intermittent but planned manner.
2013 Use Plan – note some of the permitted actions relate only to specifically designated spaces
Conservation work in the Government Party Room, 2004
Activity with or on the collection must be in accordance with the Collection Management Procedures.
Opportunities: To conserve the heritage values of the movable heritage collection.
Risks: That the movable heritage collection will be damaged or used in a manner inconsistent with its heritage values.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Temporarily repositioning heritage furniture within a space for cleaning, exhibition set-up or other short term activity using the safe handling techniques. | Removal of movable heritage items from a space unless appropriate monitoring and recording by Heritage staff. |
| Moving the heritage furniture within the areas designated for catering and commercial activities using the safe handling techniques. | Adhesion of any sort of material directly to the surface or in an intrusive manner, including protective materials. |
Movement and temporary replacement of the following heritage items by two trained people, for the purpose of an approved event:
learning programs. |
Repairs to movable heritage items without prior consultation with Heritage staff. |
| Installing stable, non-abrasive, clean hard or soft clear protective cover that is removable and does not require fixing to the heritage item to keep in place, i.e. Mylar, acrylic sheeting with plastic bumpers. | Any change to use that has not been approved by Heritage staff. |
| Use of the piano in the Members Bar by qualified pianist on approval from Heritage staff. |
Safe handling techniques:
Opportunities: Enhanced interpretation of the heritage values through reaching a wider audience; conservation of the heritage fabric.
Risks: Damage from knocking, scratching and inappropriate loads to floor coverings, plasterwork, timber and textiles; damage to soft furnishings from insect infestation.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Transporting equipment and materials following an established safe access route. | Transporting through the building objects that do not easily fit through doorways and passages. |
| A minimum of two people to carry a load that is longer than 1.5m. | Rolling or dragging equipment or material. |
| Goods must be transported on trolleys with wheels appropriate to the load and the vulnerability of the flooring in the planned route. For example, goods over 50kg may be transported on trolleys with pneumatic tyres; lighter loads on trolleys with rubber tyres. For goods over 50kg discuss movement options with Heritage staff | Bringing in props or equipment that may be have insect activity that have not been fumigated or quarantined. |
| Packing and un-packing in designated areas. | Using trolleys or other mobile equipment with solid wheels/castors on heritage surfaces, including wheelie suitcases. |
| Transporting organic material that has been fumigated prior to entry. | Carrying any item that may inadvertently knock/scrape objects in heritage spaces (this may include, but is not limited to, backpacks, umbrellas, large handbags etc). |
| Carrying small bags and placement of small bags on laps or floors, not on furniture. |
|
| Moving a maximum of 30 non-heritage stacking function chairs at one time on a trolley with rubber or pneumatic tyres. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Long term use of non-heritage historic items, cabinetry or replicas that are clearly marked as props. | Use of props and costumes which prohibit the performer/interpreter a clear vision unless that person is accompanied and guided by a person with clear vision. |
| Use of personal props and costumes that do not extend outside the direct control of the performer/interpreter. | The use of gaffer tape. |
| Use of larger costumes and props in the Landmark Zone provided they are not used closer than 2m to the built heritage fabric. | The use of any plant material that has not been fumigated or sprayed with pyrethrum. |
| Equipment may be placed on heritage floor surfaces providing the equipment has rubber tipped feet, protective feet covers (i.e. tennis balls) or is placed on protective covers (i.e. carpet squares). | Filming using large cameras that obscure the photographer’s view of the immediate area unless the immediate area is clear and the camera is on a tripod. |
| Electrical equipment that has a current portable appliance test certificate. | Props, costumes or bags that have external buckles, hooks etc (excluding handbags) in Chambers or Politics and Party Zone. |
| Use of pencils, paper or tablets in Chambers, main floor Politics and Party Zone. | |
| Use of laptops on heat/slippage protective sheet (short periods) or small stands (day long) in the Chambers, main floor Politics and Party Zone. |
|
| Use of pens and ink in office areas and south wing Ancillary Functions Zone. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Storing lightweight props and costumes in containers specifically for the use of storing these objects away from walls and on carpeted floors. | Storing exhibition crates, tools and equipment in areas not designated as storage. |
| Storing equipment in designated storage areas with protection to any heritage fabric. | Storing non-heritage stacked function chairs without Masonite sheeting under the trolley. |
Opportunities: Interpretation of heritage values through display.
Risks: Damage to heritage values through inappropriate display content and damage to heritage fabric through inadvertent contact from display equipment. An overabundance of penetrations into the heritage fabric.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Installing purchased non-heritage historic items or replicas that are clearly marked as props. | Embellishments (for example window dressings, decals etc) to heritage fabric. |
| Installing freestanding or self-supporting showcases, hanging systems and other display furniture. | Provision of new wiring for multimedia installations. |
| Altering display furniture in areas designated for exhibition with provisions made to control dust and debris. | |
| Unpacking and packing exhibition materials in areas designated for exhibition. | |
| Fixing to non-heritage ceilings, walls, floors, doors and windows provided adhesives are unlikely to cause damage to nearby heritage fabric. | |
| Temporarily altering egress routes and visitor flow. | |
| Temporarily re-locating heritage furniture to clear space for installation. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Installing labels, banners and other signage onto non-heritage fabric. |
Installing labels, banners and other signage onto heritage fabric using invasive methods. |
| Installing stable, non-abrasive, clean, hard or soft clear protective cover that is removable and does not require fixing to heritage fabric to keep in place. | Installing labels onto heritage fabric using double-sided tape. |
| If a sign has previously been attached with double-sided tape, a conservator or similarly skilled specialist must remove. | Signage with content that is in direct conflict with the values of the space. |
| Using UHU white tac to attach small label to heritage fabric. | Installing free-standing labels that may be knocked or pushed and damage nearby heritage fabric. |
| Banners or signs that may impart oils or inks onto non-protected heritage surfaces. | |
| Installing hanging track in areas designated for exhibition. | Installing hanging track in areas not designated for exhibition. |
Opportunities: Promoting aspects of the place for better communication of heritage values.
Risks: Fading, brittleness and discolouration from the photo-oxidation of textiles, paper, pigment and leather.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Adding additional light fittings to existing lighting tracks. | Adding new lighting track systems. |
| Introducing freestanding block-out screens positioned directly in front of windows. | Installing block-out screens fixed directly to window frames or walls. |
| Installing removable, stable, non-abrasive, clean, clear protective UV, light and solar heat filter covers to internal windows. | Installing protective UV, light, solar heat filter covers that are fixed to any heritage fabric. |
| Temporary lights for events may be used if positioned away from fragile surfaces, cool, UV filtered lights are used and turned off when not specifically needed. | |
| Altering light levels by using different globes in existing fittings. | Altered light levels by installing new fittings. |
| Altering light levels as described in the Collection Management Procedures to conserve historic objects. | Installing fixed light meters. |
| The use of flash photography unless prohibited by copyright. |
Opportunities: Interpretation of the heritage values by engaging with the general public and student groups
in the building.
Risks: Damage to the heritage fabric from physical contact with people; incremental change to the condition of heritage fabric from environmental fluctuations, dust, dirt, oil, wear and tear caused by people.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Guided tour groups through public areas of Old Parliament House. | Access to and sitting on the Chambers central table chairs, Speakers chair, Consort’s chair and Vice-Regal chair. |
| Introduction of freestanding air conditioners, heaters, humidifiers, air filters, etc to maintain appropriate climatic conditions for the conservation of heritage material. | Uncontrolled, free access for visitors in Chambers’ galleries, excluding the House of Representatives press gallery. |
| Installing ropes and bollards at a sufficient distance from heritage items in order that the items do not get damaged if the bollard gets knocked. | Leaning or sitting on tables, arms of seating or bollards. |
| Repositioning movable heritage items out of reach of visitors within the same space. | Placement of objects on heritage furniture, unless objects are light, acid-free and previously approved by Heritage staff. |
| Access to the Chambers with a trained staff member or volunteer present is preferred. |
Note: more detail can be found in the Chamber Use Guidelines
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
Visiting school groups are to:
|
|
| Groups of up to 20 students in Years 11 and 12 may self-guide after a heritage introduction from Schools Learning staff member if accompanied by a teacher. | Other self-guided student groups. Student groups should be accompanied by a Schools Learning staff member for a pre-arranged program. If a group arrives on the weekend, a tour by a Visitor Services Officer can be provided. |
School groups in the Chambers are to:
|
Use of the front door by school groups unless part of a program in which the use of the front doors is specifically required. |
| Students and teachers permitted behind ropes when escorted by a Schools Learning presenter. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
Maximum number of seated people allowed per space:
|
Large groups (greater than 30 people) in interpreted heritage rooms, excluding the Chambers and King’s Hall. |
| Uncontrolled, free movement of visiting groups (greater than 20 people) through public areas is discouraged. |
Notes: The numbers for seating in the Chambers are for one person per single cushion, two per double cushion etc. The aspect most commonly requiring repair work for the cushions is to the piping at the edges and having people sit in the centre of the cushion will alleviate this. Seating is only permitted on those benches that have a protective leather cover for conservation reasons. The number for the House of Representatives visitor’s gallery does not include the front row in which a view of the chamber is obscured. While there are 46 seats in the Senate Chamber visitor’s gallery, this space is considered to be generally too fragile for use.
Opportunities: To enhance the comfort of visitors and hospitality role of the agency and therefore allow for better interpretation of the heritage values.
Risks: Deterioration of the condition of the heritage fabric from food scraps, spills and insect infestation.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| The temporary movement of heritage furniture within a space by trained staff for an approved catering event. | Any type of ad hoc food or drink in public spaces, except Commercial areas. |
| Provision of food and drink in areas designated as dining spaces as an organised approved event. | Cooking in areas not designated as kitchens or the courtyards. |
| Provision of water with no additives to a single speaker in public areas for the purposes of an event providing the vessel is placed on a tray | Provision of a jug of water, acidic, sugary or alcoholic drinks to a speaker in public areas for the purpose of an event. |
| Use of appropriate movable heritage items, such as tables, serving units, chairs, for catering as approved by Manager Heritage. | Resting serving plates etc on heritage fabric. |
| Use of the Members’ Bar piano during catered events by a qualified pianist after approval by Heritage staff. |
Opportunities: Interpretation of heritage values through interactive events.
Risks: Inadvertent discolouration or staining to carpets, textiles and leather fabric from wet or finely ground materials; physical damage to plasterwork and timber from knocking.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Event set-up in an area roped off with a minimum of 1m clearance around the work area. | Introducing organic display material without fumigation or being sprayed by pyrethrum. |
| Leaving heritage items in the event area if they are well protected. | Placing function equipment on heritage fabric. |
| Planning events in spaces that require the least disruption to the placement of heritage items. | Using tape, especially gaffer tape, on heritage fabric. |
| Non-invasive theatrical interpretation throughout all public areas of the building for a group up to five actors. | Events that are in direct conflict with the heritage values of the space. |
| Set-up that is not supervised and monitored by a trained staff member. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Conducting art workshops in designated Learning areas and in the Ancillary Functions Zone and courtyards upon approval from the Manager Heritage. | |
| Use of pencils (preferably 2B) and paper in the Chambers and Politics and Party Zones. | Use of ink, glue, glitter, permanent pen, chalk and paint in the Chambers and Politics and Party Zones. |
| Handling items from the Learning Heritage Collection or replica items that have been prepared for Learning programs or display and are clearly marked as props. |
Opportunities: Interpretation and conservation of heritage values through the inclusion of services of
supervised contractors.
Risks: Deterioration of the condition of heritage fabric from poorly trained and unsupervised contractors.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| A site visit prior to undertaking a contract at Old Parliament House is recommended. | Allowing a contractor who has not undertaken appropriate heritage awareness training to work in Old Parliament House. |
| Monitoring of contractor activity by a trained member of staff. |
Contractors are not permitted to move heritage furniture unless supervised by a trained staff member. |
Opportunities: To better understand the heritage fabric and therefore better know and conserve the heritage
values of the place.
Risks: The irreversible destruction of heritage fabric and diminishing of heritage values.
Non-destructive investigative techniques are all permitted actions if heritage fabric is protected from tools/equipment and people movement during the inspections.
| TECHNIQUE | DESCRIPTION | APPLICATIONS | ADVANTAGES | DISADVANTAGES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual inspection | Looking for visual clues about the physical nature or condition of heritage fabric. | All heritage fabric surfaces. | Quick; cost effective; may be reasonably carried out by an informed individual. | Best with an experienced person; may miss subtle or hidden clues, requires concentrated focus. |
| Surface mapping | Investigating sub-surface details using a high-powered, portable light at an angle to the flat surface. | Best tool for examining surfaces in dark spaces. Can reveal detail of former attachments, repairs or alterations. Can help to verify need for further investigation. | Quick; cost effective; may be reasonably carried out by an informed individual. | Best with an experienced person; requires concentrated focus; may require access equipment. |
| Thermography | A rapid, remote technique to measure and record minute variations in the infra-red radiation which is emitted by all structures and can provide extensive information on the structure and condition behind the surface. | Locating and defining heat loss and moisture levels; locating structural timber, joints and in-filled openings; identifying bond failure and moisture ingress in render and plasterwork, locating lintels, structural failures, snapped headers in brickwork. | Quick; usually no special access required. | Application and interpretation requires specialist expertise; sensitive to weather conditions; sophisticated equipment required. |
| Impulse radar | Powerful and versatile technique that allows the internal assessment of a wide variety of materials. | Identifying size, nature and disposition of structural components; location and condition of metallic inclusions (clamps, dowels, reinforcements); locating flues, chases in walls; locating voiding in materials; condition of mortar joints; micro-cracking; bulk moisture content; locating services and leaks. | Cost-effective solution to specific engineering problems; can be used on timber, stone, brick, concrete and ground strata; minimal disruption to environment. | Relatively expensive; interpretation of data is very complex and high level of expertise is required. |
| Ultrasonics | Technique that is often employed in medical or industrial fields but has applications in examining heritage fabric. | Locating decay, fractures and structural weakness in timber; assessing extent of decay on the surface of timber; checking fault planes and zones of weakness in stone; establishing depth of surface cracks, weathering decay or fire damage; verifying the effectiveness of consolidation and repair and the bond between individual stones. | Quick; reliable; inexpensive; can be used on very fragile stone or painted surfaces. | Access to opposing sides of material being tested can be a major limitation; high level of expertise required to interpret results; cannot be used where there are a number of discontinuities such as across a random rubble wall. |
| Moisture measurement | Technique using electrical resistance meters. | Measures moisture content on or just below the surface of building material. | Cost-effective; widely used. | Information can be inaccurate and of little value; more serious problems may remain hidden; false readings possible from salts in brickwork, foil behind plasterboard, high carbon content, condensation or old surface treatments. |
Destructive investigative techniques must:
| TECHNIQUE | DESCRIPTION | APPLICATIONS | ADVANTAGES | DISADVANTAGES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endoscopy | Equipment attached to a tube inserted by drill to 12mm into a material. | Inspecting voids under floors or behind panelling; revealing hidden problems such as fungal growth. | Equipment is flexible and can be steered by inbuilt wires; possible to attach still or video camera to record findings; can record down to 2mm. | Equipment is sophisticated and expensive; difficult to retain scale of image observed and manipulate the direction of the tip. |
| Micro-drilling | Very accurate method for assessing faults and variations due to decay and other defects of timber by drilling in a probe linked to a computer up to 200mm, leaving a hole of 1mm hole. | Measuring severity of decay; calculating ratio of decayed timber to sound timber; assessing structural integrity; assessing condition behind surface and decorative finishes. | Easily interpreted information compared with other techniques, although still requires a skilled practitioner. | Should be used in conjunction with ultrasound to allow for innate differences in softness of timber types. |
| Laboratory analysis – paint | Identifying paint types and colours. | Recreation of heritage colour schemes. | High level of magnification capable of ascertaining subtleties between various layers including prime coats. | Destruction of sample; requires specialist analysis noting natural factors such as fading, colour shifting, yellowing and chalking. |
| Laboratory analysis – dendrochronology | Dating and identifying wood species. | Matching new timber to existing. | Identification of timber is very accurate. | Slow; complicated in terms of requiring extensive data for climatic conditions, tree ring samples and requirements for samples. |
| Laboratory analysis –mortar and plaster | Establishing the composition of mortar and plaster. | Matching new mortar or plaster to existing. | Matching with existing mortar and plaster ensures the final appearance and strength of new materials integrates successfully. | Destruction of original sample; identified components may no longer be available. |
Opportunities: To conserve the condition of the heritage fabric while maintaining a safe and comfortable public space and enable interpretation of the heritage values.
Risks: To diminish the condition of the heritage fabric and values through inappropriate actions on the building.
i. External
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Repainting the external walls as part of conservation/maintenance project or the Life Cycle Cost Plan using a paint type matching the existing or previously used finish. | |
| Inspections of the paint finish to identify any defects. |
ii. Internal
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Repainting walls in areas designated for exhibition in any colour. | Repainting in non-heritage colours in areas not designated for exhibition. |
| Repainting heritage walls as part of a refurbishment/conservation project with a paint type matching the existing or previously used finish. Standard paints: Ceilings – Dulux Alabaster E30; Walls – Wattyl Divinity. |
|
| Inspections to identify any defects, marks or wear. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections to identify any looseness, signs of dampness, cracks, bulges, peeling, blistering, mildew or other defects. |
|
| Replacement of render as part of a refurbishment/conservation project with a texture and colour of render to match existing. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections of all roof areas for loose fittings, leaks, holes, cracks, blockages, corrosion and general deterioration. | Replacing heritage fabric with new, unlike materials. |
| Refixing loose fittings or replacing with like fittings. | |
| Cleaning of gutters, rainwater heads and sump. | |
| Fixing holes in roof sheeting using a ubiquitous silicon product. | |
| Installing non-fixed protective features that are clearly labelled as new and have no adverse visual impact. |
i. Plaster
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections of the ceilings to identify any defects, bulges, signs of water damage or other wear wearing nitrile gloves. | |
| Patching and repairs should be undertaken by a trained conservator or a skilled specialist. | |
| Repainting heritage ceilings as part of a refurbishment/conservation project with a paint type matching the existing or previously used finish. | Repainting in non-heritage colours in areas not specified for exhibition. |
ii. Timber
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections to identify any defects, cracking, splitting, marks or wear. | |
| Repainting and/or refinishing as part of a refurbishment/conservation project with a product type to match existing finish. | |
| Patching and repairs should be undertaken by a trained conservator or a skilled specialist. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Temporary removal of floor hatches for the purpose of exhibition or interpretation display with appropriate recording by Heritage staff. | Forceful opening of cabinetry, safes or hatches. |
| Inspections to identify any defects, marks or wear. | Removal of doors for the purpose of exhibition or interpretation display. |
| Repairs to scratched or chipped surfaces must be undertaken by a conservator or a skilled specialist | |
| Opening cabinetry and safes that are unlocked unless mechanism has been deemed too fragile by Heritage staff (ie the Clerk of the Senate’s office safe should not be opened). |
i. Map
ii. Timber
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections of the floor substrate, surface finish and any inlaid fittings to identify any damage, cracks, twisted boards, squeaking, defects, marks or wear. | Mineral turpentine must never be used to clean timber floors as some have a bitumen bedding layer. |
| The use of carpet squares or other removable surfaces as a protective measure against scratches and spillages when moving objects or working within the area. | The use of gaffer tape. Other adhesive tape may only be used for short periods and as part of a conservation project. |
| The refinishing of timber floors undertaken as part of a conservation project. | Introduction of mats that require fixing to heritage floors. |
| Introduction of non-fixed and non-slip mats at entrances/exits to reduce dust and grit levels brought into the building. | |
| The use of sacrificial covers over existing timber flooring in areas of high traffic if not detrimental to the covered surface. |
iii. Carpet
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections to identify any defects, marks or wear. | Introduction of mats that require fixing to heritage floors. |
| If necessary, carpet can be taped with 3M471 tape or high grade painters tape. | The use of gaffer tape. |
| Repairs to edges or frayed seams by a conservator or skilled specialist using traditional techniques. | Pot plants on carpet. |
| Dry-cleaning using commercial grade equipment. | Wet-cleaning using domestic or commercial grade equipment. |
| The use of sacrificial covers over existing carpet in areas of high traffic if not detrimental to the covered surface. | |
| Introduction of non-fixed and non-slip mats at entrances/exits to reduce dust and grit levels brought into the building. |
iv. Rubber & Linoleum
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections to identify any defects, marks or wear. | Introduction of mats that require fixing to heritage floors. |
| If necessary, carpet can be taped with 3M471 tape or high grade painters tape. | The use of gaffer tape. |
| Repairs by a conservator or skilled specialist. | Pot plants on rubber or linoleum. |
| The use of sacrificial covers over existing rubber and linoleum in areas of high traffic if not detrimental to the covered surface. | |
| Introduction of non-fixed and non-slip mats at entrances/exits to reduce dust and grit levels brought into the building. | |
| Surface coating as approved by Heritage as a sacrificial wear layer and it’s regular maintenance. |
i. Windows
Note: Application of light filtering screens are described in the section on Natural and Artificial Light.
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections to identify any defects, marks or wear. | |
| Repairs by a conservator or skilled specialist. |
ii. Window coverings
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Inspections to identify any defects, marks or wear. | |
| Dry-cleaning using commercial grade equipment. | Wet-cleaning using domestic or commercial grade equipment. |
| Brush vacuuming or damp wiping venetian blinds. | |
| Installation of new helioscreen blinds using existing screw holes. | |
| Repairs by a conservator or skilled specialist. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Removal of post-1988 trees and plants that have not been replanted to replace a pre-1988 design. | Specimens identified as pre-1988, significant, and remnant, including all roses, are not to be removed without agency approval. |
| Weeding and eradication of identified noxious plants located on site. | Changes to the vista other than those noted as permitted actions. |
| Staking and support of growing plants to ensure stability of plant species. | Installation of new growing structure without prior agency approval. |
| Pruning (for safety and aesthetics). Shrubs should be pruned to achieve desirable ornamental features of the particular specimens and to remove damaged or diseased parts. Plants should be pruned to prevent them overgrowing footpaths, blocking gutters, pest access or preventing pedestrian or vehicular access. Care must be taken to protect significant specimens and the natural form of the plant when pruning for access. | Old Parliament House must obtain the consent of the National Capital Authority prior to affixing an external sign (including an illuminated sign), advertisement or notice on the land or building, regardless of whether the sign is temporary or permanent. |
| Dead, diseased or damaged limbs up to 200mm diameter may be removed by garden maintenance personnel, thereafter limbs removal greater than 200mm must be carried out by an arboriculturist or personnel approved by the agency. | |
| Provision of top-soil, sub-soil, sand, mulch, fertiliser and gravel as required. | Soil additions are to be free of other materials ie rocks, bricks, concrete or other materials which may inhibit growth |
| Post-1988 graffiti removal. | Pre-1988 graffiti removal. |
| Improvement and maintenance of all vegetation, including lawn area, training roses onto pre-existing growing structures. | |
| Irrigation repair and replacement as required. | |
| Plants may be divided and replanted in accordance with good horticultural practice where appropriate to the species. | |
| Soil may be aerated and footing perimeter levels maintained as required. |
Opportunities: To conserve the heritage fabric and to ensure the building remains compliant with building and access codes within the limits of sound heritage management.
Risks: Deliberate or accidental damage to heritage fabric from visitors, building occupants and contractors; incremental change to the building fabric having an adverse impact on the heritage values.
All damage to heritage fabric must be reported immediately once the area has been made safe and Security have been informed:
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
| Plastic buckets or specialised bags for emergency illness stored on protected heritage surfaces. | Repairing gouges, scratches, tears or splits to heritage fabric without prior consultation with Heritage staff. |
| Installing stable, non-abrasive, clean, hard or soft clear protective furniture or flooring cover that is removable and does not require fixing to heritage fabric to keep in place. |
| Permitted actions | Not permitted actions |
|---|---|
Minor repair to heritage fabric provided it meets the following conditions:
|
Any changes to the heritage fabric that are not described specifically by fabric type in this schedule, categorised as per the process described opposite or approved by the Actions Committee. |
Cleaning is an essential part of protecting the building fabric and the furniture and the frequency is central to maintaining the integrity of the values. The choice of cleaning materials, agents and techniques is very important as this can dictate whether the process is protecting or harming the materials.
Opportunities: To maintain the heritage fabric through good housekeeping.
Risks: To damage heritage fabric through inappropriate cleaning techniques or through neglect.
1. Frequency and method
| SURFACE | DAILY | WEEKLY | MONTHLY | ANNUALLY | AS REQUIRED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display cases (exterior), text panels, multimedia, touchscreens, etc | Glass, acrylic | Clean | ||||
| Floors | Parquetry | Full vacuum | Damp mop | Spot clean, machine buff (KH only) | ||
| Carpet | Full vacuum | Spot clean | ||||
| Carpet – chambers | Vacuum high traffic areas only | Full vacuum | Spot clean | |||
| Carpet – commercial areas | Full vacuum before and after functions | |||||
| Rubber – downstairs gallery, entry | Full vacuum, damp mop | Spot clean | ||||
| Rubber – stairwells both sets? | Full vacuum | Damp mop | Spot clean | |||
| Tiles | Full vacuum | Spot clean | ||||
| Mats: Interior | Full vacuum | Lift and wash | Wash out | |||
| Walls | Timber panelling | Brush vacuum | Spot clean, wax | |||
| Metal vents | Full vacuum | |||||
| Fabric (Conservator) |
Brush vacuum | Spot clean | ||||
| Paint – public areas | Dust | Spot clean | ||||
| Paint – office areas | Dust, spot clean | |||||
| Doors | Glass panels – entry and commercial and public areas | Clean | ||||
| Glass panels – office areas | Clean | |||||
| Timber work –commercial and public areas | Dust | Brush vacuum, spot clean, wax | ||||
| Timber work – office areas | Dust | Brush vacuum, spot clean, wax | ||||
| Metal work – entry, KH, chambers | Dust | Cleaned and sealed by conservator | ||||
| Metal work – office areas | Dust | Cleaned and sealed by conservator | ||||
| Heritage Furniture | Timber and leather – public and office areas | Brush vacuum | ||||
| Timber and leather – storage (conservator) | Dust, brush vacuum, wax | |||||
| Acrylic covers – chambers, public areas | Clean | Clean underside | ||||
| Acrylic covers – barricaded interpreted areas | Clean (including underside) | |||||
| Acrylic covers – office areas | Clean top and underside | |||||
| Window furnishings | Textile (conservator) | Low suction vacuum with netting | ||||
| Holland blinds |
Low suction vacuum | |||||
| Venetian blinds | Microfibre (wand) | |||||
| Textile window panels – chambers | Removed and full vacuum | |||||
| Other | King George statue | Brush vacuum | Cleaned and sealed by a conservator | |||
| Marble at entry, stair risers | Dust | Spot clean | ||||
| Exterior windows | Clean | |||||
| Interior windows | Clean | |||||
| Skylights | Low suction brush vacuum | |||||
| Light Fittings | Low suction brush vacuum | |||||
| METHOD | SURFACE | TECHNIQUE | PRODUCT/EQUIPMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full vacuum | Carpet, parquetry, rubber, tiles |
|
|
| Conservator Heritage Staff | Curtains |
|
|
| Brush vacuum | Metal vents, timber panelling, King George statue |
|
|
| Low suction brush vacuum | Fabric walls, upholstered furniture |
|
|
| Damp mop | Rubber, parquetry floors |
|
|
| Spot clean | Parquetry, rubber, tiles floors |
|
|
| METHOD | SURFACE | TECHNIQUE | PRODUCT/EQUIPMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spot clean | Carpet – wet spills |
|
Clean sponge
|
| Carpet – mud |
|
Vacuum | |
| Carpet – stains |
|
|
|
| Timber panelling, furniture – timber, metal fittings, glass |
|
|
|
| Painted surfaces (including painted metal), marble |
|
|
|
| Curtains, upholstered furniture |
|
||
| King George statue |
|
||
| Machine buff | Parquetry floor |
|
|
| Dust | Timber panelling, metal fittings, furniture marble, small fittings – clocks, barometer etc |
|
|
| Painted surfaces |
|
|
|
| Clean | Glass |
|
|
| Acrylic |
|
|
The Implementation Plan is informed by the policies and priorities will be determined based on the:
This Implementation Plan will inform the annual agency business and section plans and will be reported on annually to the senior management group.
The Implementation Plan will be applied in accordance with the Heritage Management Plan and will fulfill the requirements of Schedule 5A (Management Plans for National Heritage Places) and 7A (Management Plans for Commonwealth Heritage Places) of the EPBC Regulations 2000.
The implementation plan is divided into three categories – ongoing, within the life of this plan, and beyond the life of this plan. All references to “plan” below refer to this version of the Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015–2020.
| Policy | Task | Area of responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ensure all agency management and planning documents remain consistent with this plan. | All |
| Ensure all staff and volunteers have access to this plan. | All | |
| Report annually on the implementation of this plan. | Heritage | |
| Consult this plan when undertaking actions within or on the place. | All | |
| Ensure any conservation, maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction or adaptation within or on the place is consistent with the Burra Charter. | Heritage, Facilities | |
| Where possible, ensure pre-1988 fabric is retained in situ. If heritage fabric is removed, ensure it is documented and stored appropriately. The disposal of any heritage fabric must be approved by the Actions Committee. | Heritage | |
| Maintain a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Capital Authority for the protection and maintenance of the heritage values, including for the maintenance of the gardens. | Facilities | |
| Maintain and implement the Collection Management Procedures which include appropriate procedures for the long term care of all collection types. | Heritage | |
| Maintain and implement the Collection Development Plan for all collection types. | Content | |
| Annually review and if necessary update the Acquisition Committee Terms of Reference. | Heritage | |
| Ensure Heritage Section staff has a program for improvement and training in heritage conservation and management. | Heritage | |
| Maintain a heritage awareness training program which inducts all new staff, tenants and contractors, and provides refresher training annually for staff. | Heritage | |
| Maintain access to a panel of heritage, conservation and interpretation consultants. | Heritage | |
| Monitor, document and evaluate the condition of the fabric and collection | Heritage | |
| Develop and maintain tools to support conservation program (human impact monitoring, wireless environmental monitoring, risk assessments, etc) | Heritage | |
| 2 | Maintain the actions proposal process and the Actions Committee with clear terms of reference that reflect the policies in this plan. | Heritage |
| Maintain and implement the Permitted Action Schedule. | Heritage | |
| Maintain and implement a capital works plan and cyclical maintenance program (including cleaning) in line with this plan. | Facilities | |
| Maintain standard terms and conditions for Old Parliament House works contracts that refer to this plan. | Finance | |
| Where necessary, engage an independent competent site supervisor to ensure work methods are consistent with the conservation of the heritage values. | All | |
| Maintain the Business Continuity Plan. | Governance | |
| Implement and annually review the Disaster Plan. | Heritage | |
| 3 | Record all actions and Actions Committee decisions. | Heritage |
| Report to the Advisory Council and government on actions undertaken and the impact on the heritage values of the place. | Heritage | |
| Update the collection/building database with changes to condition or other status as a part of all conservation projects. | Heritage, Facilities | |
| 4 | Ensure action proposal process continues to include the capacity for internal and if necessary external stakeholder consultation. | Heritage |
| Retain staff to provide a public interface for the interpretation of heritage values of Old Parliament House. | Public Programs, Learning, Web Services | |
| Maintain heritage and museum industry memberships. | Library | |
| Ensure sensitive heritage data is appropriately stored. | Heritage | |
| Ensure a continuing program of interpretation, exhibition, community engagement, events, marketing and learning programs to interpret the heritage values of the place. | Director | |
| Maintain a style guide for new signage in keeping with the heritage values. | Facilities | |
| 5 | Ensure any proposed changes to the Use Plan 2013, including new leases, are subject to the action proposal process, and include an assessment of compatibility. | All |
| 6 | Through implementation of the Collection Management Procedures, continue to provide access to the movable heritage zone. | Heritage |
| Maintain and implement an agency wide security plan. | Facilities | |
| Maintain and implement an agency wide fire protection plan. | Facilities | |
| 7 | Maintain an Acquisition Committee to implement the Collection Development Plan in line with the Collection Management Procedures. | Director |
| Ensure all contracts for leases within Old Parliament House remain consistent with this plan. | Facilities | |
| 8 | Maintain and implement agency environmental management program. | Facilities |
| Maintain and implement agency integrated pest management plan. | Facilities, Heritage | |
| Assess all building waste for heritage value before disposal. | Facilities, Heritage |
| Policy | Task | Area of responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prepare and implement a heritage research and assessment plan. Informed by:
|
Heritage |
| Prepare and implement a plan for building conservation informed by a risk analysis, the condition of values and agency driven priorities. | Heritage | |
| Prepare and implement a plan for collection conservation informed by the results of the rationalisation project and agency driven priorities. | Heritage | |
| Complete the conservation of the external render. | Facilities | |
| Complete the implementation of the Collection Storage Plan. | Heritage | |
| Develop a schedule of heritage specific competencies required for staff in the Heritage Section. Engage in targeted training and recruiting if necessary. | Heritage, HR | |
| Investigate the provision of funding assistance for research which enhances the understanding and conservation of the heritage values. | Director | |
| Maintain the Reference Collection for the movable heritage zone. | Heritage | |
| Prepare and implement a floor management strategy. | Heritage | |
| Prepare and implement a light management strategy. | Heritage | |
| 2 | Update the Actions Committee Terms of Reference. | Heritage |
| Develop an on-line Action Proposal Form linked with the collection/building database. | Heritage | |
| 3 | Develop and maintain a system for recording actions, both permitted and proposed, and their impact in the collection/building database. | Heritage |
| Develop and implement an evaluation tool for the long and short term impact of actions and events on the heritage values of the place, including building works, leases, interpretation, learning, public programs and exhibitions. | Heritage, All | |
| 5 | Write and implement a 5 year Spatial Plan | Executive |
| 6 | Review and implement changes to the parking arrangements for Old Parliament House in conjunction with the National Capital Authority. | Facilities |
| Policy | Task | Area of responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Complete the statements of significance for all rooms, gardens and items of movable heritage. |
Heritage |
| Prepare a plan to identify and remove or remediate any intrusive (for example post-1988) elements to enhance the conservation of the heritage values. |
Heritage, Facilities | |
| Develop a palette of colours appropriate to different spaces and components of the place based on evidence of previous colours for repainting and maintenance work. | Heritage | |
| Develop and implement a program for re-instating previously removed doors. |
Heritage | |
| Establish a heritage expert advisory panel with clear terms of reference. | Heritage | |
| Identify relevant archival material in the possession of government organisations which is relevant to Old Parliament House. Assess risk to material and options to return to Old Parliament House. |
Heritage | |
| Passive collection storage facility to meet current and potential future needs. |
Heritage, Facilities |
NO: |
SCHEDULES 5A & 7A |
CHAPTER/POLICY |
|---|---|---|
| A management plan must: | ||
| A | Establish objectives for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission of the National [and Commonwealth] values of the place; |
Chapter 1 |
| B | Provide a management framework that includes reference to any statutory requirements and agency mechanisms for the protection of the National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values of the place; |
Chapter 4 |
| C | Provide a comprehensive description of the place, including information about its location, physical features, condition, historical context and current uses; | Chapter 2 |
| D | Provide a description of the National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values and any other heritage values of the place; |
Chapter 3 |
| E | Describe the method used to assess the National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values of the place; |
Chapter 3 |
| F | Describe the condition of the National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values of the place; |
Chapter 3 & Appendix J |
| G | Describe the current management requirements and goals, including proposals for change and any potential pressures on the National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values of the place; |
Chapters 3 & 4 & Policy 5 |
| H | Have policies to manage the National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values of the place, and include, in those policies, guidance in relation to the following: | Chapter 5 |
| (i) The management and conservation process to be used; | Policies 1 & 2 | |
| (ii) The access and security arrangement, including access to the area for indigenous people to maintain cultural traditions; |
Policy 6 | |
| (iii) The stakeholder and community consultation and liaison arrangements; | Policy 4 | |
| (iv) The policies and protocols to ensure that indigenous people participate in the management processes; |
Policy 4 | |
| (v) The protocols for the management of sensitive information; | Policies 4 | |
| (vi) The planning and management of works, development, adaptive reuse and property divestment proposals; |
Policies 1, 2, 5 & 7 | |
| (vii) How unforseen discoveries or disturbance of heritage are to be managed; | Policy 1 | |
| (viii) How, and under what circumstances, heritage advice is to be obtained; | Policy 1 & 3 | |
| (ix) How the condition of the National [and Commonwealth] values is to be monitored and reported; |
Policy 2, 3 & 8 | |
| (x) How records of intervention and maintenance of a heritage places register are kept; | Policy 3 & 8 | |
| (xi) The research, training and resources needed to improve management; | Policy 1 | |
| (xii) How heritage values are to be interpreted and promoted; | Policy 4 | |
| I | Include an implementation plan; | Chapters 7 & 10 |
| J | Show how the implementation of policies will be monitored; | Chapter 7 |
| K | Show how the management plan will be reviewed. | Chapter 7 |
NO: |
SCHEDULES 5B & 7B |
CHAPTER/POLICY |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | The objective in managing National [and Commonwealth] Heritage places is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit, to all generations, their National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values. |
Chapter 1 Policies 1, 2 & 4 |
| 2. | The management of National [and Commonwealth] Heritage places should use the best available knowledge, skills and standards for those places, and include ongoing technical and community input to decisions and actions that may have a significant impact on their National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values. |
Policies 1, 2, 4 & 6 |
| 3. | The management of National Heritage places should respect all heritage values of the place and seek to integrate, where appropriate, any Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government responsibilities for those places. | Chapter 4 |
| 4. | The management of National [and Commonwealth] Heritage places should ensure that their use and presentation is consistent with the conservation of their National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values. |
Policies 4 & 5 |
| 5. | The management of National [and Commonwealth] Heritage places should make timely and appropriate provision for community involvement, especially by people who: (a) have a particular interest in, or association with, the place; and (b) may be affected by the management of the place. |
Policy 4 |
| 6. | Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and the active participation of indigenous people in identification, assessment and management is integral to the effective protection of indigenous heritage values. | Policy 4 |
| 7. | The management of National [and Commonwealth] Heritage places should provide for regular monitoring, review and reporting on the conservation of National [and Commonwealth] Heritage values. | Chapter 7 & 10 |
| (1) For section 324D of the EPBC Act, subregulation (2) prescribes the National Heritage criteria for the following: | |
|---|---|
| (a) | natural heritage values of places; |
| (b) | indigenous heritage values of places; |
| (c) | historic heritage values of places. |
| (2) The National Heritage criteria for a place are any or all of the following: | |
| (a) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural history; |
| (b) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history; |
| (c) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history; |
| (d) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of: |
| (i) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; or | |
| (ii) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments; | |
| (e) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group; |
| (f) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period; |
| (g) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; |
| (h) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history; |
| (i) | the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance as part of indigenous tradition. |
| (3) For subregulation (2), the cultural aspect of a criterion means the indigenous cultural aspect, the non-indigenous cultural aspect, or both | |
| (1) For section 324D of the EPBC Act, subregulation (2) prescribes the National Heritage criteria for the following: | |
|---|---|
| (a) | natural heritage values of places |
| (b) | indigenous heritage values of places |
| (c) | historic heritage values of places |
| (2) The National Heritage criteria for a place are any or all of the following: | |
| (a) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural history |
| (b) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history |
| (c) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural history |
| (d) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of |
| (i) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; or | |
| (ii) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments; | |
| (e) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group |
| (f) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period |
| (g) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons |
| (h) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history |
| (i) | the place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance as part of indigenous tradition |
| (3) For subregulation (2), the cultural aspect of a criterion means the indigenous cultural aspect, the non-indigenous cultural aspect, or both | |
Old Parliament House and Curtilage, King George Tce, Parkes, ACT
(from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Website: www.environment.gov.au)
| List: | National Heritage List |
| Class: | Historic |
| Legal Status: | Listed place (20/06/2006) |
| Place ID: | 105774 |
| Place File No: | 8/01/000/0017 |
| Old Parliament House and curtilage is the historic building and its internal courtyards, perimeter gardens and lawns, and the front forecourt area. As the home of Australia’s Federal Parliament, for 61 years, Old Parliament House is important for significant milestones of Australia’s democracy history that were forged within the building, particularly national legislation development that was critical to the improving social processes, landmark political events such as the establishment of new political parties, and numerous national political events. The front façade of Old Parliament House including its entrance portico and the immediate grassed area to its north have been the setting of countless events gatherings, protests and demonstrations. Significant amongst these are the opening of the building in 1927 that heralded the symbolic birth of Canberra as the Nation’s capital. A sequence of defining events for Aboriginal rights at Old Parliament House included the Yirrkala Bark Petition, the 1967 Referendum and the establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in 1972, all of which contributed towards Aboriginal Land Rights legislation. Another major event was the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975. |
| The building through its alterations and additions, reflects the increasing numbers of Members and Senators and the change in the physical functioning of Parliament with the executive arm of government being accommodated into the legislature’s area, a pattern now set and present in (new) Parliament House. The internal fabric and collections of Old Parliament House convey the way in which the parliamentary functions were conducted within the building reflecting the everyday use of the building over a period of 61 years of Australian legislature. |
| King’s Hall and the Chambers have features that reflect both the austerity of the time and a dignified formality as evident in the decorative skylights, elegant pendant lights, and parquet flooring, as well as in the height of the ceiling, accentuated by the raked galleries, the timber wall panelling, and the extensive, restrained and subtle decoration. The Hall features bas-relief busts of prominent personalities related to Federation, the judiciary and of the first Parliament in 1901 on its colonnades, and portraits of former Prime Ministers on the walls, as well as the statue of King George V. The Chambers demonstrate, through their fabric, furnishing and objects, the growth of Parliament, including the evolution of communications technology applied to the reporting of parliamentary debates and events to all Australians. |
| Furniture intimately involved with the events that occurred in the building and that contribute to the richness of the place include the John Smith Murdoch designed furniture and fittings; the HMAS Australia table, the Country Party Table and the first Australian Cabinet table; items which underly the significance of Australia’s role initially as a member of the British Empire and later as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the President of the Senate’s Chair presented by the Dominion of Canada and the Speaker’s Chair, presented by the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire. There is a rare, intact surviving record comprising both furniture and documentation including the initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture. |
| Old Parliament House is an exemplar of the Inter-War Stripped Classical style architecture, reflecting the classical symmetry and forms of the style, and as the central expression of the style of Federal Capital Architecture in Canberra. The courtyards and the garden setting are integral to the building. Old Parliament House building demonstrates the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament, in the layout of the building, expressing the division of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the nature of public and press access to formal Parliamentary processes. The building also reflects the austerity of the time of its construction and the importance of the Parliamentary Library. |
| Old Parliament House is a landmark feature and has a major role in the symbolic physical representation of a democracy in the Parliamentary Triangle. Being sited on the land axis and along with (new) Parliament House, displaying the historic sequence of Parliament, it contributes to the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle. The two buildings are a major vista feature along the land axis and represent the primacy of Parliament over the executive and judicial components of government. Old Parliament House demonstrates a high degree of achievement in combining built features into the designed landscape to achieve an aesthetic purpose. |
| Old Parliament House has a strong association with the Commonwealth Government Architect, John Smith Murdoch and is regarded as his most important work. Old Parliament House has indisputable association with numerous politicians and their political life. |
| Criteria | Values |
|---|---|
| A Events, Processes | Old Parliament House as the Provisional Parliament House was the first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament. It was central to the development of Australia as a nation from its opening in 1927 until the opening of the new Parliament House in 1988 and demonstrates Australia’s political processes. Old Parliament House is a site that has provided a physical focus for events that reflect Australian democratic values, and political and social rights. It demonstrates how Australian federal government separated the legislative and judicial government functions and the growth of a party based democracy. It also stands for the right to argue and dissent, and for the seven peaceful changes of government that took place during the years in which Parliament sat in the building. The building set the pattern of combining the functions of executive and legislative in the one building, and bears witness to the encroachment of the executive arm of government into the legislature’s area. This commenced with the Bruce-Page Government holding occasional Cabinet meetings in the building followed by Prime Minister Joseph Lyons moving his Cabinet into the building in 1932, initial actions that led to the major expansion of the building to house both the legislative and executive functions of government, a pattern that continued in the design of (new) Parliament House. The North Wing has historic importance as the main venue for parliamentary functions from 1927-88. The Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, and King’s Hall are highly significant components as the venue for the debates, petitions and votes associated with 61 years of Australian legislature. Old Parliament House has a richness of internal fabric and collections that convey the way in which the parliamentary functions were conducted within the building, reflecting the everyday use of the building over a period of 61 years of Australian legislature. This includes the purpose-designed furniture and furnishings that continued in use in their original setting and for their original purposes for over sixty years. |
| A Events, Processes | King’s Hall and the Chambers have features that reflect both the austerity of the time and a dignified formality as evident in the decorative skylights, elegant pendant lights, and parquet flooring, as well as in the height of the ceiling, accentuated by the raked galleries, the timber wall paneling, and the extensive, restrained and subtle decoration. The Hall features bas-relief busts of prominent personalities related to Federation, the judiciary and of the first Parliament in 1901 on its colonnades, and portraits of former Prime Ministers on the walls, as well as the statue of King George V. The Chambers demonstrate, through their fabric, furnishing and objects, the growth of Parliament over 61 years, including the evolution of communications technology applied to the reporting of parliamentary debates and events to all Australians. Old Parliament House is an important link in the story of the creation of the Australian democracy and several related defining events. Landmark political events associated with the building included the Statute of Westminster, declarations of War in 1939 and 41. The building was the place of 61 years of national legislation shaping Australian society, the extension of the voting age to 18 year olds in 1973, and the establishment of new political parties such as the Democratic Labor Party in 1955 and the Australian Democrats in 1977. Old Parliament House saw the growth of Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal affairs. Key events included the Bark Petition sent by the Yirrakala community to the Commonwealth House of Representatives, Canberra (Old Parliament House) in August 1963 to protest bauxite mining in Arnhem Land, and the 1967 Referendum that overwhelmingly supported Commonwealth power to legislate for Aboriginal people. Amongst other developments, this led to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, proclaimed on Australia Day, 1977. With the new responsibilities arising from the 1967 Referendum, the Commonwealth Parliament became the focus of Aboriginal political protest including the siting of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy outside Parliament House in 1972. Old Parliament House front facade and the immediate grassed area to its north have been the place of countless events gatherings, protests and demonstrations. Significant amongst these are; the formal opening of the Provisional Parliament House, and the address by Prime Minister Whitlam on the front steps of the building after his dismissal by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in November 1975. King’s Hall and the Chambers have special significance for their association with Royal visits. Dates of key Royal visits are 1927, 1935, 1945, 1954, 1963 and 1974. They are important for their function in ceremonial events in Australia’s political history including hosting the annual opening ceremony for the Australian Parliament conducted in the Senate Chamber, the use of King’s Hall for the public mourning of Prime Minister John Curtin in 1945 and former Prime Minister Ben Chifley in 1951, and State receptions held in honour of Queen Elizabeth II in 1954 and 1963, and the Constitutional Convention held in the House of Representatives Chamber in 1998. |
| A Events, Processes | Furniture that contributes to the richness of the place include the John Smith Murdoch designed furniture and fittings; the HMAS Australia table, the Country Party Table and the first Australian Cabinet table; items which underlie the significance of Australia’s role initially as a member of the British Empire and later as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the President of the Senate’s Chair presented by the Dominion of Canada and the Speaker’s Chair, presented by the United Kingdom Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association; furniture and fittings designed or purchased for the extensions or alterations to the building, in particular the Senate and House of Representative Wings and the President of the Senate and Prime Minister’s Suites. There is a rare, intact surviving record (documented in the Old Parliament House, KE Emu data base) comprising both furniture and documentation. The documentation relates to initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture. The importance of the Library fabric lies primarily in the features retained of everything up to and including the 1958 extension. |
| B Rarity | Old Parliament House is uncommon in that it housed both the legislative and executive functions of government. This is reflected in the construction of the House of Representatives (southeast) and the Senate (southwest) Wings, the front pavilions, and a great number of internal changes. The House of Representatives Wing provides extensive and relatively intact evidence of the accommodation provided for Members and Ministers at various periods and the working conditions of parliamentarians and staff over the period 1943-88. The former Members’ Private Dining Room contains the remains of the 1927 hand-painted wall features that are rare and are the only example in the building and in the ACT. Research to date suggests that the furniture in Old Parliament House is part of an intact surviving record comprising both furniture and documentation. The documentation relates to initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture. |
| C Research | The research potential of the understanding of history, ways of life and cultures in Australia, the original documentary evidence including plans, photographs and files that are directly related to the design, construction, use, and alteration of the Chambers and King’s Hall, constitute a significant collection and provides important historical research information. The inventory of the collection is documented in the Old Parliament House KE Emu data base. |
| D Principal characteristics of a class of places | Old Parliament House is a primary example of the Inter War Stripped Classical style of architecture, dominant in Canberra’s government architecture of the 1920s – 40s. In particular, it is exemplar of the Canberra interpretation of the style, a major stylistic expression of Federal Capital Architecture that included the influence of Garden City ideals with the courtyards with loggias and pergolas, verandahs, internal courtyards and adjacent gardens. The characteristics of the style and their expression in Old Parliament House’s exterior and interior, is due to the design work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch. Murdoch’s design is modest, embracing classical symmetry and forms, having balanced masses with projected bays with arched bronze framed windows and subdued spandrels between storeys emphasizing the verticality. Old Parliament House, (the then Provisional Parliament House) was central to this expression, one of classical orderliness. |
| D Principal characteristics of a class of places | Old Parliament House and curtilage is also the central feature of a precinct with an integrity of related architectural features that include the two Secretariat buildings (East and West Blocks), the Old Parliament House Gardens, Constitutional and Magna Carta Places and the National Rose Gardens, representing a period of increased national government power and public interest in Canberra. The essential character and symmetry of Old Parliament House have remained intact despite several substantial additions. The design of the building and its layout, spaces, rooms demonstrate the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament. The building’s Chambers reflect the roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The seating arrangements particularly indicate the formal and adversarial nature of debate in the House of Representatives Chamber compared with the more fraternal seating of Senators in the Senate Chamber. The Public and Press galleries illustrate the nature of public and press access to formal Parliamentary processes, the spaces allocated to the recording and administration of Parliamentary sittings, and the presence of Executive Government staff indicate the major involvement of the Executive in the formal processes of Parliament in Australia. The House of Representatives Wing comprises two blocks constructed in three phases, 1943, 1949 and 1965, and the Senate Wing, also two blocks constructed in three phases, 1943, 1949 and 1972, retain much of their internal layout and some fittings. They are an unusual physical record of the difficult working conditions of parliamentarians, staff and press representatives over the period 1943-88. Early surviving interiors of the building include King’s Hall, the Library, Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, Dining Rooms, Senate Opposition Party Room, Ministerial Party Room, Clerk of the Senate’s Office, Member’s Bar, Government Party Room and Leader of the Government in the Senate’s Office. King’s Hall and the Chambers are important for reflecting the austerity of the times and the style. The rooms tend to be simple spaces with little decoration with subtle and repeated classical references, such as the use of Greek key patterning evident in the Chambers, and the external metal and rendered balustrades. Some of the rooms have a certain grandeur being generously proportioned with clerestory windows. The use of timber for wall or ceiling paneling and furniture also distinguishes some rooms highlighting the hierarchy of Government. The importance of the Parliamentary Library as a source of reference for Parliament, is demonstrated by its position on the central axis of the building and in close proximity to both Chambers, and is also accessible from King’s Hall. The design and fit-out of the Library rooms feature extensive timber paneling and fittings, otherwise reserved for high-status spaces such as the Chambers, the Party Rooms, and office holders’ rooms. The building is also of interest for surviving features consistent with, if not influenced by, Garden City ideals. These include the courtyards with loggias and pergolas, and verandahs, a principal feature of the garden city ideal that linked internal spaces with the landscape setting. Also included in this principle are the adjacent Senate and House of Representatives gardens, substantially redeveloped but containing the layout pattern of the original gardens. |
| E Aesthetic characteristics | Old Parliament House is an iconic national landmark that has a major role in the symbolic physical representation of democracy in the Parliamentary Triangle. The landmark importance has been strengthened by the siting and design of (new) Parliament House that brought together the two buildings as a combined feature of historical sequence on the land axis vista. The two buildings sited on the land axis contribute to the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle. The two buildings represent the primacy of Parliament over the executive and judicial components of government. |
| E Aesthetic characteristics | Old Parliament House is a major component of public and familiar views of Canberra with its crisp lines, stark white colour, pronounced vertical patterns and classical form and makes a major contribution as a viewpoint towards the Australian War Memorial and in the other direction to the Australian Parliament House. The building is highly valued by people as reflected in its popularity in countless images and since 1988 images that are strengthened by the presence of (new) Parliament House. |
| F Creative or technical achievement | Old Parliament House is a landmark in Canberra, as a major component of the Walter Burley Griffin’s designed landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, designed to hold the principal components of parliamentary government, the legislative, executive and judicial, demonstrating the strict separation of these components and the hierarchical relationship between them. The building demonstrates a high degree of achievement in combing built features into a designed landscape to achieve an aesthetic purpose. Erected at the base of the former Camp Hill on the main Land Axis, Old Parliament House symbolised the primacy of parliament, or the legislature, over the executive and judicial. In this way the building contributed to the planned democracy symbolism of the Parliamentary Triangle now fulfilled with the construction of Parliament House on Capital Hill, that upholds Griffin’s design intention and embraces the Old Parliament House as an integral feature of the Land Axis vista to Parliament. The success of the building as a landmark is also due in part to its modest scale and aesthetic qualities, and the open landscaping and gardens between the building and the lake. Intended as a provisional structure, and although occupying a prominent location, Old Parliament House was deliberately designed as a simple yet dignified structure possessing appropriate exterior aesthetic and formal qualities for its use and location. It is a significant component of the designed vista along Canberra’s Land Axis, that sets the order of the Federal Capital’s design. Although manifesting structural failures in the past, with a constantly leaking roof, Old Parliament House demonstrates a high degree of achievement in combining built features into the designed landscape to achieve an aesthetic purpose. |
| G Social value | Specific rooms and spaces within the building are directly associated with events that shaped the political and private lives of prominent individuals in Australia’s political and social history. Many of the surviving parliamentarians’ support staff and media representatives retain strong associations with the building and its contents. Its importance to the Australian community was demonstrated when organizations and individuals rallied to support the retention of the place when it was threatened with demolition in the 1970s. |
| H Significant People | Old Parliament House has an important association with many people, particularly national politicians. Prime Ministers of Australia who served their term in Old Parliament House include: Stanley Bruce from 29/10/1922 to 22/10/1929 James Scullin from 22/10/1929 to 6/1/1932 Joseph Lyons from 6/1/1932 to 7/4/1939 Earle Page from 7/4/1939 to 26/4/1939 Robert Menzies from 26/4/1939 to 29/8/1941 Arthur Fadden from 29/8/1941 to 7/10/1941 John Curtin from 7/10/1941 to 5/7/1945 Frank Forde from 6/7/1945 to 13/7/1945 Ben Chifley from 13/7/1945 to 19/12/1949 Robert Menzies from 19/12/1949 to 26/1/1966 Harold Holt from 29/6/1966 to 19/12/1967 John McEwen from 19/12/1967 to 10/1/1968 John Gorton from 10/1/1968 to 10/3/1971 William McMahon from 10/3/1971 to 5/12/1972 Gough Whitlam from 5/12/1972 to 11/11/1975 Malcolm Fraser from 11/11/1975 to 11/3/1983 Bob Hawke from 11/3/1983 and continued beyond 1988 when Federal Parliament moved to the new building. Prominent individuals associated with the Senate Wing include Senator Neville Thomas Bonner AO, the first Aboriginal parliamentarian elected in 1972, and Dame Edith Lyons and Dorothy Tangney the first women elected in 1943. The building is the most prominent example of the work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch. |
Old Parliament House and Curtilage, King George Tce, Parkes, ACT
(from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Website: www.environment.gov.au)
| List: | Commonwealth Heritage List |
| Class: | Historic |
| Legal Status: | Listed place (22/06/2004) |
| Place ID: | 105774 |
| Place File No: | 8/01/000/0017 |
| Australia’s first Federal Parliament building was designed as the grandest element and central focus of a fully planned capital city. Old Parliament House is a place of outstanding heritage values related to its history, design, landscape context, interiors, furnishings, courtyards and gardens, collection of movable items, social values and associations. |
| As the original focus of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government in Canberra, Old Parliament House is intimately associated with the political history of Australia, and the development of Canberra as the capital of Australia, from its opening in 1927 until the opening of the new Parliament House in 1988. The Old Parliament House was the second home of the Parliament which was located in the Victorian Parliament House in Melbourne from Federation in 1901 until 1927, and was the first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament. |
| Old Parliament House was the venue for and witnessed both the course and pattern of the nation’s political, social and historical development through the major part of the life of the Commonwealth to date. The movable items associated with the building are also intimately associated with these events. Apart from serving as the seat of Commonwealth Parliament, the building bears witness to the physical encroachment of the executive arm of government into the legislature’s proper sphere. This was the primary cause for the extensive additions and modifications that had to be made to the building. These additions and modifications are manifested in such elements as the southeast and southwest wings, the northeast and northwest front pavilions, and a great number of internal changes. |
| The relocation of the Parliament to Canberra was the focus of an intense period of development of the nation’s capital. The opening of Parliament heralded the symbolic birth of Canberra as the capital. The intended importance of Old Parliament House is reflected in its design, its prominent siting in the landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, and in the treatment of the areas around Old Parliament House, particularly the Senate and House of Representatives Gardens, and the National Rose Gardens. (Criterion A4) |
| Among parliamentary buildings in Australia and in other parts of the western world, Old Parliament House is an uncommon place in that it eventually housed both the legislative and executive functions of government. |
| Research carried out to date suggests that the furniture in Old Parliament House is part of a rare, intact surviving record comprising both furniture and documentation. The documentation (held by others) relates to initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture of items. (Criterion B2) |
| Old Parliament House is a good example of the Inter-War Stripped Classical style of architecture. The building reflects the embracing of classical symmetry and forms without the adoption of the full classical vocabulary and in this way it expresses a modest but refined architectural style. Key features of the style displayed by the building include: symmetrical façade, division into vertical bays indicating classical origins, vestigial classical entablature (being the horizontal decoration towards the top of the walls including the cornice), simple surfaces and spandrels (the panel between the top of a window on a lower level and the bottom of a window on a higher level) between storeys subdued to emphasise verticality. |
| The essential character and symmetry of Old Parliament House have remained intact despite several substantial additions. The design of the building and its spaces, and the movable items associated with its operations demonstrate the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament. The divisions within Parliament and the hierarchical system of government are reflected in the categories and styles of both the rooms and furniture available to individuals of different status. (Criterion D2) |
| Within the building are rooms with significant intact interior features dating from the early period. These are King’s Hall, the Library, Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, Dining Rooms, Senate Opposition Party Room, Ministerial Party Room, Clerk of the Senate’s Office, Member’s Bar, Government Party Room and Leader of the Government in the Senate’s Office. |
| The building is also of interest for surviving features consistent with, if not influenced by, Garden City ideals. These include the courtyards with loggias and pergolas, and verandahs, a principal feature of the garden city ideal to link internal spaces with the landscape setting. They also include adjacent Senate and House of Representatives gardens that contain formal plantings and an array of recreation facilities, enclosed by high cypress hedges and flanked by fine stands of Maiden’s gums. (Criterion F1) |
| The Old Parliament House is an important landmark in Canberra, Australia’s national capital. It is part of the significant cultural landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, partly reflecting Griffin’s design which placed the Government Group of buildings in this corner of the Triangle. This scheme represents in physical form on the ground the conception of the principal components of parliamentary government – the legislative, executive and judicial – the strict separation of these components and the hierarchical relationship between them. Old Parliament House is highly significant as an integral part of this scheme and, standing near the apex of the Triangle, symbolises the primacy of parliament or the legislature over the other two components. |
| The building also occupies a prominent and strategic location at the southern end of the main Land Axis of Griffin’s city design, and contributes to the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle. The axis is arguably the pivotal feature of the design. The Old Parliament House is one of four buildings sited on the axis. The other buildings being the Australian War Memorial, Anzac Hall and the current Parliament House. Accordingly, the Old Parliament House makes a major contribution as a viewpoint towards the Australian War Memorial which, together with the reverse view, are some of the most important views in the planned city. Its landmark status was recognised and enhanced by the design and siting of New Parliament House which integrated the building as part of the terminal feature of the North South vista along the Land Axis. |
| The success of the building in fulfilling this landmark role is due in part to its stark white colour and symmetry, its privileged siting on the Land Axis and the open landscaping between the building and the lake. The role of the Old Parliament House as a national icon is reinforced by its central location in the nation’s capital. |
| Old Parliament House also represents a significant creative achievement. Intended as a provisional structure but occupying such a prominent location, it was deliberately designed as a plain yet dignified structure so that it possessed appropriate aesthetic and formal qualities for its location, but not to such an extent that it would enhance the possibility of the building becoming a permanent fixture in the landscape. (Criteria E1 and F1) |
| Old Parliament House has been a strong symbol of Commonwealth Government in Australia, and of Canberra itself, for many generations of Australians. While its original function has shifted to the current Parliament House, the earlier building remains an important and familiar feature because of the memories of its former role, its new roles in the public realm, and its major contribution to the most familiar views in Canberra, from and to the building along the Land Axis. Elements of the building that particularly reflect this value are the front facade, the entrance portico, King’s Hall and the Chambers. The facade of the building is significant as a widely recognised symbol of Commonwealth Parliament and Government from 1927 to 1988. The facade is also important as the backdrop for media interviews, protests and other events associated with the Parliament and Government. These events include the establishment of an Aboriginal Embassy in nearby Parkes Place in January 1972 and the address by Prime Minister Whitlam on the front steps of the building after his sacking by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in November 1975. (Criterion G1) |
| As the home of the Commonwealth Parliament from 1927 until 1988, Old Parliament House is significant for its associations with Commonwealth Governments, Oppositions, political parties, individual politicians and the press. Specific rooms and spaces within the building are directly associated with events that shaped the political and private lives of prominent individuals in Australia’s political and social history. Many of the surviving parliamentarians, support staff and media representatives feel strong associations with the building and its contents. |
| Old Parliament House is also significant as the most prominent example of the work of the Commonwealth’s first government architect, John Smith Murdoch. To a lesser extent, it is significant as an example of the work of the Chief Architect of the Department of the Interior, Edwin Henderson, who devised the scheme for adding the southeast and southwest wings in their original two-storey form. (Criterion H1) |
| Criteria | Values |
|---|---|
| A Processes | Australia’s first Federal Parliament building was designed as the grandest element and central focus of a fully planned capital city. Old Parliament House is a place of outstanding heritage values related to its history, design, landscape context, interiors, furnishings, courtyards and gardens, collection of movable items, social values and associations. As the original focus of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government in Canberra, Old Parliament House is intimately associated with the political history of Australia, and the development of Canberra as the capital of Australia, from its opening in 1927 until the opening of the new Parliament House in 1988. The Old Parliament House was the second home of the Parliament which was located in the Victorian Parliament House in Melbourne from Federation in 1901 until 1927, and was the first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament. Old Parliament House was the venue for and witnessed both the course and pattern of the nation’s political, social and historical development through the major part of the life of the Commonwealth to date. The movable items associated with the building are also intimately associated with these events. Apart from serving as the seat of Commonwealth Parliament, the building bears witness to the physical encroachment of the executive arm of government into the legislature’s proper sphere. This was the primary cause for the extensive additions and modifications that had to be made to the building. These additions and modifications are manifested in such elements as the southeast and southwest wings, the northeast and northwest front pavilions, and a great number of internal changes. The relocation of the Parliament to Canberra was the focus of an intense period of development of the nation’s capital. The opening of Parliament heralded the symbolic birth of Canberra as the capital. The intended importance of Old Parliament House is reflected in its design, its prominent siting in the landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, and in the treatment of the areas around Old Parliament House, particularly the Senate and House of Representatives Gardens, and the National Rose Gardens. Attributes The whole building, including all additions, plus its setting, its design, its prominent siting in the landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, and its relationship with the areas around Old Parliament House, particularly the Senate and House of Representatives Gardens and the National Rose Gardens. |
| B Rarity | Among parliamentary buildings in Australia and in other parts of the western world, Old Parliament House is an uncommon place in that it eventually housed both the legislative and executive functions of government. Research carried out to date suggests that the furniture in Old Parliament House is part of a rare, intact surviving record comprising both furniture and documentation. The documentation (held by others) relates to initial design concepts, specifications, quotes and detailed drawings for manufacture of items. Attributes The building’s planning which includes legislative and executive functions of government, plus original furniture and documentation. |
| D Characteristic values | Old Parliament House is a good example of the Inter-War Stripped Classical style of architecture. The building reflects the embracing of classical symmetry and forms without the adoption of the full classical vocabulary and in this way it expresses a modest but refined architectural style. Key features of the style displayed by the building include: symmetrical facade, division into vertical bays indicating classical origins, vestigial classical entablature (being the horizontal decoration towards the top of the walls including the cornice), simple surfaces and spandrels (the panel between the top of a window on a lower level and the bottom of a window on a higher level) between storeys subdued to emphasise verticality. The essential character and symmetry of Old Parliament House have remained intact despite several substantial additions. The design of the building and its spaces, and the movable items associated with its operations demonstrate the customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament. The divisions within Parliament and the hierarchical system of government are reflected in the categories and styles of both the rooms and furniture available to individuals of different status. Attributes The building’s Inter-War Stripped Classical styling as described above, plus its internal planning, styling, related furniture and fitout. |
| E Aesthetic characteristics | The Old Parliament House is an important landmark in Canberra, Australia’s national capital. It is part of the significant cultural landscape of the Parliamentary Triangle, partly reflecting Griffin’s design which placed the Government Group of buildings in this corner of the Triangle. This scheme represents in physical form on the ground the conception of the principal components of parliamentary government – the legislative, executive and judicial – the strict separation of these components and the hierarchical relationship between them. Old Parliament House is highly significant as an integral part of this scheme and, standing near the apex of the Triangle, symbolises the primacy of parliament or the legislature over the other two components. The building also occupies a prominent and strategic location at the southern end of the main Land Axis of Griffin’s city design, and contributes to the planned aesthetic qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle. The axis is arguably the pivotal feature of the design. The Old Parliament House is one of four buildings sited on the axis. The other buildings being the Australian War Memorial, Anzac Hall and the current Parliament House. Accordingly, the Old Parliament House makes a major contribution as a viewpoint towards the Australian War Memorial which, together with the reverse view, are some of the most important views in the planned city. Its landmark status was recognised and enhanced by the design and siting of New Parliament House which integrated the building as part of the terminal feature of the North South vista along the Land Axis. |
| E Aesthetic characteristics | The success of the building in fulfilling this landmark role is due in part to its stark white colour and symmetry, its privileged siting on the Land Axis and the open landscaping between the building and the lake. The role of the Old Parliament House as a national icon is reinforced by its central location in the nation’s capital. Attributes Its stark white colour and symmetry, its siting on the Land Axis, its visual relationship with Parliament House in the north-south vista, and the open landscape between the building and the lake. |
| F Technical achievement | Old Parliament House also represents a significant creative achievement. Intended as a provisional structure but occupying such a prominent location, it was deliberately designed as a plain yet dignified structure so that it possessed appropriate aesthetic and formal qualities for its location, but not to such an extent that it would enhance the possibility of the building becoming a permanent fixture in the landscape. Attributes Its relatively plain yet dignified design. |
| G Social value | Old Parliament House has been a strong symbol of Commonwealth Government in Australia, and of Canberra itself, for many generations of Australians. While its original function has shifted to the current Parliament House, the earlier building remains an important and familiar feature because of the memories of its former role, its new roles in the public realm, and its major contribution to the most familiar views in Canberra, from and to the building along the Land Axis. Elements of the building that particularly reflect this value are the front facade, the entrance portico, King’s Hall and the Chambers. The facade of the building is significant as a widely recognised symbol of Commonwealth Parliament and Government from 1927 to 1988. The facade is also important as the backdrop for media interviews, protests and other events associated with the Parliament and Government. These events include the establishment of an Aboriginal Embassy in nearby Parkes Place in January 1972 and the address by Prime Minister Whitlam on the front steps of the building after his sacking by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in November 1975. Attributes The whole building and its location on the Land Axis and, in particular, the front facade, the entrance portico, King’s Hall and the Chambers. |
| H Significant people | Old Parliament House has been a strong symbol of Commonwealth Government in Australia, and of Canberra itself, for many generations of Australians. While its original function has shifted to the current Parliament House, the earlier building remains an important and familiar feature because of the memories of its former role, its new roles in the public realm, and its major contribution to the most familiar views in Canberra, from and to the building along the Land Axis. Elements of the building that particularly reflect this value are the front facade, the entrance portico, King’s Hall and the Chambers. The facade of the building is significant as a widely recognised symbol of Commonwealth Parliament and Government from 1927 to 1988. The facade is also important as the backdrop for media interviews, protests and other events associated with the Parliament and Government. These events include the establishment of an Aboriginal Embassy in nearby Parkes Place in January 1972 and the address by Prime Minister Whitlam on the front steps of the building after his sacking by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in November 1975. Attributes The whole building and its location on the Land Axis and, in particular, the front façade, the entrance portico, King’s Hall and the Chambers. |
The history presented below focuses primarily on the building, fabric and setting. Old Parliament House has a rich and varied social history from its construction through the sixty-one years of being the home to the machinations, events and controversies of the Australian Parliament; this history is alluded to but not covered here in any depth. This history was originally researched and written by Brendan O’Keefe to inform the Conservation Management Plan 2000. The social history of the site is researched, recorded and presented through the interpretation and exhibition programs.
The federation of the Australian colonies to form the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 January 1901 created a need for building accommodation to house the functions of the new federal Government, most importantly its Parliament. Though the Australian Constitution stipulated that the seat of government was to be established in New South Wales outside a 100-mile radius of Sydney, no decision had been made as to its location at the time of federation. In the absence of a permanent home for Commonwealth Parliament, the first Parliament was ceremonially opened in the Exhibition Building in Melbourne on 9 May 1901 and, for the next 26 years, met in the Victorian Parliament House in the city’s Spring Street. Canberra was eventually chosen as the seat of government in October 1908 and in 1911 an international competition was held to select a design for the federal capital. The winner was the Chicago architect, Walter Burley Griffin. An official commencement to the major task of building the new city was made in 1913, but the world war and post-war stringencies brought development works to a virtual standstill for many years. It was not until 1927 that Parliament was moved to the Federal Capital Territory and even then little progress had been made in building the city.
In his winning design for the federal capital, Walter Burley Griffin had fixed upon Kurrajong Hill, now Capital Hill, as the focal point of his city. From it, the main avenues of the city radiated outward, and from it also ran the city’s principal axis – the Land Axis – to Mount Ainslie. Lying astride the Land Axis, Griffin’s ‘Government Group’ of buildings was to occupy a triangle formed by Commonwealth Avenue, King’s Avenue and the central basin of his ornamental lake. The apex of this ‘Parliamentary Triangle’ rested on Kurrajong Hill which was to be crowned by a Capitol building.
Somewhat oddly, given that the rationale for the development of Canberra was for it to become the seat of Commonwealth Parliament, Griffin did not intend his Capitol building to be a legislature or parliament like its namesake in Washington. Instead, he envisaged it as a ceremonial or cultural edifice ‘representing the sentimental and spiritual head ... of the Government of the Federation’ and commemorating the achievements of the Australian people. Parliament House was to occupy a position on Camp Hill, north of and lower than this structure. On the slope running down to the shores of the lake from Parliament House and confined within the boundaries of the Parliamentary Triangle, Griffin placed the rest of his Government Group, which comprised a series of departmental and judicial buildings. The whole scheme represented in a physical form the current conception, shared by Griffin, of the principal components of government – legislative, executive and judicial – their desired separation in a parliamentary democracy and the hierarchical relationship between them.1
Though Griffin’s scheme was much altered in the short-lived Departmental Plan, the concept of the Capitol and the position of Parliament House and the other government buildings survived in this plan and were confirmed – or so it seemed – in the subsequent return to the Griffin plan. In June 1914, the Commonwealth Government announced an architectural competition for the design of the new permanent Parliament House to be erected in the position Griffin had designated for it on Camp Hill. Less than three months later, however, the Minister for Home Affairs deferred the competition to an indefinite future date because of the outbreak of the First World War. The competition was revived in August 1916, but again postponed indefinitely in November of that year.2
Soon after the war, the question arose anew about arrangements for the removal of the federal seat of government from its temporary home in Melbourne to its permanent location in Canberra. The most important consideration before any removal could take place was the erection of a building in Canberra to house Commonwealth Parliament. In March 1920, the Minister for Home and Territories referred the question of transferring the seat of government and the construction of necessary buildings, including a parliament house, to a special committee he was to appoint. Constituted as the Federal Capital Advisory Committee, its members were told by the Government
that it wanted to transfer Parliament to Canberra ‘as quickly as possible and at the minimum cost.’3 In July 1921, the Committee reported that the construction of a permanent parliamentary building would take many years to complete and would thus considerably delay the transfer of the seat of government. The nation’s huge war debt, moreover, militated against the erection of such a building, as the cost of construction would certainly be very substantial.4
By way of an alternative, the Government had already referred to the Committee for its consideration a proposal to erect a ‘Convention Hall’ that could be expanded into a temporary parliament house. On examining the idea, however, the Committee came to the conclusion that, for Commonwealth Parliament to function at all in Canberra, it would require from the outset a full complement of staff and facilities, such as Hansard reporting staff, reference library and so on. As the Convention Hall idea could not fulfil these requirements, the Committee soon rejected the proposal. In its place, the Committee put forward its own recommendation for the erection of a ‘provisional’ parliament house. Although the distinction between a temporary and a provisional structure looked like a piece of semantic hair-splitting, the Committee clearly understood what it meant by the difference. To the Committee members, the temporary parliament house that was intended to grow from the original Convention Hall would have been a structure of ‘an eminently temporary character’, built of fibro cement, iron or weatherboard and with a lifespan of 10 to 20 years. By contrast, the Committee members envisaged their provisional parliament house as a solidly-built structure of brick and concrete that would be aesthetically pleasing, would provide a full range of parliamentary facilities from the start and would serve as the nation’s legislature for around half a century. The projected difference in cost between building each structure was not significant, but the longer lifespan of the provisional house gave far better value for money.5
As to the authorship of the idea, the suggestion has been made that John Smith Murdoch, who was soon to design the Provisional Parliament House, may have influenced the Committee in this direction from his position as Chief Architect in the Department of Works and Railways.6 The suggestion assumes that the Committee members were amenable to his influence, but in fact this does not seem likely. Murdoch was not a member of the Committee and therefore could have only exercised any influence from a distance.
In any case, the Committee’s Chairman, John Sulman, exhibited no inclination to accept Murdoch’s ideas. Despite his professional regard for Murdoch, Sulman disagreed with him on most of the fundamental issues and, under Sulman’s leadership, the Committee completely rejected Murdoch’s views in relation to sites for the provisional and permanent parliament houses. It is also significant that Murdoch’s superior, Colonel Percy Owen, the department’s Director-General of 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 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, J.T. Goodwin, or NSW’s Chief Engineer for Water Supply and Sewerage, E.M. 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, H.E. Ross, who was also an architect as well as being a consulting engineer. Certainly, Sulman and Ross were the strongest responsible partys 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.7
Hand in hand with the Committee’s recommendation for a provisional parliament house 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, with a realisation by many that it might well become a permanent fixture. Its positioning was a matter of the utmost importance. One option the Committee examined was a site that Murdoch favoured on a knoll north of Camp Hill, to the west of the Land Axis and near the proposed lake. Although a building in this position would have gravely affected the symmetry of Griffin’s plan, Murdoch believed that symmetry could be restored by constructing an administrative building on a corresponding site on the other side of the Land Axis. However, Sulman and his Committee rejected the whole scheme as too much of a disturbance to Griffin’s plan.8
Another site that suggested itself was the top of Camp Hill, the position that Griffin had designated for Parliament House in his city plan. But building the provisional structure in this location brought in its train a number of awkward consequences. If this option were pursued, it meant that the structure would later have to be incorporated in the permanent building, or that it would have to be completely demolished to make way for its permanent successor on the same spot, or that another site entirely would have to be found for the permanent building. The first of these alternatives would have eventually resulted in a great deal of disruptive construction work going on in and around the building while Parliament tried to function. This was unacceptable. The second alternative – demolition – was even less satisfactory because it would have entailed still greater disruption to the functioning of Parliament. In contrast to these first two alternatives, the third involved no real practical difficulties and, moreover, enjoyed strong support from several authorities, including Murdoch (as an alternative to his knoll site). These authorities advocated the erection of the provisional building on the top of Camp Hill and the permanent building on Kurrajong Hill, the latter to replace Griffin’s proposed Capitol.9
The Kurrajong Hill proposal did not appeal at all to Sulman or Ross. Sulman considered that the summit of the hill was too wind-swept and that two-way access between a parliament house built on it and the proposed administrative buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle would be difficult because of the hill’s height and the steepness of its approaches. This was despite the fact that Murdoch had produced a scheme for cutting off the top of the hill, levelling an area on which to erect Parliament House and placing a cluster of administrative buildings on the slopes around the Parliament. But Sulman would have none of this. He and his colleagues on the Advisory Committee favoured building the provisional building on the northern slope of Camp Hill in front of the position that Griffin had reserved for the permanent parliament house. In this location, the provisional structure would not, they felt, hinder the later construction of the permanent building. The provisional structure would also stand astride the Land Axis, would maintain the planned proximity to the departmental and judicial buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle, and would stand in much the same relationship to – and benefit from – the landscaping and garden development that was intended for its permanent successor. Above all, Sulman, who was the most ardent advocate of the scheme and in all likelihood its author, claimed that it would have no adverse impact on Griffin’s city plan.10
Sulman’s view was met with far from universal approbation. Various critics of the scheme expressed the opinion that, once a provisional or semi-permanent building had been erected in the position that Sulman and his colleagues favoured, it would tend to take on a permanent air and would be difficult to remove. The growth of an attachment to the building as the nation’s first purpose-built Parliament would aid this process. The most trenchant criticism of the scheme, however, came from Griffin himself. He disagreed vehemently with Sulman’s view that constructing the provisional parliament house on the northern slope of Camp Hill would not violate the city plan. ‘To build the provisional building just below Camp Hill,’ he said, would absolutely destroy the whole idea of the Government group, which is the dominating feature of the Federal Capital; it would be like filling a front yard full of outhouses, the walls of which would be the frontages of the buildings facing the yard. It would never be pulled down; history teaches us that such things are not changed, the pressure being too great to allow it.11
The question of building a parliament house was next considered by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. After a lengthy series of sittings in March-April 1923 in which the committee interviewed some fifty witnesses, it produced a report in July in which it recommended either the erection of the nucleus of the permanent building on Camp Hill or the provisional structure on its northern slope.12 The Government, anxious to expedite the removal of the seat of government to Canberra and conscious of the need for economy, decided a mere two weeks later to go ahead with the construction of the Provisional Parliament House.13 Although the erection of a building on the slope of Camp Hill was a clear departure from Griffin’s plan, the placement of the provisional structure in this position did at least preserve the relationship that Griffin had envisaged between the various arms of government and their hierarchical arrangement within the Parliamentary Triangle.
In response to the views of Sulman and his colleagues on the Federal Capital Advisory Committee, Murdoch had drawn up sketch plans for a provisional parliament house on the north slope of Camp Hill in the latter half of 1922. These plans were subsequently submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for its 1923 inquiry and important modifications were made as a result of the committee’s work. In producing a design for the provisional building, Murdoch had found himself in something of a difficult position. He did not agree at all with the siting of the structure on the slope of Camp Hill and felt that in this location it would be ‘rather in the way’ of the permanent administrative buildings that Griffin intended for the area. Nevertheless, as a government employee and its senior design architect, he had to design a building to conform to the ideas of the Federal Capital Advisory Committee and ultimately to the wishes of the Government.
One paramount consideration for Murdoch in elaborating the design was that the building should be a low-rise structure ‘so that the view from the permanent Parliament House [on Camp Hill] will be interfered with as little as possible.’ While the building was also designated as a ‘provisional’ structure, it was intended to serve as the nation’s Parliament for about fifty years, with a possible later role for some decades as a government office building. These considerations signified that, for the purposes of design and construction, the building should be treated almost as a permanent structure. From the point of view of longevity and appearance, building techniques such as frame and plaster or materials such as weatherboard, iron and fibro cement were thus unacceptable; brick would be the preferred building medium, with concrete foundations. But in accordance with its provisional nature, it would have for the most part, as Sulman pointed out, ‘11-inch hollow exterior walls and 4 1/2-inch inside walls, so that it will really belong to the cottage class of building ...’14
As the building was intended to last for at least 50-100 years and would occupy such a prominent position in the Canberra layout, it was essential that it was a dignified structure possessing aesthetic qualities befitting its role and location. On the other hand, the need to keep costs down, coupled with a wish to avoid turning the building into an architectural jewel that might preclude later demolition, dictated that it should not be a lavish or ornate structure. In the words of the Federal Capital Advisory Committee, ‘the external architecture would be simple, but decorous.’15 To fit these strictures, Murdoch produced a design in stripped classical style which, apart from the moulding of its cornice, left the building free of external decorative features. It was Murdoch’s intention that the classical proportions and other classical elements would give the building the dignified appearance desired of it. This would be enhanced by a plain white plastering of the external walls. Murdoch himself described the whole design as characterised by ‘plainness’ and referred to it rather apologetically as a ‘rush job’. Owen was somewhat more positive, saying that Murdoch’s design aimed ‘to obtain effect with simple lines, and without expensive architectural embellishment’ and that it did not ‘provide any features purely for the gaining of effect.’16
The design of the building was also influenced by Griffin’s conception of parliamentary government. In his scheme for the city, he had felt that he could not make parliament house the focal point of the Parliamentary Triangle and of the city plan in general because the legislature consisted of two houses, the House of
Representatives and the Senate. His concern was that, if he did make parliament house the centrepiece of his plan, the focal point would be occupied by one or the other house; this would then act to elevate the status of one house at the expense of the other. As Griffin believed in the equality of the two houses, such an arrangement was not acceptable.17 Thus, he made the Capitol building on Kurrajong Hill the focal point of his plan and placed parliament house in a subordinate though still important position in the Parliamentary Triangle, depicting the building as a long rectangular structure sitting transversely astride the land axis. The clear implication was that the land axis would divide the parliamentary building into two halves equal in size and status, with the House of Representatives on one side and the Senate on the other. The whole conception was reminiscent of the Capitol in Washington which, of course, Griffin would have been familiar with. The idea survived to become one of the underlying assumptions of Murdoch’s design for the provisional building on the northern slope of Camp Hill. It is not clear why Murdoch, who had visited the Capitol in Washington, reserved the eastern half of the building as the Representatives side and the western half as the Senate side. As the building is viewed from in front, this is the reverse of the arrangement in the Capitol.
The size of the building was based on the needs of Commonwealth Parliament as expressed to Murdoch and his colleagues by parliamentarians and parliamentary officers. One of the most important considerations here was the assumption that the numbers of parliamentarians would not rise above a total of 168 – 112 in the House of Representatives and 56 in the Senate – for the projected life of the building as the home of Commonwealth Parliament. This seemed entirely reasonable as, at the time of the building’s official opening in May 1927, the figures for Members of the House of Representatives (Members) and Senators were 73 and 36 respectively, a total of only 109. In his design for the two legislative chambers, therefore, Murdoch allowed sufficient space to cater for an expansion of the membership of each house by a factor of just over fifty per cent. As for the internal layout of each Chamber, Murdoch had originally designed the seating arrangement to mirror that of the House of Commons in England, but this was altered after the Minister for Home and Territories, Senator George Pearce, warmly commended to the Standing Committee on Public Works the horseshoe or semicircular pattern of seating used in the French Chamber of Deputies. This arrangement, which Pearce had seen for himself in Paris, impressed him as enabling all members to hear and see proceedings clearly, while at the same time allowing each of them to be clearly audible and visible themselves. The Standing Committee did not, however, recommend the adoption of the French system of having members address the Chamber from a rostrum mounted at the front.18
Aside from the space required in the legislative chambers, the Provisional Parliament House also had to provide office accommodation for 12 ministers when Parliament was in session. In accordance with the building’s legislative function, these offices were not meant to serve as the Ministers’ departmental offices; these were to be located in located in separate departmental buildings or in one of the proposed secretariat buildings, East or West Block. Similarly, the provisional structure was to include a back-up cabinet room for use during parliamentary sessions, with the main cabinet room to be housed in West Block. The building also had to provide offices for various parliamentary officials connected with the House of Representatives and the Senate, together with the staffs of three other parliamentary departments: the Joint House Department which was established in 1922, the Parliamentary Reporting Service which recorded proceedings and produced Hansard, and the Parliamentary Library. A complicating factor with the space needed for the library was that it also included the nascent National Library, with all the growth in bookholdings and demand for future space that implied. In his plans for the building, Murdoch allowed for some expansion of the library’s holdings, but he indicated that this allowance was conditional on separate premises being provided for the National Library at an early date.19
Other space was required in the building for a variety of other occupants and services such as press representatives, dining and recreation facilities, engineering services and a small post office which was to be established at the rear of King’s Hall. The press representatives were to be housed in two groups of six offices located in the gallery above the main floor. At the rear of the main block and connected to it by four covered walkways was to stand a two-storey dining-recreation block (the south wing), complete with kitchen on the lower floor, and dining rooms, a billiards room, lounge and Members’ bar on the main level. The bar was to prove of little solace for parliamentarians for the first year in which the Provisional Parliament House was opened as prohibition was then in force in the Capital Territory. The engineering services for the building were to include a pneumatic tube system to connect Parliament House with the Government Printing Office and Canberra’s general post office. The use of such a system may again have been influenced by Pearce’s views. He had seen a pneumatic tube system in operation in the Capitol in Washington and was full of praise for it, the system delivering books and documents to members from the Congressional Library with great efficiency in a matter of a few minutes. For convenience, this Library was also placed midway between the two houses in the Capitol, a position that was seemingly mirrored on a smaller scale in Murdoch’s provisional parliament house. As a whole, the building was to contain the two legislative chambers and 182 other rooms. Of these, 63 rooms were offices designed to accommodate approximately 108 parliamentarians and parliamentary staff.20
A notable peculiarity of Murdoch’s plan was that he made no provision for offices for private Members and Senators; they were expected to make use of their party rooms to attend to their correspondence and any other business they needed to transact outside the chambers. Pearce was critical of this arrangement and compared it unfavourably with the situation he had seen at firsthand in Washington where Senators and all Members of Congress had their own private offices. Murdoch was well aware of this deficiency in his plan and suggested that East and West Blocks could be taken over as private offices for parliamentarians once the two buildings had served their purpose as accommodation for the Secretariat.21 Nothing ever came of this idea, and the desire of private Members and Senators to have their own private offices was to exist as a constant background pressure for increasing accommodation in the building for most of its life as the home of the nation’s Parliament.
Murdoch also expressed a more general warning at the outset that,
... this plan provides, in accordance with the wishes of the Government, the minimum of accommodation by which Parliament can conveniently commence work. It is quite true that the plan as shown provides no more accommodation than will be found necessary at the very beginning. It is obvious, however, that more accommodation must be provided in the future if this temporary house is to remain in use for any time.22
In fact, in its report, the Standing Committee on Public Works recommended that the building could, if required, be enlarged by providing a partial lower floor beneath the suites of rooms flanking the library on the ground floor, by erecting one-storey wings on each side of the dining-recreation block and by building a partial upper storey at the front of the building on each side.23 There was some uneasiness, however, about increasing the scale of the building and particularly its height lest the additions began to intrude on the vistas from the top of Camp Hill to Mount Ainslie and vice versa when the permanent building was eventually erected.
As it was, the Committee made some major changes to Murdoch’s original plans for the provisional building. In the plans he drew up in 1922, Murdoch had shown suites of offices immediately south of the two chambers, offices flanking each side of the library and separate east and west wings enclosing the garden courtyards.
As a result of its deliberations, the Committee replaced some of the offices south of the chambers with a large verandah on each side, did away with the offices on each side of the library and dispensed with the east and west wings; a proposal to erect such wings, however, would re-emerge a mere 10 years after the opening of the building and would be eventually be built after 15 years. In making these changes, the Committee was apparently concerned to admit as much fresh air as possible into the legislative chambers and also to allow Members easy and healthful access to the open air of the now larger and unenclosed courtyards; the stale and unhealthy conditions that parliamentarians had endured in Parliament House in Melbourne was no doubt part of the motivation behind these changes. The office space lost from the main floor as a consequence of the Committee’s changes was regained by expanding the accommodation available on the lower floor. The Committee also effected some alterations to the front aspect of the building, making it flatter in appearance partly by removing to other locations the large Senate club and committee and reception rooms that Murdoch had originally placed on either side of the entrance vestibule.
There was one final assumption in the design of the Provisional Parliament House which was to have very significant, albeit unforeseeable, consequences for the building. Other than temporary short-term arrangements like the back-up Cabinet Room, Murdoch’s design for the structure quite properly did not make any provision for the carrying out of the executive functions of Government in the building; it was intended to serve essentially as a building for the legislature. Pending the relocation of Commonwealth Government departments from Melbourne, the executive work of Government that had to be performed in Canberra was to be carried out by a skeleton staff, or ‘secretariat’, from each department. These staff were to be housed in two temporary ‘Secretariat’ buildings – East and West Blocks – that were to be erected close to the rear of the provisional parliament house. Later, as government departments progressively moved to Canberra, they and their officers were to be accommodated in a permanent Administrative Building, somewhat like the Commonwealth Offices at Treasury Place in Melbourne, which was in effect to form the first of the departmental buildings that Griffin had envisaged for the Parliamentary Triangle. But the Government’s decision to relocate substantially more public servants to Canberra than mere secretariats, coupled with its failure to proceed with the construction of the permanent Administrative Building, were soon to create major problems for the Provisional Parliament House and lead to unanticipated early alterations and additions to the building.
With the aid of a steam shovel, the Minister for Works and Railways, P.G. Stewart, turned the first sod for the commencement of work on the Provisional Parliament House on 23 August 1923. Eventually, around 50 000 cubic yards of earth would be moved in preparation for the building. Construction proceeded over the next three years, consuming some five million bricks produced at the local brickworks at Yarralumla, as well as 2 000 tons of cement. The brickwork was finished by the middle of 1926, enabling work to begin on rendering the interior and exterior of the building. A significant feature of the construction and fitout of the building was that special care was taken as a mark of national unity to incorporate native timbers from each Australian state, except South Australia. Although South Australia’s historic lack of timber had caused it to become the leading state in forestry in Australia, it had no commercial timbers suitable for use in the building.24 Thus, the timbers used in the provisional building and their states of origin were:
Apart from some doors to the press rooms and several sashes on the lower floor of the dining-recreation block, all of the joinery in the building was fashioned from Australian timber. Tasmanian blackwood was used for panelling the lower walls in the legislative chambers and for most of the timberwork, doors and doorframes throughout the building. The same timber, faced with copper, was used for the front door of the building. All of the exterior window and door frames were of Queensland maple coated with a tough oil-based varnish to give protection against Canberra’s harsh summer sun. All of the flooring in the building was also of Australian timber, except for a small amount of Baltic pine used for flooring in the press rooms. On the lower floor, all of the floor bearers and joists were made of Australian hardwood, but imported oregon was used for the joists in the main floor, upper floor and flat roof, and for the main trusses over the legislative chambers. Oregon was used because it was felt that, as a seasoned timber in these areas, it would produce less movement and therefore have no deleterious effect on plastered ceilings. This, however, was soon to prove an illusory hope.25
Construction of the Provisional Parliament House was completed in 1927 at a cost of £644 600, a figure almost three times in excess of the original cost estimate of £220 000. A further £250,000 was spent on furnishing the building. At the time of its completion, the building covered four acres of ground and included a total of 182 rooms, plus the two legislative chambers. Surrounding the House, another 132 acres were in the process of being converted – not without difficulty – into lawns, gardens and recreational areas, including tennis courts, a bowling green, cricket pitch and at some point a putting green. Among the guiding principles of the layout and planting of the grounds were that the levels should be symmetrical, that the design should be of a formal character and accentuate the land axis running to Mount Ainslie and that the plantings should be ‘loose and low’ such that they would not dwarf the flat profile of Parliament House or obscure views of it. Another, far more prosaic principle was that grass needed to be grown in the areas around the House, which had been a building site for over three years, in order to keep the dust down. The varieties of grass seed planted were specially chosen on the advice of T.C. Weston, the Superintendent of Parks and Gardens in Canberra. With the official opening of the provisional building approaching, great haste was made to develop lawns at least in the front and at the sides of the House. On ground that had not yet been perfectly levelled, grass seed was sown hurriedly and under conditions where insufficient water was available to foster luxuriant growth. The result was acceptable for the opening, but development continued in fits and starts for a number of years. Thus, the areas at the rear of the House were only planted with grass in late 1927. Excavations for the ornamental pool in the grounds in front of the House were carried out in 1929, but then work lapsed. For several years afterwards, the excavated area, overgrown with weeds, presented an eyesore in front of Australia’s Parliament. The work was only completed after complaints about the state of the unfinished pool in 1933.26
The Provisional Parliament House was officially opened by the Duke of York, later to become King George VI, at a ceremony in Canberra on 9 May 1927. The ceremony did not actually mark the opening of a Session of Parliament; it was merely the continuation of the 10tht27 Australian Parliament which had opened in Melbourne in January the previous year. Immediately following the opening ceremony, Parliament adjourned to re-convene on 28 September, more than four months later.
While Parliament was in recess, a sad event in the shape of the first death to occur in the new building took place when the Clerk of the House, Walter Gale, collapsed and died in his office – now part of Room M86 – on 27 July. He was succeeded by John Robert McGregor who, at the resumption of Parliament in Canberra on 28 September, himself collapsed in the House of Representatives Chamber and died that night in the small Canberra Hospital.28
Despite the comfortable appointments to the new building and its handsome, dazzling white appearance in the Canberra landscape, serious problems began to manifest themselves as soon as Parliament commenced regular sittings in the building. The first of these was acoustic difficulties in the chambers. Complaints were made about the acoustics from the very start of sittings in the building, with one Member claiming in November 1927 that it was impossible for most Opposition Members to hear what Government Members were saying on the opposite side of the Representatives Chamber. Sir John Butters, Chairman of the Federal Capital Commission – a powerful statutory body established in January 1925 to oversee and accelerate the development of Canberra – quickly brought in experts to try to rectify the problem. This resulted in the laying of felt floor coverings over the rubber flooring in both chambers in 1928 and the hanging of heavy drapes. Later, green carpet was laid in the Representatives Chamber in 1929 and red carpet in the Senate in 1936.29
In this same early period, there emerged what would become one of the most prolonged and intractable problems with the building: trouble with the roof. In spite of appearances to the contrary, the first intimation of problems was actually not as serious as it seemed. As was not wholly unexpected, the oregon beams and trusses over King’s Hall, some with a span of 52 feet (15.85 metres), began to shrink in Canberra’s hot, dry climate. By early September 1927, the shrinkage had caused the ceiling over King’s Hall to sag by nearly a foot in some places, with consequent damage to the plasterwork. The sag was corrected by tightening the bolts in the trusses, though this led to large chunks of plaster falling from the ceiling. After the plasterwork was made good, however, there were no further problems related to this particular aspect of the roof.30
A far more serious problem with the roof appeared soon afterwards. By late 1927, periods of rainy weather were causing parts of the flat roof of the building, mainly over the dining-recreation block, to bulge and leak. Before the year was out, it was found necessary to remove roofing material from a large area of the roof and re-lay it with new material. But this was not the end of the problem. Heavy rains in August 1929 caused leakage through several spots in the roof of the main building, while the exposed terraces at each end of the dining-recreation block were flooded, with the water flowing into some of the rooms on the ground floor. An effort was made to fix the leaks in the main building, except for that over the Ministerial Party Room (Room M95) which could not be located. In an attempt to rectify the problem with the terraces of the dining-recreation block, three layers of bituminous felt were laid over the entire area. These attempted solutions, however, did not prove successful. Further episodes of rain saw serious leaks develop through the roofs over all of the covered ways and, in the main building, in that part of the roof over the suite occupied by the President of the Senate (Rooms M251-3). At the same time, smaller leaks persisted over the Ministerial Party Room and the former Opposition Party Room (Room M44) which was now used by the Country Party. The leaks were mainly attributed to minor cracks opening up in the concrete of the roofs as settling of the foundations occurred in the new building. Renewed efforts were made to fix the defects, including laying eighty tons of gravel on the roof of the main building, but the difficulties with the roof never completely disappeared. As T.R. Casboulte, the Executive Architect at the time, indicated, the sheer expanse of flat roof – 4 580 square yards in the case of the main building – more or less guaranteed that some leakage would occur in periods of rain following extended exposure to Canberra’s hot, drying sun.30
If the problems with the roof proved virtually insoluble, a burden of an entirely different but even more momentous character now emerged. The difficulty had its origins in Government decisions about the relocation of Commonwealth public servants to Canberra and the provision of adequate departmental accommodation for them in the national capital. Originally, the Government proposed that the greater part of each department would remain in Melbourne and that, in the interim, secretariats comprising a skeleton staff from each of the twelve ministries would be accommodated in purpose-built Secretariat buildings, to become known as East and West Blocks, in Canberra. In total, the secretariat staff was intended to number only about 200 officers. However, in 1925, the Government abandoned the Secretariat scheme and replaced it with a plan to transfer a large proportion of the central staff of the departments to Canberra by June 1927. A major consequence of this decision was that the Government now had to provide
office accommodation in Canberra for approximately 1 000 public servants, with many more to follow in short order. As East and West Blocks were intended to accommodate some 440 officers between them when they were built, they were clearly insufficient to meet departmental requirements for office space.31
The accommodation problem was compounded later in the 1920s by another change of Government policy on Canberra. In October 1927, the Government let a contract for the construction of the proposed Permanent Administrative Building in the Parliamentary Triangle. Though designed to house eight of the departments that were to be moved from Melbourne, this building was not expected to be completed until 1934. As it was, soon after the foundations for the building were laid in April 1928, the Government decided for financial reasons to postpone construction. With the onset of the Depression in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash of October 1929, any prospect of an early resumption of the project evaporated. Despite the fact that the Government took steps to provide alternative office space in Canberra, the policy reversals on the Secretariat scheme and the Permanent Administrative Building resulted in a deficiency of office accommodation for the departmental or executive functions of government near Parliament House or in Canberra in general. Increasingly, Parliament House itself, a building erected to house the legislature, came to be used for executive purposes.32
Even aside from the Government’s failure to provide sufficient office accommodation in Canberra, it is debatable whether the executive or departmental functions could have been kept out of Parliament House. With the increasing demands of ministerial portfolios and the obligation to attend Parliamentary sittings, it was becoming less convenient and less practical for Ministers to try to rush from one building to another to fulfil their separate departmental and legislative duties. Even in Melbourne, where the executive accommodation in Parliament House had originally been limited to just one room – an office for the Prime Minister – the executive had started to infiltrate the building. During the period 1923-5, the Bruce-Page Government had, for the sake of convenience, begun to hold Cabinet meetings in the building from time to time. In Canberra, the easy and obvious way for ministers to get around the difficulty of departmental accommodation that was either sadly lacking or located at some distance from Parliament House was for them to perform their executive functions in their ministerial offices in the House. From these offices, they could quickly and easily make their way to the legislative chambers to attend sittings. One inevitable consequence of this trend was that ministers tended to drag departmental staff into Parliament House with them, leading to pressure to provide office space to accommodate the departmental officers.33
One of the first and clearest manifestations of the trend for the executive to move permanently into Parliament House occurred as early as 1932. Building on the Bruce-Page Government’s practice of occasionally holding Cabinet meetings in Parliament House in Melbourne, Prime Minister Joseph Lyons and his Cabinet abandoned the Cabinet Room in West Block in 1932 in favour of what had hitherto been the back-up Cabinet Room in Parliament House. Though there were no immediate accommodation implications arising from this move, it marked a highly significant departure in the usage of the building, signifying that it was no longer the exclusive preserve of the legislature, but now served as a permanent home for the executive as well. The move set a precedent of the utmost importance for the future of the building.34
Pressure on accommodation in the House was intensified by various other developments, as well. The emergence of the Lang group of five disaffected Labor MPs led to a need to provide them with their own party room. A room was initially found for them on the lower floor but, following a decision to give them better and more conveniently-located accommodation, alterations were made to some of the spaces on the main floor. In early 1935, the Librarian’s office (Room M54) was extended to provide office space for the Lang group and their leader, ‘Stabber Jack’ Beasley, close to the Representatives Chamber. At the same time, a set of new rooms were constructed on the ‘balcony recess’ on the Senate side to accommodate the Librarian and his secretary. A year later, another change was made following a request from the Governor-General that an office be provided for him in Parliament House where Executive Council meetings could be held and where he could have private meetings with ministers and other people. With some difficulty, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate were able to reserve for the Governor-General the Public Works Committee room (later Senate Committee Room 3) and an adjacent secretary’s office on the lower floor. As the Depression had brought government building projects to a standstill, the Public Works Committee was dormant and its room was therefore unused. The Speaker and President warned, however, that if the committee were re-convened at any stage new arrangements would have to be made for the Governor-General’s accommodation in the House.35
Labouring under the financial straits of the Depression years, successive governments in the 1930s felt unable to devote scarce resources to what many Australians regarded as the quixotic and extravagant scheme to develop a national capital at Canberra. The upshot was a continuing lack of departmental office space close to Parliament House, a situation that fostered the insidious trend of turning the House into a de facto home for the executive. With nowhere else convenient to perform their departmental work, Ministers and departmental officers steadily moved in and took over what space
they could find in the House. The issue eventually boiled over into the public domain in June 1937 when Senator J.S. Collings and other MPs made complaints in Parliament about the appropriation by the executive of space in the building at the expense of the legislature. ‘On account of various devices and subterfuges,’ he charged, ‘the members of this legislature are gradually being deprived of accommodation in the building and, as a consequence, are unable properly to do their work.’ Placing the blame for this situation squarely on the Government for its failure to develop Canberra, Collings expressed his regret that ‘Parliament House [was] becoming a huge secretariat’ and he demanded that the Government reserve the House strictly for the workings of Parliament.36
The pressure for additional accommodation was further accentuated by a change that had been taking place in working culture. In the original form of the building, no individual offices had been provided for private members and senators; they were expected to conduct their private parliamentary business in their respective party rooms. At the time that the Provisional Parliament House was erected, this arrangement was accepted, albeit barely, as a fact of MPs’ working life. But as Murdoch had foreseen, members and senators would sooner or later want their own offices to carry out their electorate duties and other work in privacy and away from the distractions and interruptions of a party room. Again in 1937, Collings complained that, because ‘the congestion in every part of this building [was] becoming more and more intense’, senators and presumably members as well were ‘often unable to secure a room in which to write letters or converse in privacy.’37 Though many decades were to elapse before most senators and members would in fact secure their own private offices, the change in working culture evident in Collings’s expressed views signified that much additional office accommodation would eventually have to be provided for MPs.
The complaints strongly voiced by Collings and others in the Parliament quickly evoked a response from the Government. As the trend towards accommodating the executive in Parliament House was now so far advanced as to be all but irreversible, there was little chance that the Government would act on Collings’s demand that the executive should be expelled from the building. In any case, there was nowhere else for the executive to go. The Government therefore began to consider how office accommodation in the building could be expanded. In December 1937, the Chief Architect in the Department of the Interior, Edwin Henderson, put forward a scheme to erect a two-storey wing on the outer side of the garden courtyard on the Representatives side. The scheme was in fact a part revival of Murdoch’s 1922 sketch plan in which he had shown a wing in this position, with a corresponding one on the Senate side. Though the Joint House Committee quickly endorsed the principle of providing extra accommodation for Parliament
House, Henderson’s scheme became mired in a long series of meetings, protests, proposals and counter-proposals. In the end, the scheme lapsed, though it would not be too long before it would re-surface.37
In the meantime, the Government decided on some expedient additions and alterations to create more office space in the building. This was achieved mainly by subdividing some of the larger rooms, enclosing the verandahs on the northern side of each garden court, and converting two visitors’ rooms, four small corridors and even a toilet into offices. About this time, a more important alteration was effected when a double-storey extension was added to the rear of the library. The extension represented the first major departure from Murdoch’s design as it obliterated the small garden courtyard immediately south of the library, completely filled in one side of each covered way that ran alongside the library to the dining-recreation block, and cut off the former open communication between the two larger garden courtyards on each side of the library. The provision of additional space for the library, however, allowed the area that had been converted for library use on the Senate side of the building in 1935 to be modified and claimed as offices for three ministers and their secretaries. These additions were urgently required as three new government departments – Social Security, Civil Aviation, and Supply and Development – were formed around this time. All together, the 1938 changes to the building produced an increase in floor space of 2 954 square feet through internal alterations and another 1,664 square feet by additions, while 20 more offices were created, bringing the total number to 83.38
At the same time as these modifications were being made, strong pressure for more and better accommodation was being applied from a different quarter. Press representatives had long been unhappy about the twelve offices they had been allocated on the upper floor. Although the accommodation had been adequate enough for the original band of about 25 journalists who made up the press gallery, the increase in their numbers during the 1930s, the introduction of new technology and a simple desire for improved working conditions prompted them to begin to push for more and better office space. In response to the journalists’ agitation, plans were drawn up in early 1936 to construct another 12 offices for the press on the upper floor, six over the Opposition Party Room (Room M61) on the Representatives side and six over the Ministerial Party Room (Room M44) on the Senate side; the offices were deliberately placed at the rear of the upper floor so that they would not be visible from the front of the building, thus compromising its appearance. But work on the new rooms did not proceed largely, it seems, because the cost estimate was too high.39
The journalists put up with their irksome working conditions for another eighteen months or so until they could no longer tolerate them. In February 1938, the President of the press gallery wrote to the Chairman of the Joint House Committee setting out in no uncertain terms the journalists’ complaints. He claimed that ‘in many respects existing Press accommodation and facilities are among the worst in any British Parliament in the world’, while the overcrowding in the press rooms, he said, was ‘appalling and would not be tolerated in a factory or office’. Conditions would become even further cramped, he added, as more and more communications equipment was installed, and already four pressmen had to work in a room in which a teleprinter carried out its noisy function. To add to the journalists’ woes, they regarded the toilet facilities as insanitary and the worst in the building. During 1939, some of these complaints were addressed by way of the construction of five additional offices for the press, together with a common room, on the upper floor of the Representatives side of the building. Although this went some way towards alleviating the journalists’ problems, the work had other unfortunate consequences. While opening parts of the roof to install RSJs to support the new offices, some heavy downpours of rain occurred which, in March 1939, flooded out the southern part of the main building, necessitating the re-decoration of the Cabinet Room, some Ministers’ offices and some rooms on the lower floor beneath them.40
The outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 had, not surprisingly, a major impact on Commonwealth Government administration in Canberra, accelerating its growth and increasing its complexity. The national war effort entailed a phenomenal increase in government responsibilities and business, and already before the end of 1939 five new government departments had been established; a further 12 would be created before the war ended. In addition, the role and workload of all government departments expanded greatly.41 As a result of the increased government business, accommodation space in Parliament House reached a critical shortage within a few months of the war’s outbreak.
While the exigencies of war could not have been foreseen, the accommodation problem was compounded by the creeping trend over the years to house the executive in Parliament House, in lieu of providing separate departmental accommodation elsewhere in Canberra. By August 1939, the Commonwealth Government was leasing 30 000 square feet of office space in privately-owned buildings in the national capital, and the Commonwealth’s Chief Property Officer reported that another 13 000 square feet was required immediately. By early 1940, departments in Canberra were pressing for another
15 850 square feet.42 There was no hope at all of finding the required extra space anywhere in Canberra or its environs and, in these circumstances, all available space in Parliament House was taken up. Thus, in March 1940, the Serjeant-at-Arms felt compelled to report to the Clerk of the House of Representatives that the accommodation situation in the House was now ‘most acute’ and that ‘saturation point [had] been reached.’ At that point, the building was providing office space for more than 50 departmental staff of ministers who were members of the House of Representatives; the staff of ministers who were Senators was another matter again. The Serjeant-at-Arms informed the Clerk that ‘it [was] impossible, without the provision of additional offices, to accommodate any further departmental officers in the Parliamentary building.’43
To deal with the critical accommodation problem, the Government resolved to make some substantial additions to the building. These entailed the resurrection of Henderson’s 1937 scheme, itself based on Murdoch’s 1922 sketch plan, to build wings on the outer side of each garden courtyard, the construction to involve the demolition of the two covered ways that stood in these positions. Initially, the Government was inclined to erect one wing only, on the Representatives side, but the critical shortage of space quickly led to a decision to build a matching wing on the Senate side. On 14 January 1943, the builder, C. Banks of Griffith in the ACT, signed a contract to construct a double-storey wing on the Representatives side of the building, the work to be completed in 20 weeks. Eight months later, on 14 September 1943, another building firm, Messrs Simmie and Company of the suburb of Kingston, signed a contract to build a corresponding two-storey wing on the Senate side, the contract to be completed in 24 weeks. Thus erected only a decade and a half after the opening of the provisional building, the wings provided an additional 48 offices, two attendants’ boxes and two toilets. Although care was taken to ensure that the new wings employed the same architectural features as the rest of the building, they now completely enclosed the two remaining garden courtyards and erased the circular driveways on each side. But quite apart from these considerations, the additions created, possibly inadvertently, a significant precedent, in that for the first time they allowed some parliamentarians other than Ministers the luxury of having their own offices. This was far more the case on the Senate side where, with its fewer parliamentarians, the space problem
had been less acute and where there were now some spare offices available for the use of private Senators. Once established, the precedent stood as a model of the kind of accommodation that each private member and senator hoped would one day be provided for them by the further expansion of Parliament House.44
Aside from these major additions, a number of other changes were effected during the war and the immediately succeeding years. Thus, further office space was created in the early 1940s by using the verandahs fronting the garden courtyards, and the Cabinet Room was altered in 1944 possibly to accommodate an expanded Cabinet. In 1947, work was carried out under King’s Hall and both chambers to provide greater structural support, while steel trusses were put in place over King’s Hall to give greater stability to the roof and ceiling than had been given by the oregon beams. The small post office was removed from King’s Hall at this time, too. One noteworthy change of the war period that led to serious consequences for the building in the early post-war years was the decision, based either on a shortage of materials or on ill-considered cost-cutting grounds, to discontinue varnishing the building’s external woodwork. Tests during the construction of the building and in 1937 had shown that, whatever type of varnish was used, it broke down on the external timber of the Representatives side in eighteen months and on the Senate side, which was exposed to the westering sun, in a mere six months. With no varnish coating applied to the external woodwork for much of the war, it deteriorated badly in this period. In 1949, moves were commenced to protect and conceal the weathered external timbers by painting them.45
Despite the welcome augmentation of office space provided by alterations and the construction of the two new wings, accommodation in the provisional building remained at a premium. As early as February 1943, H.C. Barnard, the Member for Bass, addressed a question to the Minister for Post War Reconstruction, Ben Chifley, as to whether there were any plans to erect a permanent parliamentary building, in view of the shortage of accommodation in the existing structure. Chifley replied that the matter would be considered as part of the program of post-war reconstruction. Three years later, however, Harold Holt put a similar question to him, pointing out that a new building would be needed if a mooted increase in the number of parliamentarians went ahead. Responding, Chifley said that no decision had been made and again promised that the matter would be considered, this time by the Minister for Works and Housing.46 In the end, no decision was forthcoming and the whole question of a permanent building was soon overtaken by the march of events. The pressure on the Provisional Parliament House now threatened to become intolerable unless urgent steps were taken to enlarge the building again.
The development which led to the enlargement was a long-overdue decision to increase the numbers of parliamentarians. When the Commonwealth was first established in 1901, the Constitution stipulated that the number of parliamentarians would be determined on the basis of a quota obtained by dividing the nation’s population by twice the number of senators; the Constitution further laid down that the number of members should be as nearly as possible double the number of Senators. By 1948, the nation’s population had more than doubled since 1901 leading to a corresponding increase in the number of people each member was expected to represent and a resultant growth in their workload. To redress the situation, the number of senators was raised to sixty in 1948 and, thereupon, the number of members to 121, thus giving a total number of parliamentarians of 181.47 This was in excess of the projected total number of 168 that it was originally thought that the provisional building would ever need to accommodate in its 50 year history. As it was, additional space was required to cater for the expansion of other activities associated with Parliament, notably the work of the press gallery. The electronic media, in particular, grew following the commencement in July 1946 of direct radio coverage of Question Time in Parliament by the ABC.48 By April 1948, Chifley admitted that the press was ‘very unhappily’ accommodated in Parliament House.49
With much of the building already in the hands of the executive and no plans to erect a permanent building, there was now no choice but to expand the existing structure. The solution adopted was to add a third storey to each of the 1943 wings and extend them with three-storey right-angle returns so that they joined each end of the dining-recreation block. As the wings had never been intended to support upper floors, their walls had to be thickened and strengthened to bear the extra load. The plans for the extensions were drawn by D.G. Edward, an architect in the Department of Works. On 14 July 1948, a contract was let for the
construction work to the builders, John Grant and Sons of Martin Place, Sydney, with a finishing date of 31 March 1949; the plasterwork was later undertaken by Hook Brothers of Harrington Street, Sydney. A notable feature of the additions was that the contractors were constrained to use Australian timber, in this case Queensland maple, for all joinery and timber panelling.50
Owing to various problems, work on the third storey dragged on for a long time after the date of completion initially stipulated for it, and the cost blew out from the original budget estimate of £45 000 to just over £140 000. When complete, however, the extensions provided fifty additional offices, two attendants’ boxes and four toilets, and included extra space for the press gallery on the upper floor next to the chambers. At the same time, seating accommodation in the Representatives and Senate chambers was increased to provide respectively for up to 124 members and 60 senators. Substantial additions and improvements were also made to the facilities for parliamentarians and press representatives in the dining-recreational block at the rear of the original building, the old billiard room being converted into a dining area. Welcome and necessary as these changes were, they still did not provide the majority of parliamentarians with their own offices.51
With the advent of the 1950s, the pressure for accommodation space and other difficulties continued to beset the Provisional Parliament House. During 1950, the loggias on the northern side of each garden court were filled in to create more office space while, on the southern side of the courtyards, the verandahs to the dining-recreation block were closed in with sliding glass windows. In January of that year, too, an old problem in the form of leaks from the roof returned to bedevil the building. After heavy rains during the month, leaks were discovered in no fewer than 16 rooms, most of them in the Representatives wing. The leaks were soon traced to the faulty installation of flashing and, after much to-ing and fro-ing, the problem was fixed in April, but only temporarily. Further troubles with the roof led in 1952 to the construction of a metal roof over the library, a change that had the unfortunate side-effect of covering the clerestory windows and thus blocking off the natural light that used to enter through them. Fears of water penetrating the building by another means had also led to the periodic painting of the exterior walls to prevent moisture seeping through the external cement rendering. By financial year 1950-51, this had become such a burden that the Joint House Department had to hire two extra full-time painters to cope with the work. Meanwhile, during the same twelve-month period, a new air conditioning system was provided for both chambers and for parts of the library, and the kitchen on the lower floor of the dining-recreation block was overhauled and modernised.52
By the first half of the 1950s, the costs of maintaining the building had risen to quite substantial proportions. Partly because of austerity measures necessitated by the war, these costs had been kept down in the years 1941-46 to around £3 000 per annum. But, in the first financial year after the war, 1946-47, the maintenance costs jumped to £12 617, more than trebling the figure of the previous year. While this amount to some extent represented a catch-up for the low-spending on the building during the war, the annual maintenance cost remained at around this level for the next three years. Then, in 1950-51, the cost shot up again to a staggering £37 420 – a twelvefold increase in five years! For all but one of the ensuing five years, the figure stayed at over £30 000.53 Expenditure of this magnitude on simply maintaining what was after all a provisional structure was a problem that demanded action.
The costs of maintaining and continually altering and adding to the building erupted into a major issue in early 1954. Archie Cameron, who had been elected Speaker of the House of Representatives when the Menzies Government took office in February 1950, was responsible for the alterations, additions and repairs to the Representatives side of the building. In February 1954, four years after he had become Speaker and after much expenditure on the Provisional Parliament House, Cameron was faced with a budget estimate of over £16 000 to make yet further changes and repairs to the building. For him, this was the final straw. Perturbed by the ‘never-ending drain on public funds’, Cameron arranged a meeting involving himself, Prime Minister Menzies, the Treasurer and the President of the Senate to consider drawing up plans for a permanent Parliament House. Though Menzies was concerned about the continuing scale of the expenditure on the provisional building, the meeting decided that it would be quite improper for any consideration to be given to the erection of a permanent structure at that point in the government’s life-cycle. It was agreed instead that the matter should be dealt with as part of the question of the development of Canberra as a whole.54 The large expenditure continued and, among other things in 1954-5, funded the provision of additional office space for Hansard staff following the introduction of a daily edition of Hansard.55
The meeting organised by Cameron resulted in 1954 in the appointment of a Senate Select Committee ‘to inquire into and report upon the development of Canberra in relation to the original plan and subsequent modifications ...’ The most important recommendation of the committee was that a commission be set up to plan the development of Canberra and carry out a coordinated program of works; this led later, in 1957, to the establishment of the National Capital Development Commission. But, accompanying the committee’s report, the new Speaker and the President of the Senate put forward a recommendation that an early start should be made on plans to erect a permanent Parliament House. These calls were incorporated in a report entitled ‘The Case for a Permanent Building’ which was issued by the Secretary of the Joint House Department in September 1956. Highlighting the accommodation problems in the provisional building and ‘the high and ever increasing costs’ of maintaining it, this report observed:
While the existing accommodation may enable the Parliament to function with reasonable efficiency it must
be assumed that the time is not far distant when it must be considered uneconomic and impractical to continue with the policy of adding to the building further extensions or the provision of makeshift accommodation
within the building.56
The initiatives of the middle 1950s appeared to hold out some promise that the Government would soon embark on a programme to design and build a permanent Parliament House. Even though the process would be a lengthy one, the heightened expectation of a start on the project implied that maintenance works would be carried out on the old building, but that further additions to the structure would be unlikely. Thus, in 1956, a major five-year program was instituted to replace the electrical wiring in the whole building as the old wiring had by now deteriorated to such an extent that it constituted a fire risk. In the course of this program, a new IBM clock system was installed in the building in 1958 and the paging system was also upgraded. Over the same period, the parquetry flooring of King’s Hall had to be continually patched because of wear and, at the end of the decade, it was in such a condition that it had to be completely replaced. In 1958, a new roof was put on the building in an attempt to fix once and for all the interminable leakage problem, and the library was extended to its rear by the construction of an infill section between the two 1938 wings.57
The release in May 1958 of the report of Sir William Holford, a leading British town planner who had been commissioned by the Government to give his expert opinion on the future development of Canberra, reinforced the feeling that work would soon commence on the permanent Parliament House. Somewhat critical of Griffin’s plan, Holford recommended that the permanent building should be erected astride the Land Axis on the southern shore of the proposed lake where it would become the whole focus of that axis. In the light of the report, many private members and senators began to assume that the day was not far distant when they would be vacating the old building in favour of a new one, and that they could thus afford to put on hold their long-held aspirations for their own private offices. In the meantime, however, accommodation problems in the provisional building remained as acute as ever. Thirty-two members had to be accommodated on the Senate side of the building in the late 1950s, but even so Tom Uren later recalled that conditions were so cramped in the building at this time that he, Frank Crean, Jim Cairns and Gordon Bryant were forced to share a single room. The critical shortage of space particularly affected working conditions for press representatives whose numbers had risen to around 75, roughly triple the original figure.58 For his part, Frank Green, who had recently retired after long service as the Clerk of the House, was in no doubt as to the cause of the problem and its solution. He considered that the provisional building was in every way suitable for Parliament and that, instead of the Government embarking on a project to construct a new permanent Parliament House ...
... Ministers be told to arrange for their offices and secretaries elsewhere, the National Library staff and books be removed, and newspaper proprietors find private offices for their representatives.
As Green was further quoted:
‘No other country outside the Iron Curtain would tolerate such a situation in which ministers and their personal staffs occupied suites of offices in the Parliament building,’ he snapped.59
In one respect, Green’s complaints were addressed when the National Library Act of 1960 separated the National Library from the Parliamentary Library. While the National Library’s collections were at that time scattered in temporary accommodation in Canberra and Queanbeyan, the separation of the two bodies indicated that it would not be long before all of the Library’s materials and staff would depart the provisional building. But, otherwise, the executive in particular was too well entrenched in the building for there to be any chance of Green’s drastic proposals to become a reality. In fact, soon afterwards, the continuing pressure on accommodation and lack of progress on any plans to erect a permanent Parliament House led to a major extension on the House of Representatives side of the provisional building. As there were approximately twice the number of members as there were senators, accommodation was in much shorter supply on the Representatives than on the Senate side, notwithstanding the fact that some twenty members occupied offices on the Senate side. Erected in 1965, the new extension stood east of the 1943 wing and, with it, totally enclosed another smaller garden
area which simultaneously acted as a lightwell. The extension added another 70 rooms to the building, bringing the number up to a total of 520. With the addition of these rooms, all members could now be accommodated on the Representatives side of Provisional Parliament House. As well, one Minister was housed on this side, probably 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.60
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.61
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.62 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.63 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.64
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.65 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.66
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 Select Committee for the New and Permanent Parliament House pressed for work to commence on the permanent building but, with no agreement as to where it was to be erected, no commencement was possible. For the time being at least, the worn-out battleship would have to remain in commission.67
The construction of the new senate wing, as well as the extensions to the roof areas, was completed by September 1972, though time was still needed to fit out and furnish the additions. Meanwhile, in early 1971, the Gorton Government, for reasons of economy, had deferred work on the front east and front west extensions. However, this decision was reversed by the McMahon Government and work subsequently commenced on the front west and east sections in May and December 1972 respectively. When completed, the new southwest wing provided an additional 13 300 square feet of floor space, excluding areas taken up by corridors, stairs, lifts, ducts and public facilities. Coupled with the additions to the roof and the front of the building, these extensions brought the total floor space of the building to almost three times its original size, while the number of rooms was increased to 640.68
The temporary office accommodation for the prime minister, his staff and the Cabinet Room in the extreme southwest corner of the southwest wing was completed and handed over for use on 5 December 1972. On the main floor, these comprised rooms M144 to M156 inclusive, and on the lower floor rooms L43, L44, L172, L173 and L174. It was into these areas that the Whitlam Government moved on its election in December 1972 and from where Whitlam and his deputy, Lance Barnard, ran the country as a two-man ministry in the first two weeks of the new government. One of the problems with the location of the Prime Minister’s office in this part of the building, however, was that it was as far away as it was possible to get from the House of Representatives Chamber. When the division bells were rung, it thus allowed Prime Minister Whitlam very little time to make his way to the Chamber for the division. Perhaps fortunately, this arrangement came to an end in August 1973 when Whitlam, his staff and the Cabinet Room were able to take up residence in the remodelled offices in the eastern front section of the building, including the new northeast wing.69
Following the vacation of the temporary Prime Minister’s suite and Cabinet Room, this series of rooms was refurbished, mainly as ministerial suites for Senators D. McClelland (M152), J.L. Cavanagh (M153) and K.S. Wriedt (M154). Most of the other rooms on the main floor level were used as offices for senators, as were the offices in the front half of the lower floor. The rooms in the back half of this floor level were occupied by Joint House Department staff, with the Secretary of this department housed in the office in the extreme southwest corner. The upper floor was reserved for Hansard staff, transcribers working in booths specially built for their use.70
For people working in the new wing, there was one great drawback. Circulation of air in the narrow corridors and small offices was severely limited, while entry of fresh air from the outside was virtually non-existent. This created an excessively stale and stifling atmosphere in the wing, especially when the heat of the summer sun beat on the exterior walls. Matters were not helped by the numbers of parliamentarians and staff who smoked inside the building in those days. From quite soon after the wing was built, there were frequent complaints from the wing’s occupants about the stifling and uncomfortable working conditions, and requests to do something about it. Cut off from the fresh air outside, some occupants took comfort in being able to look out on the garden in the internal courtyard. Desperate for some fresh air, another resident of the wing, Senator Rosemary Crowley, worried away with a key at a small crack in the frame of her window in Room M167 to expand the gap and let some cool air in from outside.71
Another aspect of the wing that mirrored the situation in the building as a whole was the intimacy of working conditions of parliamentarians, executive and parliamentary staff, and journalists. The poky rooms and narrow corridors did not lend themselves to privacy or the concealment of major political developments, such as intrigues and conspiracies against party leaders. Because of the closeness of the conditions under which people had to work, it was easy to detect a rising tension in the atmosphere that betokened that something big was afoot. This is a feature that is reputedly lacking in the new Parliament House. Thus, cramped though the conditions were in the provisional building, they contributed to the hothouse political environment of the place.
The southwest wing was also the site of an event associated with one of the most notorious intrigues of Commonwealth Parliament. This was the famous, or infamous, ‘Night of the Long Prawn’, an Opposition ploy to thwart a rather disreputable manoeuvre by the Labor Government to try to ensure that a half-Senate election due in May 1974 delivered it a majority in the Senate. Senator Vince Gair, a DLP Senator from Queensland, had made the Government aware that, if he were offered a diplomatic post overseas, he would resign as a senator. This suited Labor’s political purposes admirably as Gair’s resignation would create an additional casual vacancy to go with the five scheduled Senate vacancies in Queensland. With six Senate positions to be filled in the state, Labor would stand a very good chance
of winning three of them and thus securing a majority in the Senate. The plot miscarried when word leaked out to the press on 2 April 1974 and the Opposition parties immediately set about upsetting Labor’s plan. On discovering that Gair had not yet resigned from the Senate, senior Opposition parliamentarians persuaded the Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to issue writs that same night for the election of only five senators from his state. This meant that no election could take place in May for the vacancy that would by left by Gair’s departure. To make sure that Gair did not resign before Bjelke-Petersen issued the writs, Senator Maunsell treated him to prawns and beer in his room, M161. The ruse worked and the writs were issued before Gair submitted his resignation. Ultimately, the failure of the plot prompted Prime Minister Whitlam to call a double dissolution election at which, however, Labor was still unable to win a majority in the Senate.72
By the mid-1970s, it was clear that the construction of a new, more spacious and permanent home for Commonwealth Parliament could not be delayed much longer. In 1974, the long-debated question of a site for the building was finally settled in favour of Capital Hill, the one that Murdoch had recommended back in the early 1920s, and the following year the Labor Government appointed a new Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. Revived as a more effective body by the Fraser Government in 1976, the committee produced a series of reports in which it argued strongly for work to begin on the project. Somewhat reluctant at first, the Government eventually bit the bullet on 21 November 1978 when Cabinet decided to proceed with the project, the new building to be completed in 1988, the bicentennial year of European settlement. To choose a design for the building, a two-stage international design competition was inaugurated in April 1979 and the winning design – that submitted by the New York architectural firm of Mitchell, Giurgola and Thorp – was announced in June 1980. Prime Minister Fraser turned the first sod for the new building on 18 September 1980 and his successor, Bob Hawke, laid the foundation stone on 4 October 1983.73
With the prospect of moving to a new building now in sight, there was little to be done in the old building but make do with the existing conditions. The shortage of accommodation and resulting working conditions in the provisional building were by now almost unbearable. In July 1983, it was reported that some 3 000 people were now employed at Provisional Parliament House, but that fully 1 800 of these had to be accommodated in various former hostels and other ‘inappropriate’ buildings nearby. A few years later, the number of
press representatives and their technical support staff approached a figure of 300, about twelve times the number it had been when the building opened in 1927. In 1984, in what looks like a last-ditch effort to squeeze some extra office space out of the building, the two verandahs at the front were closed in. At about this time, too, a temporary annex was erected in the House of Representatives gardens to provide some overflow office accommodation. Further pressure was placed on the building at this time by a major increase in the numbers of parliamentarians to 224, consisting of 148 Members and 76 Senators. Conditions became so cramped that it began to seriously hinder work in Provisional Parliament House. According to Senator John Button, trying to get work done in the place was ‘like trying to get hydro-electric power out of a garden hose.’74 Describing the working conditions in Parliament House some years earlier, Button had told how,
... members work in small crowded rooms painted in Learning Department cream and furnished with uniform carpets, railway station furniture, a tramways clock, and an elaborately complex system of division bells designed one suspects by Thomas Edison ...
... Apart from cramped physical conditions a member is constantly subject to the hazards of air and noise pollution – the former from a ferocious central heating system which dries the throat and saps the energy (one suspects a hidden malevolent hand), and the latter from the ubiquitous division bells. In my own case relief from the central heating is provided only by a heavy shower of rain, which pours through the roof of my office, necessitating the removal of books and papers and their replacement by buckets.75
In 1988, parliamentarians and Parliamentary staff vacated the provisional building after 61 years’ occupation and moved to their new home on Capital Hill. The old place left its mark on the new structure, however, as from the outset – and despite its name – the 1988 building was designed as a home for both Parliament and the executive. While it had at one time been under serious threat of demolition, the argument for retaining the Provisional Parliament House had been taken up the Australian Heritage Commission and other organisations and individuals in the mid to late 1970s. This argument had prevailed and the heritage significance of the building had achieved national recognition when it was entered in the Register of the National Estate. Though safe from demolition, there was a large question over what to do with it after the departure of Commonwealth Parliament and the parliamentarians. In the past, suggestions had been floated that it could be used as a conference centre or even a casino. But, following the departure of Parliament, the building remained vacant for some time until pressure from such bodies as the Australian Council of National Trusts persuaded the Government to restore and re-use it. Thus, from 1992 onward, the building became the host for new uses and users, notably exhibitions of the National Museum of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery, the Council for the Centenary of Federation and the National Trust shop (in Mick Young’s former office). Overwhelmingly, the majority of these new uses were associated with the Government or national bodies and, as such, they in general continue and accord with the original vision that Griffin had buildings located within his Parliamentary Triangle.76
House of Representatives Chamber
| 01 Jan 1901 | The Australian colonies federate to form the Commonwealth of Australia. |
| Oct 1908 | Canberra is chosen as the site for the seat of Commonwealth Government. |
| 01 Jan 1911 | The Federal Capital Territory comes into being. |
| 1911 | The Commonwealth Government announces a design competition for the federal capital. |
| 23 May 1912 | The entry submitted to the design competition by the Chicago architect, Walter Burley Griffin, is chosen as the winning design for the federal capital. Griffin’s plans show the parliament building standing astride his Land Axis within the Government Group of buildings. |
| 12 Mar 1913 | At a major official ceremony, the federal capital is officially named Canberra and the foundation stones of the commencement column for the building of the city are laid. |
| Jun 1914 | The Government announces a design competition for a permanent Parliament House for Canberra. |
| 25 Sep 1914 | Because of the war, the Government defers the design competition for the Parliament building. |
| Aug 1916 | The design competition for a permanent Parliament House is revived. |
| 24 Nov 1916 | The Government postpones indefinitely the Parliament House deign competition. |
| Mar 1920 | The Minister for Home and Territories refers inter alia the question of building a parliament house in Canberra to Federal Capital Advisory Committee. |
| Jul 1921 | Under the chairmanship of Sir John Sulman, the Federal Capital Advisory Committee recommends the building of a provisional parliament house, to last for about 50 years, on the northern slope of Camp Hill. |
| Mar-Apr 1923 | The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works considers the question of the construction of a provisional parliament house, conducting a lengthy series of hearings and examining draft plans submitted by John Smith Murdoch, Chief Architect of the Department of Works and Railways. |
| 12 Jul 1923 | Handing down its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works recommends either that the nucleus of the permanent parliament house be erected on Camp Hill or that a provisional structure be built on the northern slope of the hill. |
| 26 Jul 1923 | The Government decides to proceed with the erection of a provisional parliament house on the northern slope of Camp Hill. |
| 28 Aug 1923 | Work commences on the construction of the provisional building, with the Minister for Works and Railways, P.G. Stewart, turning the first sod. |
| 09 May 1927 | The Duke of York officially opens the Provisional Parliament House. |
| 1928 | Felt is laid over the rubber flooring in both legislative Chambers in an effort to improve their acoustic properties. |
| 1929 | Green carpet is laid in the House of Representatives Chamber. |
| 1929 | After heavy leaking after rain, extensive repairs are carried out to the roof. |
| 1932 | The Lyons Government abandons the main Cabinet Room in West Block and from then on holds Cabinet meetings in what had been the back-up Cabinet Room in Parliament House. The move is the first important sign of the executive invading the proper sphere of the legislature. |
| 1933 | The long-delayed work on the ornamental pool in front of the building is completed. |
| Early 1935 | The Librarian’s office is extended to provide office space for the renegade Lang group of five Members. |
| 1936 | Red carpet is laid in the Senate Chamber. |
| Dec 1937 In response to vociferous complaints from Members and Senators, the Chief Architect of the Department of the Interior, Edwin Henderson, submits a proposal for a two-storey wing to be erected on the outer side of the garden courtyard on the House of Representatives side of the building. | |
| 1938 | A double-storey extension is added to the rear of the library, projecting into the garden courtyard to the south. Additional office space for the building is obtained by enclosing the verandahs on the northern side of each garden court, subdividing some of the larger rooms, and converting two visitors’ rooms, four small corridors and a toilet into office space. |
| Mar 1939 | Heavy rains flood out the southern part of the main building, necessitating the re- decoration of the Cabinet Room, some ministers’ offices and some rooms on the lower floor. |
| 1939 | Five additional offices and a common room are built for the press on the upper floor of the Representatives side of the building. |
| 1943 | A two-storey wing is built on the outer side of the garden courtyard on the Representatives side of the building. |
| 1943-44 | A corresponding two-storey wing is built on the outer side of the garden courtyard on the Senate side. |
| 1944 | Alterations are made to the Cabinet Room. |
| 1946 | The ABC commences direct radio coverage of question time in Parliament and broadcasting booths are installed in both Chambers. |
| 1946 | A second bar for Parliament House staff and press representatives was provided. |
| 1947 | Additional structural support is provided under King’s Hall and both legislative Chambers. Steel trusses are put in place over King’s Hall to give greater stability to the roof and ceiling. |
| 1947 | The Billiard Room in the dining-recreation block is converted for dining purposes. |
| 1948 | The Post Office is removed from King’s Hall. |
| 1948 | The number of Members is increased to 121 and the number of Senators to 60, placing much additional pressure on accommodation in the building. |
| 1948-49 | As a result of the increased pressure on accommodation, a third storey is added to each of the 1943 wings, as well as three-storey right-angle returns to join each end of the dining-recreation block. In the dining-recreation block, the members’ bar is enlarged and there are added a dining room for staff and press, a private dining room and another billiard room. |
| 1950 | The loggias on the northern side of each garden court are filled in to create more office space. On the southern side of the courtyards, the verandahs of the dining-recreation block are closed in with glass. Another seven rooms for the press are added on the House of Representatives side of the building. |
| 1950-51 | A new air conditioning system is provided for both Chambers and part of the Library. The kitchen in the dining-recreation block is renovated and supplied with more modern equipment. |
| 1952 | A metal roof is put in place over the library, blocking the clerestory windows. |
| 1954-55 | Additional accommodation is provided for the staff of Hansard. |
| 1956 | A five-year maintenance programme is put in place for the building. |
| 1957 | The National Capital Development Commission is established. |
| 1958 | The library is extended southward, infilling the space between the two wings of the 1938 extension. A new roof is also put on the building to try to solve once and for all the problem with leakage. |
| 1958 | The electrical wiring is renewed throughout the building. |
| 1959 | Owing to severe wear, the parquetry floor has to be re-laid in King’s Hall. |
| 1960 | The National Library Act separates the National Library from the Parliamentary Library. |
| 1965 | A three-storey extension is added on the Representatives side of the building. East of the 1943 wing, it encloses a small garden area which doubles as a lightwell. |
| 1965 | Two squash courts are constructed near the tennis courts in the House of Representatives gardens. |
| C. 1970 | A small extension is made to the rear of the Library to provide extra reading room space.; |
| 1971-72 | A three-storey extension is built on the Senate side of the building to match the 1965 extension on the Representatives side. New offices are also constructed on the roof. |
| 1972-73 | Extensions are made to the front west and east sections of the building. This work includes on the west a new President of the Senate’s suite and new meeting rooms on the lower floor, and on the east a new suite for the prime minister and his staff. |
| 1978 | The front entrance is remodelled, providing a public entrance beneath the front stairs. |
| 21 Nov 1978 | Federal Cabinet decides to proceed with the construction of a new and permanent parliament house on Capital Hill. |
| Apr 1979 | A design competition for the new permanent Parliament House is launched. |
| Jun 1980 | The winning design for the new permanent Parliament House is announced. |
| 18 Sep 1980 | Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser turns the first sod for work to commence on the permanent Parliament House. |
| 04 Oct 1983 | The foundation stone for the permanent Parliament House is laid by Prime Minister Hawke. |
| 1984 | The number of members is increased to 148 and the number of senators to 76. |
| 1984 | Two verandahs at the front of the provisional building are enclosed to provide extra office space. |
| 1985 | Owing to pressure on accommodation space in the building, an annex is built in the House of Representatives gardens. |
| 1988 | Parliament, Parliamentarians and Parliamentary staff vacate the Provisional Parliament House and move to the permanent building on Capital Hill. Australian Estate Management took over management of the building. |
| 1992 | The building becomes the host for exhibitions of the National Museum of Australia and for the National Portrait Gallery. |
| Jul 1996 | Department of Communication and the Arts takes over management of the building. |
| 1997 | Introduction of new single management structure for Old Parliament House integrating the National Portrait Gallery. Establishment of the Old Parliament House Governing Council and National Portrait Gallery Board. Expansion of Gallery. |
| 1998 | Department becomes the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. |
| 2008 | Old Parliament House is established as an Executive Agency. |
| 2009 | Opening of the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. |
As chief architect for Provisional Parliament House, John Smith Murdoch also had the responsibility for the design of the interior. Murdoch’s early formal architectural training in Scotland would have been influenced by the stirrings of the revolt against the excesses of the Industrial Age and the emergence of a new ‘arts and crafts’ order which sought to simplify the link between form and function. Concurrent with this notion was the idea that the expression of interior design should be integral to the architecture. It comes therefore as no surprise that Murdoch took his responsibility for the fit out with the same degree of dedication as he did with the exterior.
Murdoch’s concept for the interior embellishment of Provisional Parliament House and for the furniture and furnishings did not adopt an overtly nationalistic style. It might have been expected that this new building could have become a vehicle for the expression of an outpouring of Australian sentimentality. Apart from the inclusion of the official insignia of the Australian coat of arms into the exterior and its subdued inclusion as carved wood, etched glass and bronze mouldings on door furniture, there is little in the way of nationalistic ornamentation. Rather, Murdoch’s building adopts an international style and his simple unified approach to the design of the building itself eventually becomes a distinctive symbol of nationhood.
The style which Murdoch developed for the interior and the furnishing clearly follows the dictum of his exterior philosophy for Provisional Parliament House. The stripped classical style became the underlying influence not only for the interior spaces, but for the design of the furniture and fittings. Together, he created a successful marriage between classical simplicity, hierarchical order, spatial unity and proportion, and new technology and utility.
It was therefore with some consternation that he received news in August 1925 that the gift to the new Australian Parliament from the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association was to be a replica of the Speaker’s Chair from the British House of Commons at Westminster. Designed by A W N Pugin, the original Speaker’s Chair was an elaborate canopied ceremonial chair built in Gothic style. Murdoch appreciated the symbolic ties between Australia and England which the chair represented, but he abhorred the idea of the introduction of such a strong visual element into his building. In a letter to W A Gale, the Honorary Secretary of the Australian Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association he wrote of his concern that the Gothic design ‘is harmonious with the architecture of the House of Commons, ...[but] out of keeping with the simple severe free Renaissance character of the Canberra building’.77
The Chair features intricate carved heraldic panels and is crafted from English oak roofing timber from Westminster Hall and Nelson’s flagship, HMS Victory, which saw service in the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Despite his protests, the chair, later reproduced for the British Parliament as a replacement for their one destroyed during the Second World War, was installed in the House of Representatives Chamber in time for the opening of Provisional Parliament House. Today, it is the single most important item of furniture in the building.
Inside, the stark white plastered walls were devoid of ornament. This created a dramatic contrast in areas where natural timber was introduced as an interior feature as wall panelling in the Chambers or prominent offices, or timber flooring in King’s Hall, and in rooms where free standing furniture was the major element. Rooms were bathed in natural light, and artificial light was concealed in restrained fittings.
Further discretion was achieved by the use of subdued floor coverings, and metal finishes were either painted
white or crafted in a dull antique bronze finish. The major use of colour in Provisional Parliament House was
restricted to three hues – red, the colour for upholstery in the Senate, green for the House of Representatives,
and blue for the Parliamentary Library.
While Murdoch undertook the overall design responsibility, the day to day issues relating to furniture design were handled by H.M Rolland, an architect with the Federal Capital Commission, previously Works Director with the Department of Works and Railways in Canberra. A furniture officer, L. H. Taylor, was employed to handle the administrative matters and draft the designs, assisted by J. D. McColl. Staff in the Department of Works and Railways in Melbourne were also responsible for the preparation of plans and drawings.78
Considerable research was undertaken in the formulation of the furniture requirements for Provisional Parliament House. Close and careful examination of the furniture in both the Victorian State Parliament House and Parliament House in Adelaide was made to determine the success of features, particularly in relation to style and comfort.79 Detailed lists were drawn up of items that were available from Melbourne and could fulfil requirements in the new building. What could not be met from existing resources was then specifically designed to fulfil each function. To what extent furniture offers from other possible sources were canvassed remains unclear. The only recorded acquisition for Provisional Parliament House, other than the two international gifts of ceremonial furniture (the Speaker’s Chair in the House of Representatives and the President’s Chair in the Senate) was the Admiral’s table. The then Speaker, Sir Littleton Groom, accepted the offer of a mess table from the Admiral’s suite from the HMAS Australia, a battlecruiser which had been scuttled off Sydney Heads in 1924.80
The furniture designed for Provisional Parliament House is simple and utilitarian. Designs have no political
boundaries yet each item conforms to a hierarchical system, based on the significance of the space it was to
occupy and its functional requirements. Within each category of item, be it desk, chair, table or sideboard,
uniformity of design created a consistent ‘Parliamentary’ style. It is generally devoid of any decorative motif or
applied ornamentation, apart from the occasional square or roundel. The only exception to this is the design detail found on the glazing bars of bookcases and sideboards, which is adapted from the detail of the iron balustrading on the exterior of the building.
Each item of new furniture was detailed in a working drawing, which was then traced and reproduced as a
blueprint. At the final stage, the drawing was examined and checked within the office of the Architects
Department of the Federal Capital Commission. Detailed specifications for the manufacture of each category of
items were then prepared for quotation. For example, the contract requirement for Drawing No Fb 148, a Small Chair for the Dining Block called for the chair to be ‘to design and details shown and of timber specified
in the schedule [maple]’.81
Prime Ministers Office
| Quote from Grace Bros Ltd82 58 small chairs cedar, waxed, hide 11/-/- Total £638.0.0 |
| Dining Room Chair83 Chair to be of timber specified in schedule. Front legs to be 2 x 2” cut and tapered to detail with brass foot caps fitted flush on faces and screwed underside. Back legs 1-3/4” 1-1/4” shaped and tapered to detail. Rails to be 3-1/4” x 1-1/4” rebated at bottom, shaped as shown, and tenoned into legs and screw blocked. Back to be hollow with rails shaped and tenoned into legs and 1/4” 3 ply backing as shown. Chamfered blocks to be stump tenoned together. Slip in seat to have 1-1/8” thick framing tenoned together. Seat to have best English webbing, clouted on, and be sprung with not less than six locked springs, well laced. Best house canvas to be used and seat and back to be all hair stuffed with best curled horsehair. Chair to be covered in best quality hide to approval with studs to match on back. Woodwork to be polished as per schedule. |
The design of the Chambers in Old Parliament House had a significant impact on the design of the furniture which was to be placed in it. Murdoch preferred a Westminster style of parallel seating in the belief that the public should be able to see a Minister addressing the House but his views were overlooked by the Standing Committee who chose a horse-shoe layout, not unlike that in Washington. This meant that the furniture had to fit around a semi-circle, presenting a difficult design and manufacturing challenge.
In the case of the some items of furniture such as the desks and seats for the Chambers, sample items were made and delivered so that the Members could inspect and comment on their design. On the strength of their recommendations, a number of alterations were made to the final design, including the location of the inkwells, the widening of the depth of the seat, ventilation for the circulation of heated and cooled air, the alignment of the drawer below the seat and the installation of a receptacle for waste paper.82
Functionality was a key consideration in the design of many items for Provisional Parliament House, the issue of furniture related to the responsibilities and duties of the occupant of a position. Office furniture was designed to a hierarchical formula, the higher level of importance of the position, the larger the item, the better the timber. For example, the Usher of the Black Rod had greater entitlements than a Minister within the building. It can be assumed from the following list that the Usher had the services of a typist, while Ministers relied on a typing pool or support staff elsewhere. The Usher had need of a wardrobe in which to keep his ceremonial robes. The following comparison of the two entitlements illustrates the differing roles.83
| MINISTER’S OFFICE | USHER OF THE BLACK ROD’S OFFICE |
|---|---|
| 1 table with drawers | 1 office table with drawers and document trays |
| 1 table, small | 1 small table |
| 1 office chair | 1 office chair |
| 6 chairs | 2 small chairs |
| 1 couch | 1 couch |
| 1 set bookshelves | 1 set of shelving |
| 2 inkstands | 1 wardrobe |
| 1 station case | 1 station case |
| 1 waste paper basket | 1 waste paper basket |
| 1 matchstand | 1 matchstand |
| 1 spittoon | |
| 1 water bottle and 2 glasses | 1 water bottle and 2 glasses |
| 1 armchair | |
| 1 screen | |
| 1 high desk | |
| 1 typewriter | |
| Carpet/linoleum surround |
Large dining and refreshment facilities were provided, furnished with custom made furniture and electroplated cutlery, ceramic and glassware monogrammed with the initials ‘CPRR’ (Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms) within an oval garter. Recreational furniture included club style lounges, comfortable easy chairs, card and chess tables, and billiard tables. Senators and Members could enjoy film nights in the Senate Club Room, where Ministers could congregate to read, write and converse in a relaxed environment. The Parliamentary Library was furnished with newspaper stands, timber shelving, easy furniture and for the more serious researcher, heated tables, a concession to the cold winter climate in Canberra. Consideration was also given to the displacement of politicians from their homes and the long hours they spent at the House. Day beds and settees provided a comfortable place for resting and lockers were installed for personal storage. Folding beds were concealed into the offices of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Government in the Senate, President of the Senate and Speaker for times when Parliament sat late into the night, the linen and blankets supplied by Myer of Melbourne and monogrammed with the words ‘Commonwealth Parliament’.84
A few rooms on the lower floor were furnished for domestic staff that lived on the premises, and fitted out for domestic support services.85 Provisional Parliament House was fully self contained and its occupants, many of whom had lodgings in the nearby Hotel Kurrajong, were provided with some measure of comfort during their working day.
The overall project to create a new Parliament House was believed to be a most prestigious one and the most extensive inter-war project, so it is not surprising that many furniture and furnishing firms expressed an interest in undertaking this component of the work. Tenders were called in August and September 1926 from prominent firms in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, and the competition was fierce. A sample of the comparative quotations is reproduced below.86
| DRAWING NO. | ITEM: DINING ROOM BLOCK SECTION 2C | A PENGELLEY & CO, ADELAIDE | MYER EMPORIUM, MELBOURNE | BEBARFALDS LTD, SYDNEY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fb 2 | Hat trees (3), maple, waxed | 6/-/- * each item | 4/4/6 | 4/13/- |
| Fb 31 | Small chair (58), cedar, waxed, finished in hide | 5/-/- | 5/3/- | 5/10/3 |
| Fb 117 | Tables 3’ diameter (1), blackwood, full polish | 12/-/- | 6/6/6 | 9/1/5 |
| Fb 122 | Tub chair (8), cedar, waxed finish, hide | 13.1.4 | 13.7.5 | 11.0.0 |
| Fb 128 | Chess tables (2), blackwood, waxed | 15/-/- | 13/6/- | 8/12/8 |
| Fb 132 | Table, hoop pine (1) 3’6’ x 2’ | 3/-/- | 2/5/- | 2/1/1 |
| Fb 145 | Palm boxes (2), blackwood, full polish | 5/7/6 | 7/9/6 | 5/13/10 |
| Fb 158 | Billiard cupboard (1) maple, waxed | 27/-/- | 28/9/3 | 20/8/5 |
* Prices quoted are for each individual item in pounds, shillings and pence.
Beard Watson & Co Ltd, Sydney won the contract for the supply of the ceremonial furniture and the desks and
seating in the Chambers.87 Major contracts for the supply of furniture for Dining-Recreation Block and other
areas in Provisional Parliament House were awarded as follows.
| CONTRACT | SUPPLIER |
|---|---|
| Contract 122. Furniture for Section D, Parliament House | Myer Emporium Pty Ltd, Melbourne |
| Contract 123 Furniture for Sections A and L, Parliament House | Anthony Hordern and Sons, Sydney |
| Contract 124 Furniture Sections B, C and E, Parliament House | A Pengelly and Co, Adelaide |
| Contract 134 Furniture Section 2B, Parliament House | Anthony Hordern and Sons, Sydney |
| Contract 135, Furniture Section 2C, Parliament House | W H Rocke and Co, Melbourne |
Drawings of each furniture style were supplied to the contractors and were drawn to scale. Furniture was required to be made to the specified sizes and following the manner specified on the drawings. Where a dispute arose over sizes, the figures on the drawings were to be followed rather than the scaled dimensions.88
Before any materials were to be cut, the working drawings and setting out boards were required to be inspected by an officer from the Federal Capital Commission. Nothing was left to chance. Each item of furniture was required to be marked with a reference number to correspond to its drawing. The letters ‘C.P.H.’ (Commonwealth Parliament House) and the drawing number were required to be marked in a uniform position on each piece of furniture. On some items, the mark was impressed with a stamp into the timber, on others the code was stencilled in black ink on the underside of the item.89
The administration of such a large project over three states obviously created difficulties for its management and quality control. Furniture contracts were subdivided into Sections and awarded to successful tenderers on the basis of price and their ability to meet the deadline for the staged delivery of furniture, commencing 31 January 1927 and concluding no later 14 February 1927, although extensions were granted to the end of March to all major contractors who experienced difficulties in meeting the original deadlines. Provision was made in the contract for regular inspections of work in progress by authorised officers of the Federal Capital Commission who were empowered to reject unsatisfactory work.
On 14 January 1927, the Assistant Furniture Officer, R Rowe, reported on his visit to Adelaide and Melbourne.90
He found that it was necessary to make minor adjustments to bring the workmanship and finish to a uniform
standard. In this he was guided by the specifications in the contracts which clearly documented the requirements.
These included:
| Materials: | The Furniture, Fittings and Materials must be of Australian or British manufacture, free of all defects, and the best of their several kinds. |
| Labour: | The whole of the furniture is to be made in registered factories by Australian or European labour only. Any part of the work not so made will be rejected. |
| Marking of Articles: | For identification purposes on delivery each article is to be marked with a symbol number and also the number of the drawing from which it is made. |
| Timber: | All articles to be made throughout of timber indicated in the schedules, unless otherwise specified and must be to the finishes specified. All timber must be first grade, thoroughly seasoned, free from heart, sapwood, shakes and knots and must be picked for grain. Where Queensland Maple or Silky Oak is scheduled figured, all visible parts must be of quarter cut figured timber. Where 3 ply is specified, one face at least must be of the timber used in the main construction. |
In addition to Queensland Maple and Silky Oak, other timbers used in the manufacture of furniture for Provisional Parliament House included blackwood (also used for wall panelling), cedar, silky oak and hoop pine. Coachwood and kauri pine were the preferred timbers for framework. The contract documents clearly established the requirements for the finish on each item. It was this detail which created the most difficulty in quality control between the suppliers. Where items were required to be full (shellac) polished, a standard reference had to be supplied and final polishing deferred until the furniture was installed in the building. Fewer problems were experienced with the waxed furniture, although the cedar had to be bleached first to obtain the desired colour. The finish for all the blackwood furniture in the Chambers was required to be a dull ‘egg shell’ gloss. The requirements for hide were as follows.
| Hide: | Where scheduled for Upholstery work, the best quality A.1 grade top grain, Australian cow hide is to be used, and in the colours specified to approval. |
Most of the leather was supplied by Howe Leather who experienced supply problems because of the large quantity required. Rexine, a synthetic upholstery fabric, was used on items of lesser significance. The contracts called for ‘best English webbing’ and ‘best house canvas’ and all upholstered furniture to be stuffed with ‘best curled horsehair’.
Without exception, all of the firms experienced difficulties in meeting the deadlines and cited the delay in the finalisation of tender documents and in the supply of timber, hides and hardware as causes, and delivery of items slipped beyond March. Anthony Hordern experienced serious delays following a fire in its workshops. When they were unable to acquire sufficient blackwood for the job, they were forced to buy unseasoned wood and wait 8 weeks for it to be kiln dried. The full complement of furniture was in place for the opening of Parliament in the new building on 9 May 1927. The exception to this was the President of the Senate’s chair, a gift from the Government of the Dominion of Canada and made there with the approval of Murdoch, which did not arrive until October 1927.
Murdoch agreed to the proposal to incorporate a statue of the reigning British monarch, King George V, asking only that it be ‘silhouetted within the frame of one of the openings of the Reception Hall, rather than it should be partly so, with the head confused by the moulded lines of the entablature passing over these openings’.91 In this he had been influenced by the position of the Victoria statue in Melbourne Parliament House.92
Designed by Bertram Mackennal, the large bronze statue was located in a central position at the top of the entrance stairs to King’s Hall. The bronze bas reliefs by British sculptor Paul Montford were commissioned at the request of the then Speaker, Sir Littleton Groom, and feature the ‘Fathers of Federation’. With the exception of the large ceramic sculpture by George Tinworth, presented by Royal Doulton in 1929, few artworks presented to Parliament remain on display today. Historic portraits of former Prime Ministers who served in the building, being on loan from various collections to Old Parliament House, currently hang in King’s Hall.
Murdoch retained a preference for natural lighting and made provision in his building design for generous windows, skylights and high ceilings. The elegant light fittings which were designed for Provisional Parliament House, some of which survive today, include large suspended luminaires with Classical ornamentation, and simple glass bowls suspended on chains.93 Later installations have attempted to respect the simplicity of the interior and reinforce the original concept of introducing light into internal spaces.
Interesting features in Provisional Parliament House are the wall mounted electric Simplex clocks and division bells connected to flashing green and red lights and encased in maple boxes. Originally timed to two minutes to allow Members time to return to the Chambers, the time was increased to three minutes following alterations to the building which increased the time taken to walk from outer areas of the House.
In keeping with Murdoch’s sense of a hierarchy of spaces, the selection of floor coverings for Provisional Parliament House reflected the status of the spaces. An Australian timber floor of jarrah and mountain ash was laid in the major ceremonial space in King’s Hall extending along borders into the lobbies and vestibules. A rubber sheet floor with the Australian coat of arms was made for the Entrance while a variety of patterns were laid in the recreational areas and thoroughfares. A bordered carpet was fitted to the Library floor while individual shaped carpets were supplied for offices and Committee Rooms. Carpets were laid with timber or rubber floor borders in all other spaces. The floor covering for the Chambers, originally intended to be carpet with Australian decorative motifs, was rubber, replaced with carpet for acoustic reasons in 1929. None of the original floor coverings are evident in the major areas in Provisional Parliament House, although the parquetry in King’s Hall is a reconstruction.94
The acquisition of furniture and fittings following the original fit out in 1927 can be classified into three major categories. As the numbers of Ministers increased from the original complement of 109 to 224, and support, ancillary staff and the media contingent swelled, Parliament House underwent numerous periods of expansion and alteration of the building to create additional office space. A consequence of this expansion was the acquisition of additional items of furnishing, many of which in later years were standard office items of little significance. A second demand for new furniture and fittings resulted from the desire for improved facilities for Royal Visits and major ceremonial occasions. Among the furniture acquired were a number of items designed and made by Fred Ward, whose furniture graces many Canberra buildings.
A third major phase of redevelopment occurred with the remodelling of: the offices occupied by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the suite of rooms occupied by the Prime Minister and his staff; and the Cabinet Room area. New furniture crafted by Decro Pty Ltd in Melbourne was commissioned to complement these rooms. The most recent gift of furniture was the two timber benches crafted by Beard Watson and Co and featuring carved State floral emblems, from the Returned Services League in June 1966 to commemorate their fiftieth anniversary.
Despite the increased pressure on the facilities in Provisional Parliament House, politicians displayed a restraint when it came to the expenditure of public funds. Indeed, the fact that so much of the original furniture remains is in part due to their respect for the building and its contents in the knowledge that this, after all, was only a temporary home for Parliament.
Old Parliament House has had a chequered history in its years since the decision to relocate Federal Parliament
to a new building on Capitol Hill.
1969 A Joint Select Committee on the new and permanent Parliament House agreed that whatever the site for
the new Parliament House, the old one must go.
Recognising the potential threat to the future of Old Parliament House, the National Trust (ACT)
nominated the place for entry on the Australian Heritage Commission’s Register of the National Estate.
1980 Old Parliament House was entered on the interim list of the Register of the National Estate after fierce opposition from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden. However this was part of a bigger issue concerning Parliament’s rights to control its own operations and functions, including the right not to have OPH listed. The Joint House Department sought the Attorney General’s advice on this matter. The resulting decision was that the Heritage Commission clearly did have the power to include OPH on the Register.
1984 Report on the Future of the Provisional Parliament House by Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House called for Old Parliament House’s retention as it was part of the design brief for the new Parliament House. This report recognised Old Parliament House’s heritage values.
1985 The National Capital Development Commission bespoke the first conservation management plan on the recommendation from the Joint Standing Committee to assist in the decision making process for the future use of OPH. This plan was largely based on the architectural values of the building and recommended that all post-1927 additions and alterations be removed.
1987 Old Parliament House was entered on the Register of the National Estate.
c1990 A Good Weekend article quotes Billy Snedden stating in 1985 to blow up the old house when it fell empty. Also in this article Gough Whitlam says “What are you going to keep? The historic building is much smaller than the additions. Obviously you have to keep the steps.” Bill Hayden stated that it should be restored to its 1927 configuration incorporating public access and a museum of Federation. Oodgeroo Noonuccal (Kath Walker) recommended that the building be turned over to the Aboriginal Embassy.
1992 The Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Zone stated that “as Australia moves towards its 100 years of FederatIn othere could be no more fitting way to commemorate the significance of Federation than by restoring Old Parliament House to remind Australia of the developments that have taken place during those first 100 years.”
The Federal Government decided to implement a new single management authority for Old Parliament House within the former Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA).
As part of the process of transferring the management of Old Parliament House from the Department of Administrative Services to DCITA, a second conservation management plan aimed to clarify the significance of the building was completed. This plan contained six broad policies. No further research was undertaken for this plan and it recommends superficial preservation of 1927-1988 building fabric. The Australian Heritage Council stated at this time that the question of removing either of the wings was a major matter of contention.
During this decade of uncertainty, two conservation management plans were prepared for Old Parliament House. This uncertainty of the role and function for the place ultimately led to uncertainty surrounding the place’s heritage values. The first conservation management plan in 1986 advocated the removal of all additions to the building since its opening in 1927. Some activities and building works undertaken during this period compromised the heritage values irrevocably. These activities/works included: expatriation of furniture; Members’ Dining Room refurbishment and new commercial kitchen; and the Non-Members Bar refurbishment. In 1996, the second conservation management plan advocated the retention of the 1988 configuration of Old Parliament House to ensure the full story of the evolution of the provisional parliament house can be told but recommended that large tracts of the building need only have exterior facades conserved to represent this significance. Building work during this conservation management plan included the South West Wing asbestos removal and refurbishment and the Parliamentary Library and Lower Library refurbishment.
2000 The Conservation Management Plan (CMP) 2000 completed, a significant evolution from the two preceding plans. For the first time conservation planning at OPH was developed as an integral management tool with the subsequent plan the primary reference document for decision making. The plan outlined 46 specific policies covering issues such as training, building works, use of the place, interpretation and movable heritage.
The CMP2000 clearly stated the significance of the place being founded in the building’s full life as the home of federal parliament and that significance must guide and inform decision making. The internal standard definitions for OPH consider the term ‘original’ to mean any heritage fabric, fitting or furnishing relating to the period 1923 to 1988.95
2000-06 A number of detailed heritage analyses on specific areas of the building were completed to augment the CMP2000 (see Appendix K). These studies assisted in the overall knowledge and understanding of the heritage values of the place and have provided valuable guidance during conservation and capital works projects which included the: North Wing roof refurbishment; the Members Private Dining Room refurbishment; and conservation work completed on the House of Representatives Press Offices.
2003 Amendments to the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 came into effect, introducing the Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists and the Australian Heritage Council. CMP2000 policies reviewed in light of information in the heritage analyses completed since 2000.
2004 Old Parliament House added to the Commonwealth Heritage List.
2005 HMP 2005, a redraft of the CMP2000 (as amended in 2003) in line with new heritage legislation.
2006 Old Parliament House added to the National Heritage List.
2007 New Heritage Management Plan drafted, informed by the HMP 2005.
2008 First version of this Heritage Management Plan published.
Source: http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/burracharter.html
Considering the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice 1964), and the Resolutions of the 5th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (Moscow 1978), the Burra Charter was adopted by Australia ICOMOS (the Australian National Committee of ICOMOS) on 19 August 1979 at Burra, South Australia. Revisions were adopted on 23 February 1981, 23 April 1988 and 26 November 1999.
The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places), and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australia ICOMOS members.
Conservation is an integral part of the management of places of cultural significance and is an
ongoing responsibility.
The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance, including owners, managers and custodians.
The Charter should be read as a whole. Many articles are interdependent. Articles in the Conservation Principles section are often further developed in the Conservation Processes and Conservation Practice sections. Headings have been included for ease of reading but do not form part of the Charter.
The Charter is self-contained, but aspects of its use and application are further explained in the following Australia ICOMOS documents:
Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance
Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy
Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports
Code on the Ethics of Coexistence in Conserving Significant Places
The Charter can be applied to all types of places of cultural significance including natural, indigenous and historic places with cultural values.
The standards of other organisations may also be relevant. These include the Australian Natural Heritage Charter and the Draft Guidelines for the Protection, Management and Use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Places.
Places of cultural significance enrich people’s lives, often providing a deep and inspirational sense of connection to community and landscape, to the past and to lived experiences. They are historical records, that are important as tangible expressions of Australian identity and experience. Places of cultural significance reflect the diversity of our communities, telling us about who we are and the past that has formed us and the Australian landscape. They are irreplaceable and precious.
These places of cultural significance must be conserved for present and future generations.
The Burra Charter advocates a cautious approach to change: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained.
ARTICLES |
EXPLANATORY NOTES |
|
|---|---|---|
| Article 1. Definitions for the purposes of this charter: | ||
| 1.1 | Place means site, area, land, landscape, building or other work, group of buildings or other works, and may include components, contents, spaces and views. | The concept of place should be broadly interpreted. The elements described in Article 1.1 may include memorials, trees, gardens, parks, places of historical events, urban areas, towns, industrial places, archaeological sites and spiritual and religious places. |
| 1.2 | Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups. |
The term cultural significance is synonymous with heritage significance and cultural heritage value. Cultural significance may change as a result of the continuing history of the place. Understanding of cultural significance may change as a result of new information. |
| 1.3 | Fabric means all the physical material of the place including components, fixtures, contents, and objects. | Fabric includes building interiors and sub-surface remains, as well as excavated material. Fabric may define spaces and these may be important elements of the significance of the place. |
| 1.4 | Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. | |
| 1.5 | Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction. | The distinctions referred to, for example in relation to roof gutters, are:
|
| 1.6 | Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration. | It is recognised that all places and their components change over time at varying rates. |
| 1.7 | Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material. | |
| 1.8 | Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric. | New material may include recycled material salvaged from other places. This should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance. |
| 1.9 | Adaptation means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use. | |
| 1.10 | Use means the functions of a place, as well as the activities and practices that may occur at the place. | |
ARTICLES |
EXPLANATORY NOTES |
|
|---|---|---|
| Article 1. Definitions for the purposes of this charter: | ||
| 1.11 | Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use involves no, or minimal, impact on cultural significance. | |
| 1.12 | Setting means the area around a place, which may include the visual catchment. | |
| 1.13 | Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place. | |
| 1.14 | Related object means an object that contributes to the cultural significance of a place but is not at the place. | |
| 1.15 | Associations mean the special connections that exist between people and a place. | Associations may include social or spiritual values and cultural responsibilities for a place. |
| 1.16 | Meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses. | Meanings generally relate to intangible aspects such as symbolic qualities and memories. |
| 1.17 | Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place. | Interpretation may be a combination of the treatment of the fabric (e.g. maintenance, restoration, reconstruction); the use of and activities at the place; and the use of introduced explanatory material. |
| Conservation principles | ||
| Article 2. Conservation and management | ||
| 2.1 | Places of cultural significance should be conserved. | |
| 2.2 | The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place. | |
| 2.3 | Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance. | |
| 2.4 | Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state. | |
| Article 3. Cautious approach | ||
| 3.1 | Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. | The traces of additions, alterations and earlier treatments to the fabric of a place are evidence of its history and uses which may be part of its significance. Conservation action should assist and not impede their understanding. |
| 3.2 | Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture. | |
| Article 4. Knowledge, skills and techniques | ||
| 4.1 | Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place. | |
| 4.2 | Traditional techniques and materials are preferred for the conservation of significant fabric. In some circumstances modern techniques and materials which offer substantial conservation benefits may be appropriate. | The use of modern materials and techniques must be supported by firm scientific evidence or by a body of experience. |
| Article 5. Values | ||
| 5.1 | Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others. | Conservation of places with natural significance is explained in the Australian Natural Heritage Charter. This Charter defines natural significance to mean the importance of ecosystems, biological diversity and geodiversity for their existence value, or for present or future generations in terms of their scientific, social, aesthetic and life-support value. |
| 5.2 | Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions at a place. | A cautious approach is needed, as understanding of cultural significance may change. This article should not be used to justify actions which do not retain cultural significance. |
| Article 6. Burra Charter process | ||
| 6.1 | The cultural significance of a place and other issues affecting its future are best understood by a sequence of collecting and analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development of policy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy. | The Burra Charter process, or sequence of investigations, decisions and actions, is illustrated in the accompanying flowchart. |
| 6.2 | The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance. | |
| 6.3 | Policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the future of a place such as the owner’s needs, resources, external constraints and its physical condition. | |
| Article 7. Use | ||
| 7.1 | Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained. | |
| 7.2 | A place should have a compatible use. | The policy should identify a use or combination of uses or constraints on uses that retain the cultural significance of the place. New use of a place should involve minimal change, to significant fabric and use; should respect associations and meanings; and where appropriate should provide for continuation of practices which contribute to the cultural significance of the place. |
ARTICLES |
EXPLANATORY NOTES |
|
|---|---|---|
| Article 8. Setting | ||
| Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place. New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate. |
Aspects of the visual setting may include use, siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and materials. Other relationships, such as historical connections, may contribute to interpretation, appreciation, enjoyment or experience of the place. |
|
| Article 9. Location | ||
| 9.1 | The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival. | |
| 9.2 | Some buildings, works or other components of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other components do not have significant links with their present location, removal may be appropriate. | |
| 9.3 | If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance. | |
| Article 10. Contents | ||
| Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Their removal is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place. Such contents, fixtures and objects should be returned where circumstances permit and it is culturally appropriate. | ||
| Article 11. Related places and objects | ||
| The contribution which related places and related objects make to the cultural significance of the place should be retained. | ||
| Article 12. Participation | ||
| Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place. | ||
| Article 13. Co-existence of cultural values | ||
| Co-existence of cultural values should be recognised, respected and encouraged, especially in cases where they conflict. | For some places, conflicting cultural values may affect policy development and management decisions. In this article, the term cultural values refers to those beliefs which are important to a cultural group, including but not limited to political, religious, spiritual and moral beliefs. This is broader than values associated with cultural significance. | |
| Conservation processes | ||
| Article 14. Conservation processes | ||
| Conservation may, according to circumstance, include the processes of: retention or reintroduction of a use; retention of associations and meanings; maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation and interpretation; and will commonly include a combination of more than one of these. | There may be circumstances where no action is required to achieve conservation. | |
| Article 15. Change | ||
| 15.1 | Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. The amount of change to a place should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriate interpretation. | When change is being considered, a range of options should be explored to seek the option which minimises the reduction of cultural significance. |
| 15.2 | Changes which reduce cultural significance should be reversible, and be reversed when circumstances permit. | Reversible changes should be considered temporary. Non-reversible change should only be used as a last resort and should not prevent future conservation action. |
| 15.3 | Demolition of significant fabric of a place is generally not acceptable. However, in some cases minor demolition may be appropriate as part of conservation. Removed significant fabric should be reinstated when circumstances permit. | |
| 15.4 | The contributions of all aspects of cultural significance of a place should be respected. If a place includes fabric, uses, associations or meanings of different periods, or different aspects of cultural significance, emphasising or interpreting one period or aspect at the expense of another can only be justified when what is left out, removed or diminished is of slight cultural significance and that which is emphasised or interpreted is of much greater cultural significance. | |
| Article 16. Maintenance | ||
| Maintenance is fundamental to conservation and should be undertaken where fabric is of cultural significance and its maintenance is necessary to retain that cultural significance. | ||
ARTICLES |
EXPLANATORY NOTES |
|
|---|---|---|
| Article 17. Preservation | ||
| Preservation is appropriate where the existing fabric or its condition constitutes evidence of cultural significance, or where insufficient evidence is available to allow other conservation processes to be carried out. | Preservation protects fabric without obscuring the evidence of its construction and use. The process should always be applied:
|
|
| Article 18. Restoration and reconstruction | ||
| Restoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant aspects of the place. | ||
| Article 19. Restoration | ||
| Restoration is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric. | ||
| Article 20. Reconstruction | ||
| 20.1 | Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric. In rare cases, reconstruction may also be appropriate as part of a use or practice that retains the cultural significance of the place. | |
| 20.2 | Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation. | |
| Article 21. Adaptation | ||
| 21.1 | Adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place. | Adaptation may involve the introduction of new services, or a new use, or changes to safeguard the place. |
| 21.2 | Adaptation should involve minimal change to significant fabric, achieved only after considering alternatives. | |
| Article 22. New work | ||
| 22.1 | New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. | New work may be sympathetic if its siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and material are similar to the existing fabric, but imitation should be avoided. |
| 22.2 | New work should be readily identifiable as such. | |
| Article 23. Conserving use | ||
| Continuing, modifying or reinstating a significant use may be appropriate and preferred form of conservation. | These may require changes to significant fabric but they should be minimised. In some cases, continuing a significant use or practice may involve substantial new work. | |
| Article 24. Retaining associations and meanings | ||
| 24.1 | Significant associations between people and a place should be respected, retained and not obscured. Opportunities for the interpretation, commemoration and celebration of these associations should be investigated and implemented. | For many places associations will be linked to use. |
| 24.2 | Significant meanings, including spiritual values, of a place should be respected. Opportunities for the continuation or revival of these meanings should be investigated and implemented. | |
| Article 25. Interpretation | ||
| The cultural significance of many places is not readily apparent, and should be explained by interpretation. Interpretation should enhance understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally appropriate. | ||
| Conservation practice | ||
| Article 26. Applying the Burra Charter process | ||
| 26.1 | Work on a place should be preceded by studies to understand the place which should include analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines. | The results of studies should be up to date, regularly reviewed and revised as necessary. |
| 26.2 | Written statements of cultural significance and policy for the place should be prepared, justified and accompanied by supporting evidence. The statements of significance and policy should be incorporated into a management plan for the place. | Statements of significance and policy should be kept up to date by regular review and revision as necessary. The management plan may deal with other matters related to the management of the place. |
| 26.3 | Groups and individuals with associations with a place as well as those involved in its management should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in understanding the cultural significance of the place. Where appropriate they should also have opportunities to participate in its conservation and management. | |
ARTICLES |
EXPLANATORY NOTES |
|
|---|---|---|
| Article 27. Managing change | ||
| 27.1 | The impact of proposed changes on the cultural significance of a place should be analysed with reference to the statement of significance and the policy for managing the place. It may be necessary to modify proposed changes following analysis to better retain cultural significance. | |
| 27.2 | Existing fabric, use, associations and meanings should be adequately recorded before any changes are made to the place. | |
| Article 28. Disturbance of fabric | ||
| 28.1 | Disturbance of significant fabric for study, or to obtain evidence, should be minimised. Study of a place by any disturbance of the fabric, including archaeological excavation, should only be undertaken to provide data essential for decisions on the conservation of the place, or to obtain important evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible. | |
| 28.2 | Investigation of a place which requires disturbance of the fabric, apart from that necessary to make decisions, may be appropriate provided that it is consistent with the policy for the place. Such investigation should be based on important research questions which have potential to substantially add to knowledge, which cannot be answered in other ways and which minimises disturbance of significant fabric. | |
| Article 29. Responsibility for decisions | ||
| The organisations and individuals responsible for management decisions should be named and specific responsibility taken for each such decision. | ||
| Article 30. Direction, supervision and implementation | ||
| Competent direction and supervision should be maintained at all stages, and any changes should be implemented by people with appropriate knowledge and skills. | ||
| Article 31. Documenting evidence and decisions | ||
| A log of new evidence and additional decisions should be kept. | ||
| Article 32. Records | ||
| 32.1 | The records associated with the conservation of a place should be placed in a permanent archive and made publicly available, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate. | |
| 32.2 | Records about the history of a place should be protected and made publicly available, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate. | |
| Article 33. Removed fabric | ||
| Significant fabric which has been removed from a place including contents, fixtures and objects, should be catalogued, and protected in accordance with its cultural significance. | Where possible and culturally appropriate, removed significant fabric including contents, fixtures and objects, should be kept at the place. | |
| Article 34. Resources | ||
| Adequate resources should be provided for conservation. | The best conservation often involves the least work and can be inexpensive. | |
| Words in italics are defined in Article 1. | ||
In accordance with Section 324S of the EPBC Act, the Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is responsible for making a management plan for Old Parliament House and Curtilage, as a listed National Heritage place, and seek comments from the public and the Australian Heritage Council before finalising the plan.
As Old Parliament House and Curtilage is also on the Commonwealth Heritage List, under Section 341S it is DEWHA’s responsibility (at that time) to make and seek public comments on a draft management plan.
The former Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts prepared a single plan to cover both the Commonwealth and National Heritage List obligations.
Prior to the formal submission to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, an exposure draft was prepared for informal public consultation in November 2006 in accordance with s. 341S(6) for Commonwealth Heritage Listed places. The methodology and analysis of this process is outlined below. Comments from thisprocess have assisted in the development of the final draft.
Upon submission of the final draft, the formal statutory public comments process will be undertaken in
accordance with s.324S(6).
Attendances at the public meetings were small, five at each session. Seventeen written responses were received on the plan, 15 via the comments box situated in King’s Hall and two via emails. One response was received via the dedicated email address accessed via the website. Several verbal comments were recorded either at meetings or by phone in follow up discussions.
There were no major issues or concerns revealed in the comments received, with the bulk relating to editorial detail. Some key comments suggested: clearly outlining that this is a single plan to cover the Commonwealth and National Heritage list obligations; and enhancing the history beyond physical development of the site to include the social elements. A large number of positive verbal responses were received.
The process was in accordance with the requirements for making a management plan for a Commonwealth Heritage Listed place under 10.03C of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2003 No.1. It produced the expected outcomes which were to gauge public perceptions and concerns.
Successful elements included the: in-house design, the stall in King’s Hall, the individual meetings with stakeholders and meetings with the Old Parliament House Volunteers.
Section 324S of the EPBC the Act requires that a management plan be prepared for a place on the National Heritage List and that the Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, under Section 324S (6), seeks comments from the public on the draft plan and seeks and considers comments from the Australian Heritage Council about matters raised by the public.
The procedures involve the following stages;
This process was completed between August and December 2007. Suggestions for improving the Final Draft have been considered and adopted.
Section 324W and 341X of the EPBC Act require the review of Heritage Management Plans for National and Commonwealth Heritage Listed places every five years. The process for review involved the following consultation:
Feedback was gathered primarily from Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House staff and was centred on the implementation tools for the plan. This feedback was very useful and informed the amendments to allow more effective implementation of the plan’s policies. No comment was made by the public or volunteers.
Old Parliament House management must conserve the heritage values of the place in accordance with the EPBC Act, the ACT Planning and Land Management Act. Old Parliament House will underpin its management of the heritage values through: applying the Burra Charter; employing competent heritage managers and advisors; undertaking appropriate research and assessment prior to making decisions which may impact upon heritage values; and seeking funds to manage the place based upon a nil decline in the condition of heritage values.
Research and analysis of the heritage values of Old Parliament House has been conducted through a detailed and ongoing process since 1985. The present Heritage Management Plan has been developed on the basis of the conservation approach established in the Conservation Management Plan 2000 (Pearson et al 2000 and subsequent updates: 2003 Pearson et al and 2005 Godden Mackay Logan).
In response to previous plans and the use of the term Heritage Values in the EPBC Act, this Heritage Management Plan has developed the Zones (Section 6) which locate the identified heritage values spatially and establish objectives for their management. The Zones and Zone Objectives are key tools which assist in the application of the policy framework across the varied attributes, spaces and areas of Old Parliament House. This policy and the Zones also recognise that moveable cultural heritage is an integral attribute of the heritage values of the place.
This policy acknowledges that the values of Old Parliament House are embedded in sometimes overlapping layers of fabric and that decisions will need to be made on a case by case basis about their relative heritage values and the consequent required management action. Decision making must also be underpinned by expertise, ready
access to relevant data and ongoing training.
Within this overall policy direction, there are some specific components of the place which require particular conservation. These include:
– Greek pattern detailing such as the exterior iron balustrades, interior plaster wall vents and leadlight bookcase panels.
indicates an improvement in condition and/or integrity, the colour red 
indicates a decline, blue 
indicates an aspect has improved while another has declined, and yellow 
indicates no change in rating but new information is provided about condition or integrity. Where text in the 2013 assessment columns is dated (eg. 2007 or 2013), this indicates either text from the original 2007 assessment or updated text from 2013.| No. | Embodiment of Significance | Condition (Source) – 2007 | Integrity – 2007 | Condition – 2013 | Integrity – 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Old Parliament House (NHL A, E, F, G, H: CHL A, G) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | Medium | Fair | Medium |
| 2. | pattern of combining the functions of executive and legislative in the one building (NHL A) [ministerial offices, Cabinet room, rest of building] | Fair | High | Fair | High |
| 3. | encroachment of the executive arm of government into the legislature's area (NHL A) [ministerial offices, Cabinet room] | Fair | High | Fair | High |
| 4. | North Wing (NHL A) | Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2001) | Medium (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2001) | Fair | Medium |
| 5. | Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, and King's Hall (NHL A) | Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006) | High – although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) or because they have been taken to new Parliament House (eg Mace) (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000) | Good | High - although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) or because they have been taken to new Parliament House (2007) In addition, the protective glass enclosures are new intrusions into the Chambers, and minor works detract from the overall standard, eg. above the northeast attendants’ booth off Kings Hall (2013). |
| 6. | King's Hall and the Chambers: decorative skylights, elegant pendant lights, and parquet flooring, as well as in the height of the ceiling, accentuated by the raked galleries, and the timber wall panelling, and the extensive, restrained and subtle decoration (NHL A) | Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006) Kings Hall: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000) although the structural condition of pendant lights poor |
High | Good | High |
| 7. | Chambers: their fabric, furnishing and objects (NHL A, D) | Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006) | High – although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) or because they have been taken to new Parliament House (eg Mace) | Good – although some of the leather finishes are deteriorated | High - although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) or because they have been taken to new Parliament House (eg Mace) (2007) In addition, the protective glass enclosures are new intrusions into the Chambers (2013) |
| 8. | Chambers seating arrangements (NHL D) | Good (Conservation Works 2006) | High | Good | High |
| 9. | front facade and the immediate grassed area to its north (NHL A) | Façade: Fair (DCITA 2004, Connell Wagner 2001), front canopy poor (OPH staff) Grassed area: Fair – outside OPH management |
High, although the banners on the façade diminish integrity | Façade: Fair – cracks in render, marked, paintwork deteriorated. Note: west elevation not inspected because of works. Canopy: Good Grassed area: Fair – outside OPH management |
High – although the banners on the façade diminish integrity |
| 10. | front steps (NHL A) | Fair | High | Good | Medium – new tiling |
| 11. | internal fabric and collections (NHL A) | Fabric: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) Collection: Fair (AVO audit 2002, OPH staff) |
Medium | Fabric: Fair Collection: 1,128 (6%) excellent, 9,759 (56%) good, 3,969 (22%) fair, 1,150 (7%) poor, 104 (1%) very poor, 1,359 (8%) unrecorded poor (KE EMu database) |
Medium |
| 12. | purpose-designed furniture and furnishings (NHL A) | Fair (AVO audit 2002, OPH staff) – assessment relates to total collection 1927 Furniture: 1 excellent, 520 good, 310 fair, 85 poor (KE EMu database) |
Medium | Fair-Good (KE EMU database) – assessment relates to total collection 1927 Furniture (Murdoch?): 1 excellent, 552 good, 217 fair, 45 poor/very poor (KE EMu database) |
Medium |
| 13. | bas-relief busts (NHL A) | Good (Conservation Works 2005) | High | Good | High |
| 14. | portraits of former Prime Ministers (NHL A) | Sound/Stable (NPG staff) | High | Fair-Good (KE EMu database) | High |
| 15. | statue of King George V (NHL A) | Good (Conservation Works 2005) | High | Good | High – although polished toe re-patinated |
| 16. | communications technology (NHL A) | Poor – physically intact though not working (OPH staff) | High - although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) | Poor-Fair – while physically intact most elements are not working, however, a section of the Lamson tube has been re-commissioned | High - although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) |
| 17. | Murdoch designed furniture and fittings; the HMAS Australia table, the Country Party Table and the first Australian Cabinet table (NHL A) | 1927 Furniture (Murdoch?): 1 excellent, 520 good, 310 fair, 85 poor (KE EMu database) HMAS Australia table: Good (KE EMu database) Country Party Table: Good first Australian Cabinet table: Fair (KE EMu database) |
1927 Furniture (Murdoch?): 1 excellent, 552 good, 217 fair, 45 poor/very poor (KE EMu database) HMAS Australia table: Good Country Party Table: Good First Australian Cabinet table: Fair (OPH staff) |
High | |
| 18. | President of the Senate's Chair (NHL A) | Good (Conservation Works 2006) | High | Fair – leather deteriorated (change in assessment probably due to standard applied rather than an actual change in condition) | High |
| 19. | Speaker's Chair (NHL A) | Good (Conservation Works 2006) | High | Good | High |
| 20. | furniture and fittings designed or purchased for the extensions or alterations to the building, in particular the Senate and House of Representative Wings and the President of the Senate and Prime Minister's Suites (NHL A) | Furniture/fittings: no information President of the Senate: Good PM: Good (OPH staff 2001) |
High | Furniture/fittings: no information President of the Senate: Fair-Good (change in assessment probably due to standard applied rather than an actual change in condition) PM: Good |
High |
| 21. | record: comprising both furniture and documentation (NHL A, B: CHL A, D) | Furniture: Fair (AVO audit 2002, OPH staff) Documentation: Good (OPH staff) |
High | Furniture: Fair-Good (KE EMU database) – assessment relates to total collection Documentation: Good (OPH staff) |
High |
| 22. | Library fabric lies primarily in the features retained of everything up to and including the 1958 extension (NHL A) | Good, though book lift not working | High – although some fitout changes obscure original/early features | Good, though book lift not working | High – although some fitout changes obscure original/early features |
| 23. | Parliamentary Library, position (NHL D) | Good | High | Good | High |
| 24. | Parliamentary Library, design and fit-out of the Library rooms feature extensive timber panelling and fittings (NHL D) | Good, though book lift not working | High – although some fitout changes obscure original/early features | Good, though book lift not working | High – although some fitout changes obscure original/early features |
| 25. | House of Representatives (Southeast) and the Senate (Southwest) Wings, the front pavilions, and a great number of internal changes (NHL B, H) | Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2000; Pearson, Marshall, McCann & O'Keefe 2001) | Medium – there have been post 1988 changes especially in the Southwest Wing | Good | Low-Medium – there have been post 1988 changes especially in the Southwest Wing (2007) In addition, there have been additional changes in both wings, with some floors displaying low integrity (2013) |
| 26. | accommodation provided for Members and Ministers at various periods and the working conditions of parliamentarians and staff over the period 1943-88 (NHL B) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | High – representative samples at least survive, although there have been some changes to individual examples | Fair | High – representative samples at least survive, although there have been some changes to individual examples |
| 27. | former Members' Private Dining Room contains the remains of the 1927 hand-painted wall features (NHL B) | Good (OPH staff) | High | Good | High |
| 28. | original documentary evidence including plans, photographs and files that are directly related to the design, construction, use, and alteration of the Chambers and King's Hall (NHL C) | Good (OPH staff) | High, although OPH actually holds quite limited original documentary evidence and a much greater collection of copied material (Note: This text was omitted from the HMP) | Good (OPH staff) | High, although OPH actually holds quite limited original documentary evidence and a much greater collection of copied material |
| 29. | Inter War Stripped Classical style (NHL D: CHL D) symmetrical north and south facades; division of the north elevation into vertical bays indicating classical origins; vestigial classical entablature which is found on both the original north and south wings; simple wall surfaces of both original north and south wings; and spandrels between storeys on the north elevation which are subdued to emphasise verticality. |
Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005, Connell Wagner 2001) | High, although the banners on the north façade detract from the simple wall surfaces | Fair | High, although the banners on the north façade detract from the simple wall surfaces |
| 30. | classical symmetry and forms, having balanced masses with projected bays with arched bronze framed windows and subdued spandrels between storeys emphasizing the verticality (NHL D: CHL E) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | High | Fair – cracks in façade render, marked, paintwork deteriorated | High – although the banners on the façade diminish integrity |
| 31. | courtyards with loggias and pergolas, verandahs, internal courtyards and adjacent gardens (NHL D) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | Medium – the pre-1988 loss of some loggias and enclosure of verandahs has diminished this aspect | Good – although some waterlogged ground (eg. in Senate Courtyard) | Medium – the pre-1988 loss of some loggias and enclosure of verandahs has diminished this aspect (2007) In addition, Southwest Wing courtyard modified, and panelling used on main floor north wing former verandah facing courtyard (2013) |
| 32. | design of the building and its layout, spaces, rooms (NHL D: CHL A, D) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | High | Fair | High |
| 33. | Public and Press galleries (NHL D) | Fair (Conservation Works 2006) | High | Good | High – although interpretive fitout intrusive in some spaces, and minor details detract from integrity (eg. cabling and antennaes) |
| 34. | spaces allocated to the recording and administration of Parliamentary sittings, and the presence of Executive Government staff (NHL D) | Recording and administration spaces: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000) Executive Government staff: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) |
Medium | Fair | Medium – loss of some integrity in the Hansard spaces |
| 35. | House of Representatives Wing, internal layout and some fittings (NHL D) | Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2000) | Medium | Good | Low-Medium – loss of some integrity arising mostly from refurbishment of main and upper floors, but also of parts of the lower floor |
| 36. | King's Hall, the Library, Senate Chamber, House of Representatives Chamber, Dining Rooms, Senate Opposition Party Room, Ministerial Party Room, Clerk of the Senate's Office, Member's Bar, Government Party Room and Leader of the Government in the Senate's Office (NHL D) | Kings Hall: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000) Library: Good Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006) Dining Rooms: Good Senate Opposition Party Room: Good Ministerial Party Room: Good Clerk of the Senate's Office: Good Member's Bar: Good Government Party Room: Good Leader of the Government in the Senate's Office: Good |
High | Good | High |
| 37. | Greek key patterning evident in the Chambers, and the external metal and rendered balustrades (NHL D) | High | Good | High | |
| 38. | generously proportioned with clerestory windows (NHL D) Kings Hall Library Dining Room |
Kings Hall: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000) Library: Good Dining Room: Good |
High, although there have been some changes to the Library and Dining Room | Good | Medium-High – loss of some integrity because of interpretive installations in library |
| 39. | use of timber for wall or ceiling panelling and furniture (NHL D) | Panelling: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005, Conservation Works 2006) Furniture: Fair (AVO audit 2002, OPH staff) |
High/Medium | Panelling: Good Furniture: Fair-Good (KE EMU database) – assessment relates to total collection |
High/Medium |
| 40. | Setting (CHL A) | Good – although outside OPH management | High, although trees planted within the Land Axis may detract from this aspect, and carparking on the lawns south of OPH does detract | Good – although outside OPH management | High, although trees planted within the Land Axis may detract from this aspect, and carparking on the area south of OPH does detract – though is better than previously |
| 51. | relationship with the areas around Old Parliament House, particularly the Senate and House of Representatives Gardens and the National Rose Gardens (CHL A) | Good – although outside OPH management | High | Good – although outside OPH management | High |
| 52. | curtilage (NHL D) | Good – although mostly outside OPH management | High | Good – although mostly outside OPH management | High |
| 53. | adjacent Senate and House of Representatives gardens (NHL D) | Good – although outside OPH management | High – though this assessment relates to the physical relationship between the building and the gardens rather than an assessment of the gardens themselves | Fair – although outside OPH management | High – though this assessment relates to the physical relationship between the building and the gardens rather than an assessment of the gardens themselves |
| 54. | crisp lines, stark white colour, pronounced vertical patterns and classical form (NHL E: CHL E) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | High | Fair | High – although minor new visible elements (tanks) on the Southeast Wing detract from integrity |
| 55. | landmark importance (NHL E: CHL A) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | High | Fair | High |
| 56. | viewpoint towards the Australian War Memorial and in the other direction to the Australian Parliament House (NHL E) | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place), and carparking on the lawns south of OPH does detract | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place), bus parking in front of OPH affects the vista, and carparking on the area south of OPH does detract – though is better than previously |
| 57. | visual relationship with Parliament House in the north-south vista, and the open landscape between the building and the lake (CHL E) | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place), and carparking on the lawns south of OPH does detract | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place), bus parking in front of OPH affects the vista, and carparking on the area south of OPH does detract – though is better than previously |
| 58. | Old Parliament House as an integral feature of the Land Axis vista to Parliament (NHL F) | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place) | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place), and bus parking in front of OPH affects the vista |
| 59. | siting on the Land Axis (CHL E, G) | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place) | Good | High – although these views may be affected in future by planting within the land axis (eg Reconciliation Place), and bus parking in front of OPH affects the vista |
| 60. | strict separation of principal components of parliamentary government, the legislative, executive and judicial, and the hierarchical relationship between them (NHL F) | Fair | High – although the National Heritage values incorrectly characterise the legislature and executive as being separate, which they were not in OPH | Fair | High – although the National Heritage values incorrectly characterise the legislature and executive as being separate, which they were not in OPH |
| 61. | modest scale and aesthetic qualities, and the open landscaping and gardens between the building and the lake (NHL F) | Good | High – although the scale of some plantings may erode this quality in future | Good | High – although the scale of some plantings may erode this quality in future |
| 62. | Specific rooms and spaces within the building are directly associated with events that shaped the political and private lives of prominent individuals in Australia's political and social history (NHL G) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) – general assessment only not related to specific rooms | Medium | Fair | Medium |
| 63. | fitout (CHL D) | Good (DCITA 2004) | Medium | Good | Medium |
| 64. | plain yet dignified design (CHL F) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | High | Fair | High |
| 65. | front facade, the entrance portico, King's Hall and the Chambers (CHL G) | Façade: Fair (DCITA 2004, Connell Wagner 2001) Portico: Poor (OPH staff) Kings Hall: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000) Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006) |
High - although the banners on the façade diminish integrity Although some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) or because they have been taken to new Parliament House (eg Mace) |
Façade: Fair Portico: Good Kings Hall and Chambers: Good |
High - although the banners on the façade diminish integrity In addition, in the case of the Chambers some objects have been removed for conservation reasons (eg microphones) or because they have been taken to new Parliament House (eg Mace) |
| 66. | design of the building, which reflects the work of Murdoch and Henderson (CHL H) | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005) | Medium | Fair | Medium |
| 67. | internal spaces and furniture (CHL H) | Interiors: Good (DCITA 2004) Furniture: Fair (AVO audit 2002, OPH staff) |
Medium | Interiors: Good, although the Senate lower floor of the North Wing is poor-fair Furniture: Fair-Good (KE EMU database) – assessment relates to total collection |
Medium |
| No. | Embodiment of Significance | Associated Fabric | Condition/Integrity of Fabric – 2007 | Association called by general knowledge and/or interpretation1 – 2007 | Condition/Integrity of Fabric – 2013 | Association recalled by general knowledge and/or interpretation2 – 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | first purpose-built home for the Australian Parliament (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, 1927 parts | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 2. | central to the development of Australia as a nation (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 3. | demonstrates Australia's political processes (NHL A: CHL H) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 4. | focus for events that reflect Australian democratic values, and political and social rights (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 5. | demonstrates how Australian federal government separated the legislative and judicial government functions and the growth of a party based democracy (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | No | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 6. | main venue for parliamentary functions from 1927-88 (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 7. | creation of the Australian democracy (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 8. | Statute of Westminster, declarations of War in 1939 and 1941 (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, especially the Chambers | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006)/High |
No | OPH: Fair/Medium Chambers: Good/High |
No |
| 9. | 61 years of national legislation shaping Australian society (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 10. | establishment of new political parties (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, especially: rooms L65, L65A, L65B (Australian Democrats) rooms M11, M11A (DLP) room M54 (ALP Anti-Communist) |
OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium Rooms L65, L65A, L65B: Fair/Low Rooms M11, M11A: Fair/High Room M54: Good/Medium |
Yes | Rooms L65, L65A, L65B: Good/Low Rooms M11, M11A: Good/High Room M54: Good/ Medium |
Yes |
| 11. | growth of Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal affairs (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 12. | focus of Aboriginal political protest (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 13. | events gatherings, protests and demonstrations (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, especially the north façade and front steps | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium North Façade: Fair (DCITA 2004)/High Steps: Fair/High |
Yes | OPH: Fair/Medium North Façade: Fair/ High Steps: Good/Medium |
Yes |
| 14. | formal opening of the Provisional Parliament House, and the address by Prime Minister Whitlam (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, especially the north façade and front steps | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium North Façade: Fair (DCITA 2004)/High Steps: Fair/High |
Yes | OPH: Fair/Medium North Façade: Fair/ High Steps: Good/Medium |
Yes |
| 15. | association with Royal visits (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 16. | ceremonial events in Australia's political history (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, especially the Chambers, Kings Hall and Dining Rooms | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006)/High Kings Hall: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann, Mitchell & O'Keefe 2000)/High Dining Rooms: Good/Medium |
Yes | OPH: Fair/Medium Chambers: Good/High Kings Hall: Good/ High Dining Rooms: Good/ High |
Yes |
| 17. | reflecting the everyday use of the building over a period of 61 years (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 18. | growth of Parliament over 61 years (NHL A) | Old Parliament House, especially the Southwest, Southeast, Northeast and Northwest wings | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium SW Wing: Fair (Pearson, Marshall, McCann & O'Keefe 2001)/Medium SE Wing: Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2000)/Medium NW Wing: Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2001)/Medium NE Wing: Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2001)/Medium |
Yes | OPH: Fair/Medium SW Wing: Good/ Low-Medium SE Wing: Good/ Medium NW Wing: Fair/High NE Wing: Good/ Medium |
Yes |
| 19. | Australia's role initially as a member of the British Empire and later as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (NHL A) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 20. | representing a period of increased national government power and public interest in Canberra (NHL D) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | No | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 21. | customs and functions of the Commonwealth Parliament (NHL D) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 22. | roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate (NHL D) | Old Parliament House, especially the Chambers | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium Chambers: Fair (Conservation Works 2006)/High |
Yes | OPH: Fair/Medium Chambers: Good/High |
Yes |
| 23. | formal and adversarial nature of debate in the House of Representatives Chamber compared with the more fraternal seating of Senators in the Senate Chamber (NHL D) | Chambers, especially the seating pattern | Fair (Conservation Works 2006)/High | Yes | Good/High | Yes |
| 24. | nature of public and press access to formal Parliamentary processes (NHL D) | Chambers, especially the press and public galleries | Fair (Conservation Works 2006)/High | Yes | Good/High | Yes |
| 25. | major involvement of the Executive in the formal processes of Parliament in Australia (NHL D) | Prime Minister’s suite, Ministerial offices and Cabinet Room | PM: Good (OPH staff 2001)/High Offices: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium Cabinet Room: Good/High |
Yes | PM: Good/High Offices: Fair/Medium Cabinet Room: Good/ High |
Yes |
| 26. | difficult working conditions of parliamentarians, staff and press representatives over the period 1943-88 (NHL D) | Office spaces including press accommodation | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/High at least regarding representative samples | Yes | Fair/ High at least regarding representative samples | Yes |
| 27. | austerity of the times (NHL D) | Old Parliament House, 1927 fabric | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | No | Fair/Medium | No |
| 28. | hierarchy of Government (NHL D) | Speaker’s office, Clerk of the Senate’s office, Leader of the Government in the Senate’s office | Speaker’s office: Good/High Clerk of the Senate’s office: Good/High Leader of the Government in the Senate’s office: Good/High |
Yes | Speaker’s office: Good/High Clerk of the Senate’s office: Good/High Leader of the Government in the Senate’s office: Good/High |
Yes |
| 29. | source of reference for Parliament (NHL D) | Parliamentary Library | Good/High | Yes | Good/Medium | Yes |
| 30. | Garden City ideals (NHL D) | courtyards with loggias and pergolas, verandahs, adjacent Senate and House of Representatives gardens | Courtyards with loggias and pergolas, verandahs: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium Gardens: Good/High |
No | Courtyards with loggias and pergolas, verandahs: Good/Medium Gardens: Fair/High |
No |
| 31. | primacy of Parliament over the executive and judicial components of government (NHL E) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | No | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 32. | symbolised the primacy of parliament, or the legislature, over the executive and judicial (NHL F) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | No | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 33. | planned democracy symbolism of the Parliamentary Triangle (NHL E, F) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | No | Fair/Medium | No |
| 34. | national politicians (NHL H) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 35. | Prime Ministers (NHL H) | Old Parliament House, especially the Prime Minister’s office | OPH: Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium PM: Good (OPH staff 2001)/High |
Yes | OPH: Fair/Medium PM: Good/High |
Yes |
| 36. | Senator Neville Thomas Bonner AO (NHL H) | Rooms U46, M164 & M136 | U46: Fair/High M164 & M136: Good/Low |
Yes | U46: Good/High M164 & M136: Good/Low |
Yes |
| 37. | Dame Enid Lyons and Dorothy Tangney (NHL H) | Rooms L87 and L3 | Fair/High | Yes | Good/High | Yes |
| 38. | John Smith Murdoch (NHL H: CHL H) | Old Parliament House, 1927 fabric | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Yes | Fair/Medium | Yes |
| 39. | E H Henderson (CHL H) | Original two storey Southeast and Southwest Wings - now the inner wings with a third storey added | Fair (Pearson, Marshall & O'Keefe 2000; Pearson, Marshall, McCann & O'Keefe 2001)/Medium | No | Good/Medium | No |
| No. | Embodiment of Significance | Associated Fabric | Condition/Integrity of Fabric – 2007 | Is association stable/fostered/ impeded? – 2007 | Is individual or group healthy/not healthy? – 2007 | Condition/Integrity of Fabric – 2013 | Is association stable/fostered/ impeded? – 2013 | Is individual or group healthy/not healthy? – 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | support staff and media representatives (NHL G) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Fostered (eg Governing Council membership; focus group for Press gallery interpretation; oral history program; volunteers) | Not healthy/declining: declining numbers of group | Fair/Medium | Fostered (eg. oral history program, volunteers, donors of OPH objects) | Not healthy/ declining: declining numbers of group |
| 2. | Australian community (NHL G: CHL H) | Old Parliament House | Fair (DCITA 2004, Taylor Thomson Whitting 2005)/Medium | Fostered (DCITA 2000) | Healthy | Fair/Medium | Fostered (eg. public programs, community learning programs, disability access, events, conferences) | Healthy |
| DATE OF INTERVIEW | INTERVIEWEE | CONNECTION WITH OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE |
|---|---|---|
| 7th November 1995 | Mr Fred Johnston | Employed at the time of the building of Old Parliament House. 1924 worked in store room that was later the garage. Responsible for looking after the fixtures and fittings and signing out to the workmen on the building site. |
| 25th March 1996 | Mr W H ‘Hec’ McMillan MBE | Work Old Parliament House 1939-1954 (Joint House Dept as Clerk (1939 – 1946). Accountant and Asst Reporter Hansard 1946-1954 |
| 25th March 1996 | Miss Hazel Craig CBE | Stenographer to 5 Prime Ministers. Working for Prime Minister Menzies – ‘marvellous to work with’. Recalls VIP visits by Generals Blamey and MacArthur. |
| 3RD April 1996 | Margaret Gaffey, Margaret Hyslop, Margaret Kelly | Stenographers/switchboard operators. Reflections on the Menzies era at Old Parliament House. |
| 3rd April 1996 | Mr Kenneth Ross Ingram | Father worked on Old Parliament House – tiler on bathrooms. Ken at opening aged 13. Worked at Canberra Times. Journalist. Office in Old Parliament House. Press Gallery in OPH during Mr Ingram’s time was very small. Remembers Jo Alexander, Jack Hewitt (AUP). Trained as a Hansard Reporter in the Senate |
| 17th April 1996 | Mr Rupert Loof | Clerk of the Senate from 1955 to 1965. Present at the opening in 1927 |
| 7th August 1996 | Mr Max Bourke | Former General Manager at Old Parliament House. |
| 3rd May 1996 | Jack Pettifer Margaret Kelly |
Jack Pettifer –Usher of the Black Rod. Parents lived in Old Parliament House Caretaker’s flat. Margaret Kelly, Member of Fadden’s staff. Worked at Old Parliament House during WWII. |
| 1996 | Mr Jack Jenkins | Joiner and Maintenance Officer. |
| 18th December 1997 | The Hon Neil Robson | Member of the Senate during the 1970s. MHA (Lib) Bass (Tas). |
| 13th November 1999 | Mr Noel C Hattersley | ABC. Responsible for installing broadcasting equipment into Old Parliament House. |
| 20th December 1999 | Mrs Claire Craig | Started working in Old Parliament House in 1940. Worked for Sir Walter Cooper after the defeat of the Chifley Govt. Donated silver ice jug and pewter mug. Worked in Eddie Ward’s office in Sydney before coming to Canberra. |
| 2nd December 1999 | Mr Jim Hourigan | Cabinet Attendant – Cabinet Office. |
| 7th March 2001 | Mr Joe Medwin | Commander of Police operations for VIP visits. Head of motor cycle escort for the Queen visit in 1854. |
| 21st May 2001 | Patricia Ratcliff | Worked for Justin O’Byrne, Tasmanian Labor. |
| 24th May 2001 | Judith Dexter | 1947 to end of 1950. Librarian at the NLA which at that time was housed in Old Parliament House. |
| 3rd August 2001 | Mr Denis Strangman | 1965 – APS to Vince Gair’s office in Brisbane. 1974 – worked for Frank McManus in Melbourne 1976 – 92 Worked for Harradine |
| 7th June 2001 | Mr Ian Cochran | Clerk (Assistant) of the House. |
| June/July 2001 | Mr Bob Lansdown | Senior Private Secretary to Prime Minister Menzies 1949 to 1951. |
| 24th July 2001 | Heather and Ken Bonner | Widow of the Late Senator Bonner and son, Ken. |
| 9th August 2001 | Raeburn Trindall | Producer, Director/Cinematographer. Produced films in Parl House during the 1960s. |
| 26th October 2001 | Denise Edlington, Lyla Horgan, Julie Dyson, Patricia Vest, Fay Florence, Patricia Fraser, Patricia Rees, Patricia Carton |
Hansard typists during the 1970s |
| 12th May 2002 | Mrs June Poland | Grand daughter of Walter Gale, Clerk of the House of Representatives. |
| 20th June 2002 | Sir David Smith | Sec to Governor-General Sir John Kerr. Recollections of the Dismissal. |
| 20th September 2002 | Mr Robin Johnson | Gardener at Old Parliament House for nine years. |
| 16th October 2002 | Mr Alfred Nicholls | Accounts Clerk and Pay Master. |
| 20th October 2002 | Ms Elizabeth Kay Scott | Hairdresser. |
| 15th November 2002 | Ms Jean Hollonds | Waitress in late War Years for a few months. |
| 22nd November 2002 | Mrs Pat Rawlings | Assistant with AAP in the Press Gallery. Started with AAP in 1964. Moved to new Parliament House and retired in Feb 2000. |
| 25th November 2002 | Mrs Joan Frost | Manager, Members’ Dining Room |
| 26th November 2002 | Mr Keith Joyce | Worked for ASIO |
| 2nd December 2002 | Messrs Alan Browning, Jack Pettifer, Doug Blake, Lyn Barlin |
Clerks of the House of Representatives. |
| 3rd December 2002 | Mr Walter Osborne | Police Officer connected to Old Parliament House. |
| 10th December 2002 | Mrs Jessie Bennett | Librarian |
| 4th February 2003 | Mrs Wendy Freeman | Secretary to Mr Lance Barnard, Deputy Leader, Opposition. |
| 13th February 2003 | Mrs Elizabeth Beadsworth | Secretary to The Hon Sir William Spooner, Govt Ldr in the Senate. |
| 10th March 2003 7th October 2003 |
Anne Lynch | Clerk at Table – Senate. |
| 20th March 2003 | Mr John Farquharson | Journalist. Parliamentary Press Gallery Committee. |
| 23rd March 2003 | June Brien | Recollections of her Great Uncle, John Smith Murdoch |
| 26th March 2003 | Mr Herbert Charles Nicholls | Usher of the Black Rod |
| 28th March 2003 | Ms Beryl Hunt | 1950s –Stenographer in Prime Minister Menzies’ and Mr Holt’s office. Late 1950s Hansard Typist. 1960s Teleprinter Operator, Press Gallery. 1970s/1980s Tape Transcript Section and audio typist. |
| 1st April 2003 | Mr Rob Chalmers | Recollections as a Journalist in the Press Gallery. |
| 30th April 2003 | Miss Gladys Joyce | Personal Assistant to Prime Minister John Curtin. |
| 7th May 2003 | Mrs Noelle Culnane | Switchboard Operator - 1939 to 1941. |
| 9th July 2003 | Mr Bernard Freedman | Journalist with The Argus during the 1950’s and reportee on the Petrov affair. |
| 4th August 2003 | Mr Donald Nairn | HofReps Committee Staffer in 1970s and 1980s. |
| 12th August 2003 | Mr Jeff Brecht | House of Representatives staffer from 1969. Retired as an attendant after 25 years. |
| 13th August 2003 | Ms Michelle Gratton | Journalist at Old Parliament House. |
| 24th September 2003 | Mr Wallace Brown | Journalist in OPH Press Gallery. Worked with Prime Ministers Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon. |
| 5th November 2003 | Mr Noel Flanagan | Private Secretary to A A Calwell, 1949 Private Secretary to H E Holt, 1950 – 1953. |
| 24th November 2003 | Recording of the Launch of the Party Rooms | Kings Hall, Old Parliament House. |
| 12th December 2003 | Mr Derek Carrington | Worked for Ldr of the Govt in Senate, Sir Kenneth Anderson. Was the link between the Senate Leader and the Prime Minister. |
| 9th March 2004 | Prof Geoffrey Blainey AC | Guest speaker in the Hof Reps Chamber in conjunction with the exhibition “Peoples’ Procession”. |
| 10th March 2004 | Mr Wallace Brown | Journalist – Press Gallery. |
| 30th March 2004 | Mr Malcolm Mackerras | Party official. Irregular Broadcaster and psychologist Personal Asst to Minister for Learning and Science (John Gorton). |
| 2nd April 2004 | Recording of the Launch of the 50th Anniversary of the defect of the Petrovs (3rd April 1954) | House of Representatives Chamber |
| 14th April 2004 | Mr Paul Bongiorno | Journalist – Press Gallery |
| 7th May 2004 | Dr. John Burton | Private secretary to External Affairs Minister, H. V. Evatt, during World War II and later Secretary of the Department. |
| 10th May 2004 | Mrs. Myrna Grose | Daughter of the late Harold Dodd, Old Parliament House Sergeant-at-Arms. |
| 10th May 2004 | Mr Wallace Brown | Journalist – Press Gallery. |
| 3rd June 2004 | Mr Warwick Costin | Journalist – Press Gallery. |
| 14th April 2004 | Mrs Marcie Cowell | Former switchboard operator at Old Parliament House. |
| 15th June 2004 | Mr Mick Gilbert | Former chef in kitchen and security guard at Old Parliament House. |
| 17th June 2004 | Annette Holden | Journalist – visiting from South Africa. |
| 30th June 2004 | Dr Marcus Faunce | Former physician to several Governors-General and Prime Ministers. |
| 30th July 2004 | Glenice Castles | Former staffer for Prime Minister Menzies. |
| 13th August 2004 | Anne Andgel | Worked on Petrov Royal Commission. |
| 23rd August 2004 | Mr Peter Sutton | Horticulturalist with long association with OPH rose gardens. |
| 9th Sept. 2004 | Regina Meinhold | Friend of Mrs. Petrov. |
| 27th Oct. 2004 | Dr Patricia Clarke | Journalist – Press Gallery. |
| 22nd Oct. 2004 | Wayne Kathage | Bills and Papers Officer, Journals Officer, Research Officer, Senate, 1970s and 1980s. |
| 10th Nov. 2004 | Joyce Bull and Gary O’Callaghan |
Flight attendant and radio journalist at Mascot Airport when Mrs Petrov boarded flight in 1954. |
| 12th Nov. 2004 | Warwick Costin | Journalist – Press Gallery. |
| 8th Dec. 2004 | Story circle: OPH Press Gallery | Featuring Bernard Freedman, Colin Parks, Warwick Beutler, Wallace Brown, Ken Begg, Warwick Costin, Rob Chalmers. |
| 22nd Dec. 2004 | Ruth Schmedding | Daughter of Robert Broinowski, former Clerk of the House of Representatives. |
| 21st Jan. 2005 | Carol (Bunty) Wright | Her father, Frank Bishop, was live-in Housekeeper, 1952-60. |
| 11th Feb 2005 | Story circle: former Press Gallery Journalists. | Featuring Fred Brenchley, John Gaul, Jacquie Rees, Dennis Grant, David Barnett, Geoff Prior. |
| 18th Feb. 2005 | Gary O’Neill | Journalist – Press Gallery, and Bureau Chief. |
| 18th Feb 2005 | Story circle: former Press Gallery Journalists | Featuring Tim Sweeney, Paul Bongiorno, Peter Bowers, Gary O’Neill, Kerry-Anne Walsh, Peter Logue, Paul Malone. |
| 19th Feb. 2005 | Christina Motz | Ministerial secretarial staff, 1961-74. |
| 11th April. 2005 | Nan Boyd | Childhood memories of Old Parliament House, 1930s. |
| 8th May 2005 | Aldo Giurgola | Architect of New Parliament House. |
| 12th May 2005 | Alan Reid jr. | Journalist – Press Gallery and son of the late Alan Reid snr. |
| 8th June 2005 | Helen Mobbs | Women’s land army and politics of World War Two. |
| 17th June 2005 | Joan Godsall and Mary Scholtens | Worked at OPH during World World II. |
| 18th June 2005 | Former Press Gallery Journalists | Peter Sekuless, Peter Logue, Paul Malone, Ken Begg, Peter Harvey. |
| 28th June 2005 | Alan Cumming Thom | Clerk of Senate, 1982-88. |
| 26th July 2005 | Keiren McLeonard | Journalist – Press Gallery, 1988. |
| 3rd August 2005 | Tony Eggleton | Press Secretary to former Prime Ministers Menzies, Holt and Gorton; Federal Director of Liberal Party. |
| 4th August 2005 | Ken Randall | Journalist – Press Gallery, 1958, 1964-88; President, National Press Club. |
| 5th August 2005 | Robert Macklin | Journalist – Press Gallery, 1964-66. |
| 11th August 2005 | Barbara Silverstone | Telex-operator in Press Gallery, 1953/54 and 1966-69; electorate assistant to MP and Deputy Speaker, 1977-81. |
| 15th August 2005 | Robert Courtney | Junior Senate Officer: Bills and Records, 1969-72. |
| 16th August 2005 | Maurice Underwood | Attended 1927 opening of OPH as an 8 year old. |
| 17th August 2005 | Jon Christian | Principal Private Secretary to Doug Anthony, Minister for Primary Industry, 1967-71. |
| 26th August 2005 | Trish Oakley | Journalist, ABC-TV – Press Gallery, 1986-87. |
| 13th Sept. 2005 | Belinda Gemmell | Daughter of the late Jack Fingleton, member of Press Gallery. |
TERM |
DEFINITION |
|---|---|
| Action | Defined broadly in the EPBC Act an ‘action’ includes: a project, a development, an undertaking, an activity or a series of activities, or an alteration of any of these things. Actions relevant to Old Parliament House include, but are not limited to: - maintenance and services upgrades - construction, alteration or demolition of buildings, structures, infrastructure or facilities - industrial processes - storage or transport of hazardous materials - waste disposal - earthworks - impoundment - research activities - vegetation clearance - tours and events - exhibition and interpretation; and - dealings with land. Actions encompass site preparation and construction, operation and maintenance, and closure and completion stages of a project, as well as alterations or modifications to existing infrastructure. An action may have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the environment, however only adverse impacts on matters of national environmental significance are relevant when determining whether approval is required under the EPBC Act. |
| Activities | Actions in or on the place as defined above. |
| Adverse impact | A detrimental effect on the integrity of heritage values. |
| Approved Action | An Action that has been through the Action Assessment process set out in this HMP and has been approved by the Delegate. |
| Attributes | The features of the place that express or contain the heritage values.1 |
| Beneficial impact | A positive effect on the integrity of heritage values. |
| Condition | The physical state of the place relative to the values for which the place has been nominated. It reflects the cumulative effects of management and major environmental events.2 |
| Conservation | All the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance.3 |
| Heritage values | The heritage values identify what is significant or outstanding against the National, Commonwealth or other criteria.4 Heritage values include any element of a place’s natural and cultural environment that has aesthetic, scientific, social or other significance, for current and future generations. |
| High sensitivity to change | Heritage values with a high sensitivity to change can sustain only low levels of change without adverse impact. |
| Historical Use | A use that occurred in or on the place prior to the 9 May 1988. |
| Impact | A change in the physical, natural or cultural environment brought about by an action. Impacts can be direct or indirect.5 |
| Integrity | Refers to the condition of the place and the intactness of its key heritage values.6 |
| Intrusive fabric | Fabric which detracts from, or diminishes, the heritage values of the place. |
| Limits of acceptable change | The limit to which change can occur to a heritage value (or attribute of a heritage value) without adverse impact. |
| Low sensitivity to change | Heritage values with a low sensitivity to change can sustain more substantial levels of change without adverse impact. |
| Objectives | A set of guidelines, which enact the Statements of Intent for each of the the Zones and which link the Policies specifically to each Zone. |
| Old Parliament House and Curtilage | The place and surrounding area included in this plan to the National Heritage List boundary. Also referred to as Old Parliament House. |
| Permitted Action/s | Actions that can be undertaken without further approval or referral when undertaken in accordance with the Permitted Action Schedule. |
| Place | The building, curtilage and contents as described in the National and Commonwealth Heritage Listings. |
| Proponent | Person responsible for preparing assessment documentation, if approval is required. |
| Referring party | Person, agent or agency who is making the referral to the Department of Environment and Water Resources. |
| Responsible party | Person responsible for or who will carry out the proposed action. |
| Statement of Intent | A statement, linked to the Policies, outlining the primary management intentions for each Zone. |
| Significance | Refers to cultural significance: the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.7 |
| Statement of Values | Under the EPBC Act, a ‘statement of values’ is used to describe the Commonwealth or National Heritage values of a place.8 |
| Summary Statement of Heritage Significance | A statement for Old Parliament House and Curtilage that captures all the heritage values, including the Commonwealth and National Heritage List values. |
| Values | In the context of the Burra Charter, values are derived from what is significant about a place and relate to the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. |
| In the context of the EPBC Act, values are ascribed against the Commonwealth and National Heritage criteria.9 | |
| Significant impact | An impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity.10 |
| Sensitivity to change | The degree to which the heritage value/s can sustain changes to uses without adverse impact. |
| Zones | Areas of the place which contain attributes of one or more heritage values that are to be managed in accordance with the Zone Statement of Intent and Objectives. |