PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION H. 557 



but, instead, in boycotting the scheme, and so depriving their 

 members of a chance of distinction. I fear we must confess that 

 the self exchxsion of British and Australian architects and sur- 

 veyors, and the leaving the field to foreigners, was an exhibition 

 of as bad tactics as could well be imagined, and a standing 

 memento of " lost opportunities." I think it is generally known 

 that the conditions of competition, as submitted to the Minister 

 for Home Affairs, by his own advisers in this special matter, and 

 recommended for adoption, provided for an invitation to the 

 R.I.B.A. to appoint one of its members (presumably its president) 

 as a member of an Advisory Board, and suggested he should visit 

 Australia and the city site, confer in Melbourne, and join in a 

 recommendation, a suitable fee, and the matter of expenses being 

 liberally arranged for. 



If only that proposal had been adopted the ground would have 

 been cleared for British and Australian competitors. But still 

 its omission, only to a degree, justified the hostile attitude taken 

 by the institutes, and does not now excuse the fiasco. I have neces- 

 sarily limited my observations to the earlier phases of this interest- 

 ing subject, which now appears to be almost daily developing new 

 situations, all more or less of a controversial character.* 



An almost similar case has occurred more recently in Sydney. 

 There the institute insisted upon the ultimate decision as to the 

 design upon which some £60,000 was to be expended, being taken 

 out of the hands of a trust consisting of some of the keenest busi- 

 ness men in the State, and placed in the hands of an adjudicator, 

 although the calling in of expert advice was provided for. The 

 usual boycott by the institute followed, which its members more or 

 less observed. It is under such circumstances that members break 

 away from their institute, to the loss of prestige of the latter. Let 

 me not be misunderstood. I have been long enough in the pro- 

 fession to know, and insist on, the protection of competitors against 

 meanness of premium, and unfairness of award, but nothing is 



* On delivfciiug this address I found the foregouig views were not altogether agreed 

 with, and the representatives of the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects have be<u good 

 enough to furnish me with the following statement: — "We desire to make two or three 

 corrections. With the piinciple that the owner who pays for his building has the right of final 

 selection we are quite in accord. When, however, it is a matter of trust, that is, dealing with 

 other people's money, as in the case of the Minister of Home Affairs, a different condition at 

 once arises. The Minister, if he be not an expert, must necessarily be advisi d by those who 

 are experts. In this competition the Minister was to appoint a board of three, and it is an open 

 secret that a majority of its members, if not all, were to be appointedfrom within the Government 

 service. Further, the board's powers were limited to ' investigation and report to the Minister.' 

 As officers of the Public Service were free to compete, there was little chance of an ' outside ' 

 design being successful. Further, clause 14 stated that ' the Minister will adjudicate upon the 

 designs admitted to competition, after they have been submitted to the board, and such 

 adjudication will be final and without appeal.' If this clause means anything, it means that 

 the Minister must adjudicate, and his decision shall be final. The board of officers hecould muzzle 

 quite easily. But a move in his game was to appoint a board of three from outside the service, 

 and they made both majority and minority awards, which, as a further move, the Minister 

 accepted. Subsf quent events show that the honour of winning a place in the competition has 

 been filched from the successful competitors. We are certain, however, that the action of the 

 Initjtutes of Architects, both in Great Britain and the Australian States, was fully justified." 



