‘We cannot do it alone’
The fate of Christ Church Cathedral has never been more uncertain. In the week since the revelation an extra $114 million was needed to restore the building, debate has raged about where the money might come from, if at all. In this, the wealth of the Anglican church itself looms large. How does an institution with more than $250m of assets in the Canterbury diocese alone cry poor? Michael Wright reports.
Bishop Peter Carrell has had a tough week. The letters pages of The Press have erupted into a war of words over the reinstatement of Christ Church Cathedral. A project for which he is ultimately responsible. “It didn't help my equanimity reading The Press headline on Monday morning about ‘A city divided’,” he said. “It's pretty difficult not to feel responsible at that point.”
Responsibility for the project itself lies with a charitable company – Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Ltd (CCRL) – but Carrell is its de facto face.
When the question of using the church’s own assets to help pay was raised, it was Carrell who penned a response: “[Some media reports] have raised the question of the ability of “the Anglican church” to contribute more … including some eye-wateringly large sums of money mentioned as Anglican assets without actual analysis of availability.”The numbers bear scrutiny. Together, the 55 parishes of the Anglican Diocese of Canterbury hold more than $250m in assets. According to their most recent annual returns, this includes $172m of ‘plant, property and equipment’, much of which is land and buildings. It also holds $32m in investments and nearly $12m in cash. Why not tap this wealth to help pay?
On Friday, Carrell sat down with The Press to explain. “Some [letters to the editor] have been, you know, in one sense music to our ears, and in others pretty confused thinking, perhaps, about how things actually work.”
“I don't think $250m is a lot of money,” he said. “Because it is dispersed across 55 functioning ministry units.”
Those parishes have their own costs. Gavin Holley, general manager of the Church Property Trustees, which holds and administers all property and investments in the diocese, said there were 25 other earthquake-prone buildings that needed strengthening, at a cost of about $20m. About the same again was needed on deferred maintenance.
“The cathedral's special,” Carrell said, “But it is not the only building in our diocese.” Still, its assets are significant. Why not borrow against them? Carrell said they hadn't even been to the bank.
“The ability of the parishes to contribute to paying back a mortgage is zero. So in that sense it is impossible. I would not secure the agreement of synod to enter into a major loan that we as a diocese then had to pay back from money we would not have.”
The diocese’s other large source of wealth is investment funds, though again, Carrell said, it wasn’t as simple
as getting access to money.
Holley elaborated: “Almost all of the funds that most parishes hold are special purpose,” he said. “[They] are held under special purpose trusts, and can only be applied for those purposes … Technically trust can be varied, but there are significant restrictions.”
Holley cited the cy pres doctrine, which held that while a trust deed could be altered it should be adhered to as much as possible. Repurposing, say, funds bequeathed for education for a cathedral reinstatement project could contravene that.
Which leaves the diocese, CPT, CCRL and the city of Christchurch in the same place they have been for the last week, and the last 13 years – with a stricken cathedral and no clear way to fix it.
“We cannot do it alone as a church,” Carrell said. “That is why we've had to face the issue of saying, actually it could be mothballed.” Michael Gousmett, a charities expert and vocal critic of the reinstatement funding, said the church still needed to think laterally. “We've really got to do something different. This is unique … I don't think the ratepayers of Christchurch and taxpayers should have to front up more money. Not when the church has got so much wealth. That's the crux.”
Local and central government had mostly offered platitudes since the shortfall was announced. The city council has already pledged $10m and the Government $25m. “I don't think it's for me to start talking about an expectation on the Government or the council,” Carrell said.
Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb said on Friday while philanthropy and the church itself should be the primary funders, he had written to Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Paul Goldsmith about the government assisting in a “bridging” capacity. Goldsmith said responsibility for the project sat with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: “[It] will respond to Mr Webb’s correspondence.”
CCRL aimed to raise another $26m in donations and the church was contributing $16m on top of $33m of insurance proceeds, but the $114m hole remained. The shortfall, Carrell said, would come from “those who are committed to the reinstatement of the cathedral”. It wasn’t immediately clear who those people were.
“It will be a matter of probably intense conversation once we get beyond this first week, Carrell said. “Actually, where will that money come from?”
“Our agreement in 2017 is that funds will be raised for the reinstatement of the cathedral, which came through a pressure for us to not do what we had wanted to do, which was to demolish the cathedral.” This week, the person who first wanted to do that, former Bishop Victoria Matthews, declined to say anything. “It's Bishop Peter's responsibility now. God bless.”