Prahran Masonic Centre - Is the State Government killing our buildings?

From WBro Damien, Editor Devotion News, Booking Manager Ringwood and Collingwood Masonic Centres

Lodge rent of $300 per meeting is regarded by many as expensive. However for a building value at $4 million, five lodges meeting 11 times a year at $290 per meeting will see a surplus of $954 per year after paying land tax. Not much to meet other taxes such as Council Rates, Fire Levies and the like, that’s before we start putting some paint on the wall or get a plumber in to clear a blocked drain - and assumes each of those lodges is not another Order meeting only five times a year in Odd or Even months.

This math explains one of the great drivers of Lodges into new high rise buildings with fixed commercial tenancies – and the death of historic Centres. Land Tax is designed to see land exploited for its highest use, yet this is not possible when we allow a historic low rise Masonic Centre to stand. Unless we start to do something about it, Land Tax might see many centres, including our own at Gipps Street, doomed. Some, like Emulation Hall in Canterbury have been saved by new owners who describe that building as a “grand and exotic building…a valuable piece of Victoria’s history.” Although the Lodge room has been stripped, much of the fabric remains – including the fascinating and distinctive facade which has been lovingly restored by enlightened owners with an appreciation for heritage architecture that many Freemasons seem to lack. In a Herald Sun article, heritage architect Nigel Lewis described Canterbury Masonic Centre as “.. a rare Victorian example of the Egyptian Revival style and freemasonry’s link to ancient Egypt.” “It reflects both the discovery of Tutankhamen’s tomb in 1922 and the return of Australian soldiers from World War 1 with Egyptian objects displaying such motifs as the scarab and winged disc…”. Of course, think of the building’s profit and loss, a decade of land tax relief would go a long way to contributing to the renovation the now sold Emulation Hall. While at least we can be grateful the building still stands and its exterior has been restored, in our hands, the historic interior would not have been lost.

Prahran Masonic Centre - side elevation

Land Tax and significant land prices are a material factor in why not a single Masonic Building is still operating within the City of Boroondara. Price creep and corresponding land tax rise is likely to hit more centres in the coming decades, with Kew, Canterbury, Camberwell, Box Hill and Blackburn all consolidated into a more viable high rise office block in Box Hill. We’ve moved out of the City of Boroodara to Whitehorse, but if you’ve noticed the land prices in Box Hill recently, this problem will follow us long into the future and further and further out into the suburbs. For us, the commercial value of a Masonic Centre has no utility to the lodges meeting in it, indeed it becomes a burden as it rises and so does our land tax bill. More than investments, our buildings stand as part of a long cultural heritage and the explicit goal of a Committee of Management like that of Collingwood Masonic Centre is never to see it sold. The value of the property is irrelevant, until the Land Tax bill arrives.

Freemasonry is an apolitical organization, yet perhaps we need to start approaching government, less rising tax bills sees the death of more historic buildings like those in Prahran and Collingwood ?

The list of buildings in Melbourne which have already succumbed to the lesser number of Freemasons unable to meet expenses and the rise of their buildings expenses, particularly land tax, is already too long. Further, even a building like Collingwood Masonic Centre with its external hirers, or Prahran with its commercial tenancies will eventually fall victim to land tax – a tax designed to pressure owners into the highest use of land – something incompatible with preserving the fabric of historic buildings and historic lodge rooms.

Owners of Masonic Buildings need to check they are receiving a Land Tax Bill in accordance to Section 73 of the Land Tax Act 2005, however more than that, rather than letting more buildings slowly being strangled by Tax, perhaps it’s time we see if there is any opportunities to see our Tax burden reduced or removed ?

(Disclaimer - the writer is not legally qualified nor an accountant. Parties need to make their own investigations and the above is not to be construed and commercial or legal advice).