Recently, I attended public meetings at Kempton and Port Arthur where locals voiced their concerns over the list of properties the Tasmania's Anglican Synod have approved for sale.

Included in this list of properties are more than half of Tasmania’s Anglican churches, 78 in total, the bulk of which are situated in the rural and regional areas of the state.

Among the listed properties are many in my electorate of Prosser.

Eight out of the nine Anglican churches in the Southern Midlands; St Michael and All Angels Church in Bothwell, nicknamed the ‘country cathedral’ it is a magnificent building and one of Bothwell’s key landmarks; St Mary’s Church, Hagley, in which is interned the body of Sir Richard Dry, the first Tasmanian born Premier of Tasmania and the first Tasmanian to be knighted; and St Alban’s Church and Burial Ground, Koonya, in which a number of victims of the Port Arthur Massacre are buried.

All of the churches listed for sale are historic and important buildings each its own unique and long history.

While I fully support and commend the Diocese’s decision to join the redress scheme, many in the community I represent are opposed to the way the Diocese intends to raise the funds through the sale of Anglican churches.

In rural and regional areas churches are an important part of the community and if a community were to lose its church it would have similar ramifications to that community losing its school, as churches play a significant role in the spiritual, mental and social fabric of small communities.

Selling churches would also have a practical negative impact too as church goers in many communities would be required to travel great distances in order to attend churches out of their jurisdiction.

This is especially apparent in rural and regional communities where public transport and infrastructure is of a lesser quality compared to metropolitan and suburban communities.

Many of those I represent query if the sale of churches is necessary in order to fund the redress scheme.

The Diocese has stated it only intends to spend 25 per cent of funds raised from the sale of churches on the redress scheme. 

This raises the question of why the required funds can’t be raised by other methods – for example, through the sale of the Diocese’s commercial properties, or by borrowing against the value of some of the Diocese’s assets.

There is also a perception amongst the community that the Diocese is using the redress scheme as an excuse to sell churches it no longer wishes to fund the upkeep for.

While I have received a response from Bishop Condie to these concerns and questions, judging by the reaction I received at Port Arthur when I read out his letter, people are far from convinced.

Any appeals against the decision to sell churches must be submitted before September 1.

I would implore all member of the public who oppose the sales to make their voices heard by contacting the Diocese.