The Royal Commission on Federal Capital Administration was established by two Letters Patent, issued on 14 June and 17 July 1916, to deal with a variety of charges against Walter Burley Griffin, Federal Capital Director of Design and Construction. The Royal Commission was also to investigate a number of problems connected with the development of the Australian Capital Territory and its administration.

Wilfred Blacket KC was appointed Commissioner in the first Letters Patent 'to inquire into and report upon certain matters concerning the Department of Home Affairs and its officers and persons whose services are engaged by or on behalf of our said Commonwealth', in relation to:
 
(a) the Territory for the Seat of Government;
(b) the Parcel Post Office, Sydney;
(c) the Automatic Telephone Exchange, Sydney;
(d) the Parcel Post Office, Spencer Street, Melbourne;
(e) the Motor Garage, Sturt Street, South Melbourne;
(f) the General Post Office, Sydney;
(g) the General Post Office, Melbourne;
(h) the General Post Office, Adelaide;
(i) the General Post Office, Perth; and
(j) the Commonwealth Offices, Treasury Gardens, Melbourne.
 
All matters referred to in a question asked by Hon W O Archibald, the answer given by Hon King O'Malley and speeches made by Hon W O Archibald and Hon William Webster were also to be the subject of an investigation. Sections (b)-(j) were not dealt with in the printed report of the Royal Commission. 

The second Letters Patent extended the scope of the Commission. The Commissioner was charged to 'inquire into and report upon the question whether any public money has been wasted in the Territory for the seat of Government in connection with the construction of works or buildings or the administration by or on the advice of any officer of the Department of Home Affairs, whether directed by the responsible Minister or not.'
 
D J Quinn was appointed Secretary to the Commission.
 
The Commission's Report fell into six sections:
 
(1) Issues relative to Mr Griffin (Report dated 13 March 1917) 
(2) Accounts and Finance at Canberra
(3) Wasteful Expenditure at Canberra (Report dated 3 April 1917) 
(4) Sewerage at Canberra (Report dated 3 April 1917)
(5) Brick Works at Canberra (Report dated 3 April 1917)
(6) Water Supply, Power and Miscellaneous (Report dated 17 April
    1917)  

There were 96 sittings of the Commission, 52 witnesses were examined, upwards of 40,000 questions were put and nearly 400 exhibits were tendered in evidence.
 
1. Issues relative to Mr Griffin
 
Originally it appeared that the Federal Capital would be designed and constructed by officers of the Department of Home Affairs. A competition was held, however, and a Board consisting of J Kirkpatrick, J A Smith and J M Croane judged the design entries and decided in favour of that of Burley Griffin.
 
A Board was constituted of Miller, Owen, Scrivener, Oakeshott, Murdoch and Hill to investigate the suitability of the design. They could not approve any design submitted and advised approval of the lay-out prepared by the Board itself. King O'Malley (then Minister for Home Affairs) adopted this recommendation on 10 January 1913. He also ordered a survey of the city according to the Departmental plan.
 
On receiving the revised plan, Griffin suggested a consultation with the Board, in which he would act as architect overseeing the plan. The Board rejected this and work continued in accordance with the Departmental plan. The Power House was built 'destructive of an essential part of Mr Griffin's premiated design.'
 
On 25 July 1913, Hon W H Kelly (Acting Minister for Home Affairs) reversed the decision of King O'Malley and invited Burley Griffin to Australia to meet members of the Board and discuss both the Departmental design and his own premiate design. Griffin inspected the site of Canberra, accompanied by the Board.
 
Kelly told Miller that the Board was 'to consult with Mr Griffin on the basis of the original plan with such recommendations for amendment as they could make.' Fundamental differences arose during the conference between Burley Griffin and the Board in respect of essential features of the design. The conference was unduly protracted and eventually disbanded by Kelly.
 
Walter Burley Griffin was then appointed 'Federal Capital Director of Design and Construction' by the Prime Minister (Rt Hon Joseph Cook) on 18 October 1913 and, on 30 October 1913, Kelly minuted that the conditions for the competition for Parliament House designs were now 'entrusted to Mr Griffin.'
 
Had Burley Griffin taken up his appointment at once, the hostility towards him and his design might have been obviated. With the delay it had time to grow and in the first 26 months of his contract certain officers by 'various reprehensible means ... succeeded in preventing him from rendering any substantial service to the Commonwealth.'
 
Colonel Miller, while attacking Burley Griffin for interfering in matters laid down by his contract, also attacked him for not attempting to deal with questions not within his duties. In the matter of the Parliament House competition, it appeared that Burley Griffin was only told after a decision had been reached, although in 1913 he had been put in charge of the competition. Griffin fared no better in Works contemplated or in general progress in Canberra.
 
It was claimed that Hon W O Archibald and members of the Departmental Board endeavoured to set aside Burley Griffin's design and substitute the Board's own design, an amateurish emasculated design according to the eminent architect, Colonel Vernon.
 
The Commissioner's findings were that:
 
(1) necessary information and assistance were withheld from Griffin
    and his powers were usurped by certain officers;
 
(2) Griffin and his office were ignored, his rights and duties under
    his contract denied, and false charges of default made against
    him;  

(3) the Hon W O Archibald and members of the Departmental Board
    endeavoured to set aside Griffin's design and to substitute the
    Board's own design;
 
(4) in order to prevent Mr Griffin's design from being carried out
    wilfully false estimates of its cost were given; and
 
(5) there was, in the Department, a combination including the Hon W O
    Archibald and certain officers, hostile to Mr Griffin and his
    design for the Capital City.
 
It was felt that it must have been clear to all officers in the Department that when Archibald became Minister for Home Affairs, ministerial policy was directed against the carrying out of Burley Griffin's design. The greater fault was felt to lie with the Minister as he had it in his power to cancel Griffin's contract and revert to the Departmental design.
 
The Commissioner considered the fourth charge not to be substantiated.  
 
2. Accounts and Finance at Canberra
 
There was no evidence of deliberate fraud, however there was consistent evidence of error, carelessness and incompetence. There was no efficient Ministerial control, moneys were spent without the authority or knowledge of the Minister and without any proper revision by officers of the Auditor General's Department. In voting money for Canberra, no itemisation was practised.
 
The Auditor General said in regard to money for Canberra, 'that is a Departmental system entirely outside the Audit Act; it is not necessary to the carrying out of the will of Parliament or the requirements of the Audit Act.' A separate report was put forward by the Auditor General covering this on 18 June 1917.
 
The Commissioner's recommendations were:
 
(1) future estimates for works and services at the Federal Capital
    should be submitted to Parliament in the ordinary form of sub-
    division and items;
 
(2) a complete and thorough review of the book-keeping and store
    keeping methods at Canberra; and
 
(3) there should be an adjustment of some items of expenditure by
    correction of obvious errors.
 
3. Wasteful Expenditure at Canberra
 
Works were carried out in a haphazard manner and many examples were given of wasteful expenditure.
 
4. Sewerage at Canberra
 
'The subject of this part of the Report is of very great importance because expenditure to the extent of 36,245 pounds has already been made ... and it is alleged that the whole of the money has been wasted, because the work done must always be wholly useless.'
 
5. Brick Works at Canberra
 
The Royal Commission found principally lack of judgement among the officers of the Department and their unwillingness to take advice from outside the Department.
 
6. Water Supply, Power and Miscellaneous
 
Regarding the charges of default in the design of the water supply system, the Royal Commission held the scheme to be excessively large and unnecessarily expensive. As regards the design and construction of the powerhouse, the Royal Commission could not see evidence sufficient to sustain a charge of 'negligence or want of skill on the part of the officers responsible.'
 
The miscellaneous questions dealt with the establishment of a small arms factory, a railway line and some other small matters.
  

Sources:
 
Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, Session 1914/17 Vol I, pp 1067-1112, 1917; Vol II, pp 1-78
Borchardt, Checklist of Royal Commissions, p 27

Historical agency address
Melbourne
Legislation administered
Letters Patent 14 June 1916 and 17 July 1916, Register of Patents (15 June 1916) No.6 p176;(17 July 1916) No.6 p177
Commonwealth of Australia Act No.12 of 1902, Royal Commissions Act 1902-1912