I was left with a sense of diluted appreciation after reading that our mainstream media had finally shown some interest in Tasmania losing one of its most valuable youth training facilities – diluted because it hasn’t gone far enough on questions raised by the Anglican Church deciding to sell Coningham’s Montgomery Park, having just ended the long-standing and very useful role Mission Afloat Tasmania (MAT) provided there with that training.
Bishop John Harrower’s comments in the Sunday Tasmanian January 24 feature article on the camp need closer scrutiny; I felt somebody (newspaper-wise) would see a follow-up. Apparently not.
The bishop is the top man here, he holds the reins. So it’s hard to accept his response that selling the camp wasn’t his decision but the church synod’s: “It’s not my decision.” In similar vein was his assertion, in the Suntas leading news story of the same edition, looking at the rise of evangelical fundamentalism here, and accompanying it the closing of old Anglican churches, that these closures haven’t come from him but the parishes.
There’s a final clause in the church closing ordinance that declares: “Nothing contained in this ordinance shall derogate the rights and privileges of the bishop of the diocese.” And “derogate” is defined as “to detract”.
But more startling was his contention that MAT doesn’t need to own a campsite, that it’s programme will continue without a base. How will this work, considering MAT’s large flotilla (power boats, sailing boats, rowing boats, rafts, even two unique “war canoes”)? The logistics of moving and using them without a permanent base – which Montgomery Park provided so well alongside its beautiful, tranquil Little Coningham Beach setting – is intriguing. As are the questions of where to, cost involved, and if distant how this will suit future campers?
His assertion isn’t upheld by the findings and a key recommendation of the 2008 report by Tim Hawkins, commissioned by the church as a youth ministry consultation, the catalyst for what is happening now.
Yes, he did say the park should be sold. He considered it too small for contemporary needs, although many people – those running our schools and otherwise – who have enjoyed using the camp over many years, would find his conclusion very debatable.
But with the sell suggestion he also made this proposal – buy another campsite down the road for MAT. That’s Camp Coningham. Hawkins saw ownership of a camp as “strategic”, although he was quick to add that the primary call on funds was to support “youth ministry in local churches”.
He considered Camp Coningham delivered “nearly all” the advantages of the Montgomery Park location – close to Hobart (“very important for MAT”) and being on the waterfront. And he saw “huge potential” in taking over Camp Coningham.
There would be the cost (not indicated in his report, but seen as “substantial”), but there could be fund-raising for this. And that “potential”? He saw Camp Coningham as being “financially self-sustaining – indeed to be a financial contributor to the ministry of the diocese”. Note that MAT made a profit from its 2009 operations at Montgomery Park; it missed out on $100,000 from bookings it was forced to cancel for 2010.
So why didn’t the church move on his buy Camp Coningham suggestion? Perhaps a case of short-term expediency (through selling Montgomery Park) rather than looking to long-term gain (from earnings at Camp Coningham)?
Selling Montgomery Park was Hawkins main recommendation. Second was that interest on the invested capital from the sale could fund “key new workers” statewide for youth ministry. Third was “launching a vision” to raise external funds to buy Camp Coningham because he envisaged this cost would “substantially exceed” the amount raised by the Montgomery Park sale, envisaged as $1.8 million.
He also made a proposal that should concern all those Anglican worshippers who value their older established churches: he projected a statewide appeal for parishes to sell surplus land and buildings “to provide for the future of youth camping ministry”.
Of Montgomery Park the bishop said there had been “a lot” of complaints from residents about noise from the park. Surely not over happy children out on the water enjoying a healthy outdoor experience? Okay children – silent splashing! Sounds like that old NIMBY-ism.
Now I’ll turn to the concern of Lindisfarne’s Derek Haigh, who was the focus of the Suntas park feature because he’s worried about the future of the park’s lovely little chapel with its numerous memorials, including those linked to his family.
The bishop said the chapel’s fate has still to be decided, but he also gave a categorical assurance: “We’re selling the land but we wouldn’t sell that church building unless it would be used as a church. Maybe we could place it in another location.” It was, in fact, relocated from Rowella to Montgomery Park.
Sorry bishop, but you’re not just “selling the land” – there are all the buildings on it, which will be included when the church soon calls for expressions of interest in buying the park. That means a large accommodation/hall/kitchen and facilities block, a gym, office section, a workshop called the Big Shed (where children did hands-on projects to take home). And the chapel. It seems it’s a lock-stock-and-barrel deal.
What would a potential buyer do with the buildings? It would be an expensive proposition to pull them down. And would he/she/they want to have a chapel?
There’s also that extra consideration I’ve mentioned before: the park’s restricted zoning. Getting Kingborough Council to change it for any possible development is likely to present problems – and certainly take a long time.
