Trust’s hut reply Defining the boundaries on Cardwell heritage issue
IN reference to the article by John Andersen on March 8, 2011.
It quoted in very small p a r t my t e l e p hone c a l l querying statements about the National Trust made in a previous report. A claim was made that the trust would not take responsibility for the maintenance of a hut at Cardwell.
This indicates a misunderstanding of the role of the National Trust of Queensland. It is not a funding body. In fact the trust must raise funds from various sources for the maintenance and presentation of t he properties it owns. No National Trust property re- ceives dedicated annual funding from the Queensland government. At Townsville our Heritage Centre is managed by the Townsville branch of the trust, and staffed entirely by volunteers. They have raised considerable sums for restoration and continuing maintenance.
The authority responsible f o r l i s t i n g o f h e r i t a g e properties in Queensland is the Heritage Council of Queensland.
Nominations can be made to the State authority by anyone wishing to do so. There was nothing to prevent Cardwell Historical Society making such a nomi-
Dorothy Gibson-Wilde nation. If the building was nominated for listing to the State authority, and rejected because the building had been moved, it would be in accordance with world standards laid down for the conservation of heritage places. My statements in regard to the history of the hut related to the listings process.
From childhood memories, I recall a hut in Cardwell said to have belonged to Dallachy, an early botanist. It may not be the same hut, but to ensure a listing, full documentation of its history would be needed to prove conclusively the importance of the place in Queensland history.
I trust this clarifies matter.
DOROTHY M. GIBSON-WILDE, Secretary, Townsville/
NQ Branch National Trust