Billy MacTold
When Labor voted down a move in State Parliament last month seeking to save the Holy Trinity Church building, the excuse was: money. Give to one and expect hands to be out for others.
“If we make a contribution to this one then how do we say no to the next one, and the one after that, when we have 231 churches on the Heritage Register?” was how Tourism, Arts and Environment Minister Paula Wriedt presented the supposed dilemma. But this needs closer examination, because it was the sole sticking point for her government on a five-point motion moved by the Greens – a motion, moreover, fully supported by the Liberals.
The point really just sought an indication of helping, not any specific sum of money. It called “upon the State and Commonwealth governments to cooperate in contributing funding to the charitable trust being established towards the restoration of the church structure to facilitate its gradual restoration over coming years”.
It seems to me “cooperate” was the key, a seeking of in-principle support; the clause could hardly be construed as asking the minister to have her government quickly stump up a million or so (even though there are thousands of people saying Holy Trinity is a special specific case for restoration).
Consider the other points of the motion that Labor had no problem with, asking that the House:
“Acknowledges the natural deterioration of the exterior of the historic Holy Trinity Church in Hobart and the need for restoration work to be undertaken on it, estimated to cost between $2 million and $4 million. Notes the decision of the relevant diocese of the Anglican Church to deconsecrate and dispose of Holy Trinity rather than fund repairs. Recognises Holy Trinity Church as an important part of Tasmania’s unique built heritage. Believes that the building should be restored and maintained for use by members of the community, and for the appreciation of residents of Tasmania and visitors to our State, as a prominent and impressive spectacle.”
As Greens leader Peg Putt said, in hoping there would be support from all sides of Parliament: “Holy Trinity is an iconic landmark. It is currently under threat, but we must not allow it to be put into the too-hard basket.” She added: “What I am particularly concerned to put forward here is that we need to find a way to work together at all levels of government and with the community to restore this grand, convict-built, heritage-listed place.”
This was her personal observation of Holy Trinity’s inspirational impact: “I am lucky enough to stay in West Hobart when I am in Hobart for business and I look down from my backyard onto Holy Trinity Church, standing on the hill in North Hobart, lit up of an evening. It lifts my heart to see that magnificent building and to feel that connection back to the earliest days of convict and European settlement in Tasmania.”
A feeling shared by many.
Minister Paula previously criticised the Anglican Church for not consulting with her government about closing Holy Trinity, and again covered this in her parliamentary remarks: “Through that process, the Anglican Church have not approached the State Government at any time for funding for the restoration of Holy Trinity, nor, I am advised, have they approached the Australian Government for assistance.”
To her it was clear the Anglican Church wasn’t going to change its mind on the closure decision. What would have been her reaction had there been this consultation?
Interesting here were her concluding comments when she said time on the debate did not permit amending the contentious fifth point – “or I would certainly amend it”. In what way? Perhaps substituting the word “finding” for “contributing? This offers the prospect of her now presenting something acceptable to Labor on this to Parliament, and from it achieving full cross-party support for the HT cause.
If the minister feels she is unable to do this, perhaps it could be left to the Libs. Michael Hodgman said: “We are very sad at the attitude of the Government. Surely the Government could have said, ‘We’ll have a look at the motion’, but it appears they are actually going to vote against it.”
And they did – all of it. Not good enough Minister Paula, not good enough Premier Paul.
