The following memorandum has been submitted to me for advice:

The Department of Repatriation has referred to this Department a proposal for the erection, by the State Department of Works and Trading Concerns, W.A. of additional wards and for alterations to existing Out-patients' Department, at the Public Hospital, Perth, at an estimated cost of £37,050.

These works are required as the result of an agreement made with the Government of Western Australia, by which ex-soldier patients will be treated at the Perth General Hospital, instead of at an independent institution provided by and under the management of the Repatriation Department, which desires the soldiers to be treated under civilian conditions in the ordinary hospitals, as far as practicable, and particularly to be afforded the facilities of the Out-patients' Department.

The Government of Western Australia has agreed to the project, provided that the Commonwealth will make available the necessary funds to increase the existing accommodation, which is inadequate to meet the demands that this arrangement will make upon that institution.

The estimated cost, i.e. £37,050 has been approved by the Repatriation Department, and it is proposed that the work shall be carried out by the State Government, in accordance with the plans which it has prepared and submitted.

Although the request has been referred to this Department in the above terms, it might be pointed out that this transaction is really a loan by the Commonwealth to the Government of W.A. for this specific purpose, as the State has agreed that at a later date it will reimburse the Commonwealth for the cost of the additional accommodation, either by direct payment or by debiting the sum involved to the amount to be paid to the State for transferred properties, and that, as a building project, the Commonwealth is not called upon to execute or be responsible for any of the worki

The question has arisen as to whether this transaction falls within the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913, as a work the estimated cost of which exceeds £25,000, and I am directed to ask if you would kindly submit the matter to the Attorney-General for favour of an opinion as to whether the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act, or whether the transaction, owing to its peculiar nature, is outside the scope of the provisions of that statute.

Section 15 of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act provides, inter alia, that no public work of any kind whatsoever, the estimated cost of completing which exceeds £25,000, shall be commenced unless sanctioned in the manner provided by that section.

The circumstances of the case under consideration are that the Department of Repatriation requires certain hospital accommodation for returned soldiers. An arrangement has been made whereby a Department of the State Government of Western Australia is to erect additional wards, and carry out certain alterations, at the Public Hospital, Perth. The Commonwealth is to pay the cost of the work involved, the estimate of which amounts to £37,050.

In my opinion the means whereby the work is to be carried out, viz. through the agency of the State Government is not a matter which operates to take the work out of the purview of section 15.

The understanding that the State shall at some future date reimburse the Commonwealth is probably in contemplation of a time when the accommodation is no longer required for Commonwealth purposes. This matter is not one which affects the question under consideration.

I am, therefore, of opinion that the proposal should be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.⁽¹⁾

[Vol. 17,p.97]

(1) This matter was subsequently referred back to Sir Robert Garran for further consideration, on the ground that the work when completed was not to be handed over to the Commonwealth or to be under Commonwealth control; so that the transaction was 'in substance an advance by the Commonwealth in consideration of service'.

In a short opinion dated 18 April 1921 [Vol. 17, p. 276] Sir Robert G arran advised:

‘Under these circumstances on reconsideration I think th a t the m a tte r is not within the scope of the Public Works Committee’.