OPINION: Dr. Christopher Longhurst KSO
The National Office for Professional Standards (NOPS) claims that safeguarding conversations within the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand are now “warm, open and focused on support rather than compliance”, and that its review programme demonstrates a “positive culture shift”. A close reading of several review reports suggests otherwise. What emerges is not evidence of transformed safeguarding culture, but a review framework that appears unable to determine whether meaningful change has occurred.
A REVIEW DESIGNED TO AVOID THE TRUTH
Each report begins with disclaimers so broad they raise questions about the process itself. They are not audits. They are not investigations. Reviewers did not independently verify the material supplied. Reports are provided “as is”, their conclusions may change, and they are “not to be relied upon by third parties”.
These disclaimers are not administrative footnotes — they are acknowledgements of limitation. A review that does not verify information cannot credibly demonstrate cultural improvement. At best, it can confirm that policies appear satisfactory based solely on material provided by the organisation being reviewed.
AN “EXTERNAL” REVIEW?
NOPS describes its reports as “external reviews”. Yet NOPS is an office of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, part of the same ecclesial structure that governs the Church’s safeguarding framework. When one Church body reviews another within the same system, the process may be procedurally independent, but it is not institutionally external. Independence matters if the goal is to determine whether culture has genuinely changed.
A REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS, NOT BEHAVIOUR
The reports do not examine safeguarding practice — what happens when harm occurs, how concerns are handled, or how people experience the system. Nor do they assess culture under pressure. Instead, they focus almost entirely on documentation, policies, and stated procedures.
In one case, a self‑review written by a single individual formed a significant portion of the material considered. The two NOPS reviewers were unnamed, their expertise undisclosed, and their selection unexplained. Interviewees were described only as “staff”, with no transparency about who selected them or why.
A review conducted by unnamed assessors, interviewing an undisclosed group of participants, cannot provide a transparent basis for judging safeguarding culture.
CLAIMS THAT CONTRADICT PARTICIPANTS’ ACCOUNTS
Some statements in the reports conflict with accounts from people present. One report states that safeguarding was addressed at a staff hui “in the form of reflection on the Royal Commission report”. Witnesses say the Royal Commission report was neither introduced nor discussed.
Another report states that staff “engaged positively with this review”. Yet only a selected and undisclosed group of staff was invited to participate, and the basis for that selection was never explained.
When a report’s account of events is disputed by participants, its reliability is inevitably called into question.
ASSERTIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE
The reports offer confident conclusions with little supporting evidence: safeguarding is “well embedded”; staff “apply safeguarding principles”; the organisation has “designated safeguarding officers”; “all members… were confident about who to go to”.
The reports do not explain how these conclusions were reached. Listing complaints mechanisms does not demonstrate that they work. Policies show what an organisation says it will do — not what happens when someone actually needs protection.
NUMBERS THAT MEAN LITTLE
The reports assign numerical scores against various standards without explaining what those numbers represent, what benchmarks they reflect, or what evidence supports each rating. Numbers may create an appearance of objectivity, but without transparent methodology they tell the reader very little.
A BOX‑TICKING EXERCISE PRESENTED AS CULTURAL CHANGE
Much of each report consists of tables of ticked boxes. Compliance on paper does not demonstrate safeguarding culture. The real test comes when concerns are raised, difficult questions asked, or individuals come forward with experiences of harm.
When questions were raised about why only selected staff were involved, no satisfactory answer followed. The same occurred when questions were raised about the composition of the review team. Avoiding reasonable questions is not evidence of cultural change.
THE MOST ALARMING OMISSION: THE POLICE
The reports contain no reference to reporting abuse or serious harm to Police. Internal procedures are described in detail; external accountability is absent. Safeguarding systems are strongest when allegations of abuse are subject to independent scrutiny.
The fundamental question is straightforward: when serious allegations arise, is the priority protection and independent accountability — or internal management?
AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT AGREES: “IT’S A COMPLIANCE REVIEW”
Willow Duffy, CEO of Safeguarding Children, independently reviewed one NOPS report and concluded that it functioned as a compliance review rather than a practice review. Although the report’s stated objective was to identify “actual and potential practices”, it delivered a mapping exercise against standards rather than an assessment of what staff and leaders actually do.
Standards are what organisations are expected to have. Practice is what people actually experience. On that measure, the reports offer little evidence at all.
WHAT THESE REVIEWS ACTUALLY SHOW
None of this suggests that staff within the agencies reviewed lack commitment to safeguarding. The question is whether the review process itself can demonstrate that safeguarding is effective.
These reports were produced within the Church’s own safeguarding system, based on information supplied by the organisations under review, assessed by reviewers whose identities and qualifications remain undisclosed, and measured against benchmarks lacking transparent methodology. In some instances, the reports’ own statements appear to conflict with participants’ accounts.
If the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand wants its safeguarding reviews to command public confidence, it needs a higher standard of transparency: independent assessors, transparent participant selection, publicly available reports, evidence supporting every rating, and a clear commitment to external accountability when allegations arise.
Until reviews can test culture rather than merely document compliance, claims of transformation remain unproven.
At present, the NOPS reviews do not answer the central question: what happens when policies are tested? Instead, they rely on unverified information, opaque methodologies, undisclosed participant selection, and conclusions that cannot be independently tested.
To put it bluntly: these reports read less like independent evaluations and more like an institution marking its own homework — and calling the result reform.
2 Comments
The Catholic Church has for decades perhaps more, had one objective in ALL circumstances, and that is to protect the ‘good’ name of the institution and not cause ‘scandal’ anong the members. Well that scandal was caused by thousands of clerical (religious congregations included) perpetrators worldwide, who raped children with no consequences. Now groups like NOPS are ‘covers’ once again minimising and attempting to mitigate responsibility. Unfortunately there are NOPS like groups in most countries with similar objectives, protection and more protection but NOT of the survivors. NOPS (and like groups) are no more than window dressing, and a ‘legal’ arms length attempt to remove the ‘dirty laundry’ from the hands of those in charge, those who could if they wished handle the abuse situation as Jesus may have. It’s ‘cleaner’ to leave it in the hands of high profile, highly paid legal eagles whose role is to advise groups like NOPs. I need not tell you who ‘foots’ the legal bill do I?
Seriously? Is NOPS actually measuring safeguarding culture or how well the Catholic Church can demonstrate compliance with its own framework? As this article argues, compliance with procedures is not the same thing as demonstrating effective safeguarding in practice. Calling for independent assessors, transparent methodology, evidence behind ratings, and clear external accountability isn’t an unreasonable demand. Safeguarding should not depend on trust alone. It should be capable of scrutiny. NOPS needs to pack up and go home!