(NEW ZEALAND)
Scoop [Wellington, New Zealand]
September 7, 2026
The Catholic Church’s National Office for Professional Standards (NOPS), responsible for developing safeguarding procedures and coordinating responses to clerical and religious sexual abuse complaints, says safeguarding in the New Zealand Catholic Church has undergone a “positive culture shift.” Survivors say that claim is contradicted by what happens when they actually come forward.
“Our members who have approached NOPS report a familiar pattern of being ignored, sidelined, delayed and left without justice,” says Richard van der Hulst, a trustee of SNAP Aotearoa. His comment follows the Wellington Archbishop Paul Martin’s recent decision not to uphold his complaint to NOPS, which alleged a coverup in the Hamilton Diocese.
Van der Hulst says Martin did not uphold his complaint on the basis that records had been destroyed by the Church and the allegation therefore could not be proven.
“Stop congratulating yourselves and start listening to survivors,” says van der Hulst.
The comments follow a 4 September CathNews New Zealand report that NOPS is seeing a “positive culture shift” through its safeguarding reviews. NOPS says conversations around safeguarding are now “warm, open and focused on support rather than compliance.”
But survivors who have engaged with NOPS, along with people familiar with its safeguarding reviews, tell a very different story.
Safeguarding is measured by what happens to people, not by reviews
NOPS points to 115 Catholic entities undergoing safeguarding reviews on a three-year cycle. But SNAP says the number of reviews completed tells the public little about whether people are actually being protected.
“A Church can have impeccable policies, sophisticated safeguarding language and endless reviews and still fail the people standing in front of it,” says SNAP leader Mary Speller.
“For survivors of institutional abuse, safeguarding is not measured by policies, training sessions or the number of reviews completed. It is measured by what happens when someone actually comes forward to report abuse,” says Speller.
SNAP also questions the independence of the Church’s safeguarding oversight.
Auckland lawyer Philip Hamlin chairs both the National Safeguarding Committee, which oversees NOPS, and the NOPS committee, while NOPS Director Virginia Noonan serves on both.
“How can anyone have confidence in the independence of safeguarding oversight when the people responsible for overseeing NOPS also hold positions within its governance structures?” asks Speller.
SNAP also says NOPS has now removed a crucial safeguarding standard that previously required Church entities to report allegations of sexual abuse to police.
“Why would it do that?” asks Speller. “If safeguarding is about protecting people, this does precisely the opposite.”
Survivors facing lawyers
Survivors who have reported abuse to NOPS say they have encountered not the “compassion, respect and fairness” NOPS says survivors can expect, but lawyers acting for NOPS.
“Imagine reporting clerical child sexual abuse to the Church because you believed the people behind its safeguarding were there to help you, only to find yourself facing their lawyers,” says Catholic theologian Dr Christopher Longhurst, who was himself a complainant through the NOPS process.
“Is that what NOPS means by a culture that is ‘warm, open and focused on support’?” asks Longhurst.
During the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care, NOPS reported that it did not use lawyers against survivors. Longhurst says his experience after the Commission was markedly different. He says he subsequently received correspondence from a lawyer instructed by NOPS after he challenged what he describes as repeated attempts by the NOPS Director to prevent scheduled investigative work from being completed.
Longhurst describes the correspondence as “hostile and obstructive”, with elements he regarded as “threatening in tone.”
Two complaints were subsequently filed with the New Zealand Law Society concerning lawyers involved in NOPS matters. The complaints raised concerns about the conduct of each lawyer and asked the Law Society to consider whether professional standards may have been breached.
“This is not what person-centred safeguarding looks like,” says van der Hulst. “It is safeguarding theatre.”
Where is the evidence?
NOPS describes its safeguarding as a “life-giving tool.” SNAP says the reality is very different.
“You cannot give life when you silence the people who have already been harmed,” says Longhurst. “You cannot claim to empower them while responding with lawyers.”
SNAP is therefore calling on NOPS to publish:
- The findings and outcomes of its safeguarding reviews;
- Anonymised complaints and outcomes data;
- Independent evaluations of its effectiveness;
- Survivor feedback on their experiences of NOPS;
- Information about how complaints against NOPS itself are independently overseen; and
- Clear information about what happens when survivors challenge NOPS decisions and processes.
“If NOPS genuinely believes it has transformed its safeguarding culture, it should have nothing to fear from transparency or independent scrutiny.”
“A culture shift is not demonstrated by what an institution says about itself. It is demonstrated by what happens to people. Until NOPS can show that difference, its claim of transformation remains just that—a claim,” says Longhurst.
About SNAP Aotearoa New Zealand
SNAP Aotearoa New Zealand is a survivor-led network supporting people who have experienced sexual assault and abuse by priests, religious and other perpetrators. SNAP advocates for survivors, challenges institutional failures, and works for truth, accountability, justice and effective safeguarding wherever abuse occurs.