The Roman Catholic Church and Indigenous Land Rights in by yiq68006


									           The Roman Catholic Church and Indigenous Land Rights in Australia and New Zealand

                                              Dominic O’Sullivan
                                                PhD Candidate
                                 Department of Political Science and Public Policy
                                             University of Waikato

This paper considers the changing responses of the Roman Catholic Church to indigenous land rights in Australia
and New Zealand. It argues that the Church’s teachings have largely remained consistent, but that the Second
Vatican Council and political changes in both countries from the late 1960s onwards have required the Church to
more consistently and comprehensively advocate its support for land rights in the public arena. It also considers the
contrasting approaches to land rights between the Australian and New Zealand Churches, within the context of
reconciliation, and economic and political development.
The Roman Catholic Church has always had a body of teaching that considers illegitimate the usurpation of
indigenous land rights by successive governments in both Australia and New Zealand. However, during the
eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there were only limited demonstrations of the Church’s
theoretical objection to land alienation. During the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the Church began to
re-focus its understanding of its place in the world and a more comprehensive and consistently argued approach to
indigenous land rights developed. This development coincided with political changes, which provided an
environment more conducive to the Church’s advocacy of its teachings. While there are differences between the
Australian and New Zealand experiences, there are sufficient parallels to argue that it was political, not theological
change which primarily accounts for the Church’s recent advocacy of indigenous land rights. It can also be argued
that different political contexts in each country have required different emphases from the Church on land rights as
they relate to reconciliation and economic and political development.
The Basis of Land Rights
The Church’s recognition of indigenous land rights is based on the belief that indigenous cultures should not be
undermined, which although not consistently applied, was taught by Paul II in 1537 and the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith in 1659 (O’Sullivan, 1999: 605). More recently the Church has taught a right to acquire and
hold land on the grounds of first occupancy (Pius XI, 1931:52). Ownership based on first occupancy arises because
‘first occupancy transgresses no existing law’. The property’s acquisition ‘does not deprive or injure another’ (Egan,
1986: 57).
The right to exist as a distinct culture requires the upholding of property rights, which in turn implies a right to self
determination. Leo XIII drew a connection between property rights and self determination when he taught that it is
through property that the head of a family fulfils the duty to provide for the family and that because it is the 'head's
duty and responsibility to care for his/per family, the Church proclaims the right to transmit property to children
(Egan, 1986: 58).
The Catholic belief that cultures should not just be preserved, but should be promoted and upheld for their
contribution to the salvation of their members also has political implications, which the Church has come to
Within the context of contemporary land rights debates, the Australian Church in particular has adopted the
argument that a further right to land arises from its religious significance to indigenous peoples. The religious
significance of land therefore makes land rights a matter of religious freedom, just as important to self-determination
as economic and broader cultural freedom.
The Nineteenth Century
In the nineteenth century, one of the few Catholic challengers to government aboriginal policies was Sydney’s first
Archbishop, John Bede Polding, who was influential in the preparation of the Australian Bishops pastoral letter on
aborigines in 1869. The letter discussed the responsibilities a community calling itself Christian had to Aborigines,
and said that the Church in particular had a responsibility to do what it could to restore the dignity of aboriginal
In spite of the forceful tone of the 1869 pastoral letter there remained some within the hierarchy of the Church
whose judgement of the political climate impeded a fuller and more consistent response from the Church. In
describing settler hostility towards Aborigines, the Bishop of Maitland gave governments undue credit for trying to
end the abuses, which he described:

       the bishops of the Plenary Council protest against the cruel persecution, which the Aborigines suffer,
       particularly in the northern portions of Australia, from colonists, who often times spare neither sex nor age,
       but pursue them even unto death. The fathers of the Council make this protest the more confidently, since
       they know that, in more recent times, nothing has been left undone on the part of the government to put an
       end to this iniquitous conduct of some (Bishop of Maitland in O'Farrell, 1969:124).

To suggest that nothing had been left undone at a time when children were being forcibly removed from their
families and at a time when Aboriginal people did not enjoy the full rights of citizenship was an exaggeration. It was
an exaggeration that ensured that for the Church much would remain left undone in terms of meeting its obligations
to Aboriginal people.
There were individual missionaries who worked hard to ameliorate the aboriginal condition, the priest Duncan
McNab, for example, who lobbied actively for land rights in Queensland during the 1870s and 1880s 9Livingston,
1979: 184-186). However, the pastoral letter in 1869 was the only intervention on behalf of indigenous peoples from
the highest level of the Church until 1972. Like the 1869 letter, that of 1971 was only issued after pressure from the
Holy See (Prowse, 1995).
In New Zealand, also, the Church compromised its responsibilities to the indigenous people because of its inability
to recognise political discrimination against Maori.
That the barrier for the Church was judgement, not principle, was evident in James Durning’s homily in Wellington
in 1962:
          Christ is still hungry; he is still thirsty. He is still a stranger; he is still in prison. If we love him, we will
          come to help him, no matter in what part of this world he may be. There are, of course some who refuse to
          see Christ in the members of races other than their own...There are racial problems in the world – real
          problems – and it does no service to truth or charity to minimise them. But any solution is wrong which
          brands a man as inferior just because he belongs to a certain race, or denies him his rights as a son of God
          with an immortal soul redeemed by Christ and destined for glory. These problems do not, thank God, exist
          in this country (Durning, 1962).
Durning had had several years’ experience working among Maori, and ironically vociferously argued for greater
Maori independence during the 1980s.
In 1934, James Liston, Bishop of Auckland failed to dismiss one of the more subtle attempts to undermine Maori
culture that successive governments had adopted. In a report on missionary work in his diocese, Liston commented
on a government agricultural policy designed to undermine collective land title:
       for the past few years the government is making a big effort to settle the Maoris on their own farms, and not
       as hitherto, as family or tribal owners. All this will tend to make the Maori more and more adopt European
       ways of living and make the family more than the tribe the centre of their life (Liston, 1934).

While there was nothing contrary to Catholic teachings in the encouraging of farm settlement and development in
itself, there were at least two points arising from the specific circumstances of the policy that might have concerned
a bishop. The objective of having the Maori 'more and more adopt European ways of living' was the objective of
assimilation, a policy that the Church did not accept. Even at a time when notions of Maori cultural inferiority
influenced Catholic thinking, assimilation was still understood as wrong by the New Zealand Church. Secondly, the
efforts to settle Maori on their own farms would not have been necessary if governments had not imposed land
alienation. The policy was therefore a response to earlier measures that were contrary to the Church's beliefs.
The Holy See has consistently been more advanced in its thinking on aboriginal land rights than have the local
churches in Australia and New Zealand. This partly reflects the nature of the Church’s hierarchy and decision
making processes. It also reflects the advantage that the Holy See has by virtue of its distance from the day to day
political circumstances and pressures of specific communities. Because the Holy See is physically and politically
detached from the immediate context in which aboriginal aspirations must be advanced, it has the opportunity to
develop its teachings purely as religious ones based on theological assessment. Local churches, however, are
constrained by the need to ensure that they are not perceived as taking overtly political positions. The difficulty the
Church faces in dealing with political issues, which, are within its competence to consider when they also contain a
religious dimension was explained by Henry:
           The Catholic Church has always faced a dilemma when it came to deal with politics. As it conceives itself,
           the Church is the people of God, a divinely established community on a pilgrimage through history to
           eternal life. As such, it sees secular realities- rise and perish with the tides of history, and it views these
           realities… ‘In the light of eternity’ with a certain detachment. On the other hand, the Church cannot but

         require a deep involvement in the concrete historical action of which human life is composed (Henry, 1984:

The Second Vatican Council and a new Political Climate

Changing political thought and new interpretations of the Church's place in the public arena, beginning in the 1960s
saw changes in Church attitudes and approaches towards Australasia's indigenous peoples. The entry of the
Commonwealth into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the granting of land rights to Northern Territory
Aborigines and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 helped establish a political climate more sympathetic to Church
thinking. These developments challenged the Church to consider more seriously its responsibility to advocate the
social implications of its teachings.
In New Zealand the 1984 amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act had widespread ramifications for Maori New
Zealanders. The amended Act empowered the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate Treaty grievances dating back to
1840. This paved the way for iwi – tribes - to seek recompense for past injustices with the hope that settlement of
their grievances would facilitate the restoration of an economic base, which had so obviously diminished among
many Maori communities. There have now been a number of settlements which have contributed to that objective.
In 1996 the election of fifteen Maori people to Parliament from all major political parties and the appointment of
three of those to ministerial positions further demonstrated the changing political environment. Maori parliamentary
and ministerial representation was further enhanced after the 1999 general election.
In Australia the aftermath of the Mabo and Wik decisions of the High Court, in particular the Howard government’s
attempt to weaken native tile, provided a political context in which the Church identified a moral imperative to
promote the religious ideas that were relevant to the debate. Significantly for the Church, the native title debate took
place within the broader context of reconciliation –an important religious concept - between black and white
The Church paralleled the political developments from the 1960s onwards with institutional and pastoral measures,
which constituted new interpretations of its role, rather than new theology. In 1968 the Australian Bishops'
Conference established the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. The Commission was created in response to
the Second Vatican Council's call for local Churches to pay greater attention to issues of justice and peace within
their communities. The establishment of the organisation within the Church implied a renewed commitment towards
promoting religious ideas when they were relevant to the politics of the world.
The politics of the world are important for the Church because:
          Since the Church lives in history, she ought to scrutinize the signs of the times and interpret them in the
          light of the Gospel. Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees them not satisfied,
          she wishes to help them attain their full flowering, and that is why she offers men what she possesses as her
          characteristic attribute: a global vision of man and of the human race (Paul VI, 1967).

The argument that rather than working to set the agenda, the Church has waited for governments to do so, then
espoused its values, was supported by the submission of the Commission for Justice Peace and Development and Te
runanga o te Hahi Katorika ki Aotearoa to the Parliamentary Select Committee considering the Treaty of Waitangi
Amendment Bill 1988:
        as Treaty of Waitangi related issues became of broader public concern, the commission and other church
        bodies in 1982 began a deeper study of... the place of the Treaty in the life of the country and the Church
        (JPD and TRHKA, 1988).

This observation reflects why it can be inappropriate for the Church to avoid entering debate until an issue is
politically fashionable. The submission noted that its interest in the Bill came from a 'reflection on Gospel values
and the social teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church' (JPD and TRHKA, 1988). Therefore why had the
Church waited for these issues to become of 'broader public concern' before responding? Did a political commitment
to 'Treaty of Waitangi related issues' lead to the reflection on the Gospel and Catholic teachings in order to find
religious support for a political agenda, or did religious reflection lead to the conclusion that the Treaty of Waitangi
could be used to further the Church's religious objectives in the political arena?
In the Australian context Prowse argued that the Church's 'habits of forgetfulness' towards Aborigines were
challenged, not because of a religious decision to more actively promote Church teachings in the 1960s and 1970s,
but because of:
        the influence of mining discoveries in Australia, the maturation and extension of international human rights
        declarations, the pastoral implications of the Vatican II council documents and post-Conciliar documents, the

       brief but positive greeting of Paul VI to the Aborigines in Sydney... raised the awareness of Aboriginal rights,
       especially land rights, in the Australian Catholic church (Prowse, 1995: 604).

Paul VI's contribution to the increasing awareness of aboriginal rights was significant because it was a call to
Australia's Bishops to end one hundred years of silence, which they did with a pastoral letter in August 1971, which
       the importance of the efforts being made by churches, government departments and social welfare agencies to
       acknowledge and promote human rights and social progress for the Aboriginal people... So that the
       Aboriginal people may enjoy a standard of living in keeping with their dignity as Australian citizens and the
       Christian concept of man (ACBC, 1971).

In 1972 the Bishops were even more forthright:
      it is as obvious as a tree on the Nullarbor that Aborigines have land rights... ownership, employment,
      housing, education and bargaining power are also paramount rights. This is the track to the human liberty and
      dignity which Australia owes her people (ACBC, 1972).

The 1972 statement is a demonstration of the relationship between religious objectives and political means, which
the Church had begun to emphasise. Human liberty and dignity were the objectives, while the political goals of
ownership, employment, housing, education and bargaining power were the means of achieving the Church's
religious imperatives. However, the Bishops had waited for the secular political process to place these issues on the
political agenda, as political aspirations, before being prepared to pursue them themselves as religious aspirations.
In 1997 the Australian and New Zealand Churches participation in land rights debates was endorsed in a Holy See
document on land reform which:
          encourages us to speak out strongly on social justice matters,                         and this includes
          the effect of government policy on both indigenous and non-indigenous people in
          rural areas (Manning,           1998).

The Church and 1990s Land Rights Debates

Australian Church contributions to the native title debates during the 1990s have emphasised land rights as central to
the reconciliation of black and white Australia. Reconciliation is a religious concept requiring the acknowledgement
of a wrong doing, and a demonstrable commitment to address the impact of that wrong doing, in return for the
forgiveness of the aggrieved party. The New Zealand Church has not emphasised reconciliation as overtly as the
Australian Church, because although it is not usually described as such, the principles of reconciliation are evident
in, for example the settlement of land grievances allowed under the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985,
which allowed the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate grievances dating back to 1840 (Treaty of Waitangi Amendment
Act 1985).
In 1995, for example, the Crown reached a 'full and final' settlement with the Waikato people over unjust war and
land confiscation in the nineteenth century. The Waikato settlement was the first agreement between the Crown and
an iwi under the law introduced in 1985. The settlement provided for the return of confiscated land and for monetary
compensation. The Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, began with an unreserved apology to the Waikato
people. The importance of symbolism was further demonstrated by the Act, at Waikato's request, being given royal
assent by the Queen, rather than the Governor General. The apology was for the war between the Crown and
Waikato in 1863, and for the loss of life resulting from what the Crown acknowledged was an 'invasion'. The Crown
apologised for the confiscation of land and its 'crippling impact on the welfare, economy and development of
Waikato' (Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, Part I Section 6, subsection 3). The Act accepted
Waikato's contention that 'as land was taken, land should be returned' and that 'the money is the acknowledgment by
the Crown of their crime' (Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, Part I Section 6, subsection 4). This
indication that the Crown accepted the legitimacy of reparation is an important contrast with the Howard
government’s approach to an apology to the members of the stolen generations, for example.
The Waikato apology accepted a relationship between Waikato's dispossession and their exclusion from the benefits
that European settlers and their descendants gained from that dispossession:
       the Crown recognises that the lands confiscated in the Waikato have made a significant contribution to the
       wealth and development of New Zealand, whilst the Waikato tribe has been alienated from its lands and
       deprived of the benefit of its lands (Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, Part I Section 6,
       subsection 5).

The apology, although not using the word reconciliation, also reflected its principles and objectives in the statement
      the Crown seeks on behalf of all New Zealanders to atone for these, acknowledged injustices, so far as that is
      now possible, and... to begin the process of healing and to enter a new age... of co-operation (Waikato
      Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, Part I Section 6, subsection 6).

The importance of an apology to reconciliation was reflected in further grievance settlements. In its settlement with
Ngai Tahu, for example, the Crown acknowledged that it:
      acted unconscionably and in repeated breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with
      Ngai Tahu in the purchases of Ngai Tahu land (Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, Part 1I Section 6,
      subsection 2).

The apology also recognised the economic and social impact of its actions upon Ngai Tahu and expressed the
Crown's desire for reconciliation. The Waikato and Ngai Tahu Acts have shown that the criteria for reconciliation
can be met in the relationships between governments and indigenous peoples. When set alongside John Howard’s
refusal to say ‘sorry’, it can be seen why the Australian Church has considered it necessary to more forcefully and
overtly promote reconciliation, than has been the case with the New Zealand Church.
Although the Crown acknowledged that it had been wrong in confiscating land and going to war with Waikato, the
Church had not challenged the Crown at the time. Jean Baptiste Pompallier, Bishop of Auckland, had called for
peace, but suggested an unconditional Waikato surrender as the means of securing that objective. While
Pompallier’s belief was partly motivated by his consideration that it was in Waikato’s best interests to surrender
because he did not believe that they could win the war, he did not at any stage challenge the propriety of the
government action. This was in spite of the Church teaching that it was within his competence to do so (O’Sullivan,
1999: 605-606).
The response of Francis Redwood, Archbishop of Wellington, to Maori resistance generally, demonstrated an
inablility to interpret the alienation of Maori land as a religious, as well as a political issue:
          From the year 1868, the Maoris were unwilling to listen to their pastors, and the latter, called away to
          minister to the rapidly increasing Europeans, left the Maoris to their insubordination, and attended to the
          souls of the Europeans Redwood, 1887).

Both the Australian and New Zealand Churches argue that indigenous land rights should be recognised on the
grounds of justice. In the Catholic tradition justice can be owed on the basis of entitlement or need. Often justice
based on need arises because justice based on entitlement has been denied. The indigenous need for a
disproportionate share of welfare benefits, for example, has largely arisen through the conscious limiting of access
to traditional economic resources, with land being the most significant example.
Patrick Power, Auxiliary Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, has argued that land claims in Australia should be
considered on the basis of an entitlement based concept of justice because:
          it puts aboriginal claims to land on an equal footing to those of other Australians insofar as they do not rely
          on or require any paternalistic or compassionate response on the part of mainstream Australia (Power,
          1997: 4).

An entitlements based approach to the settlement of land claims is a stronger moral and political foundation on
which to secure indigenous development.
Land rights and Economic Development
Particularly in Australia, but also in New Zealand some have inferred that indigenous ownership of land is a barrier
to national economic development. The Church has refuted this because:
         It is misleading to the people of our nation … (to suggest) that a choice must be made between Native
         Title and the country’s economic and rural development (Vickie, 1997).

Power has further argued that there are commercial examples that suggest ‘working with aboriginal people is
likely to be far more advantageous than working against them’ (Power, 1997: 9).
There are examples from New Zealand, such as the Sealord fisheries arrangement between the Treaty of Waitangi
Fisheries Commission and Brierley Investments, which indicate that there are mutual benefits in
companies working        with   indigenous    peoples. For indigenous peoples the opportunities for developing
large-scale commercial ventures are impeded by size and relatively limited financial resources. Therefore joint

ventures are all the more important. Access to commercial opportunities enhances the prospect of economic self
determination. Indigenous peoples have a vested interest in working with and not against economic development,
which does not in itself have to compromise traditional lifestyles and religious practices. For indigenous Australians
Power has argued, and the same applies to Maori, that:
         engagement is the       key. Aboriginal people are looking for partnership, not paternalism. Successful
         relationships, whether they be in business, families or local communities, or in any sphere of life, are built
         upon corporation rather than confrontation. If the globalise economy has anything to teach us about how we
         ought to relate to one another, it is that interdependence is the reality in which we live. No man, woman,
         community or nation can exist as an island, refusing to engage with those around them. That is a recipe for
         failure (Power, 1997: 10).

Criticisms of the Church
There has been a view, advanced by the One Nation Party, for example, that the recognition of indigenous land
rights gave special privileges to aboriginal peoples and gave them a status superior to that of white Australians.
The Church was sometimes chastised for supporting this ‘racist’ and ‘divisive’ objective. These criticisms reflected
neither the nature of the recognition of land rights, nor the Church’s interest in the subject. For example, in 1986
the bishops wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, which requested that aboriginal landowners be
given at least the same protection from mining on their lands without consent as other similar landholders. Giving
the same rights to aborigines as other landholders was also the objective of the Church’s submissions on the Native
Title Amendment Bill 1998. It was Hanson’s One Point Plan for Native Title – its extinguishment – that was racist
and divisive because it sought to remove the High Court acknowledged common law rights of one racial group and
give them to another without compensation.
In a joint statement with the leaders of other churches Towards Reconciliation in Australian Society, which was
issued at the time of Australia’s bicentennial celebrations, a bleak analysis of the aboriginal condition and the nature
of aboriginal/white relations was offered:
         we are said to have been living together for two hundred years. Yet ignorance, prejudice and discrimination
         have divided us. In these two hundred years, many aborigines have lost life, land, language, culture and
         dignity.      Many European Australians have never met or known aboriginal Australians…                     we
         Australians, aboriginal and not, can not be reconciled until we know each other, appreciate each other, our
         cultures and our perspectives on life. We must acknowledge and own our past, even the injustices…
         aborigines need an ensured, empowered place in our public life              (Australian Church Leaders Joint
         Statement, January 1988).

The Joint Statement can be used to rebut Hanson’s argument that acknowledging the particular rights of aboriginal
peoples divides Australia. If Australia is racially divided it is because aborigines do not have an ‘empowered place’
in society. They are excluded from mainstream white society; while at the same time denied access to the basic
foundations of there own cultures. It is too simple to argue that a society in which aborigines exist on the fringes is
united and that policies aimed at restoring traditional cultures will divide it. Instead the Church leaders’ position that
‘reconciled, we can answer the longing of all to belong’ is a more likely foundation on which to base a nation that is
not racially divided.
The Australian Church has had to defend itself against suggestions that it has ‘sided’ with aborigines, against
patoralists and miners.
The alarmist criticisms of the Church’s arguments are highlighted when contrasted with the ideas of the former
Maori missionary priest James Durning who wrote to the Dominion newspaper in 1985:
          could I congratulate you on your editorial on the Maori language… you pointed out that a culture cannot
          survive without a language. I would like to carry the matter further to say that cultures and language in their
          turn whither slowly unless they have some form of corporealisation, a land base.
          Zionism enshrining the Hebrew culture and language (but only as a written language) was completely
          revived and the language resurrected as a spoken language when the state of Israel came into being. No
          ambitious programme is here proposed, but that it is necessary to aim at the building up of a Maori Vatican
          state… with Maoritanga fully abreast of modern developments… kohanga reo, a Maori university, a Maori
          bishop etc. are dispersed elements which, if united… in one place, drawn there, by schemes like the Basque
          Mondragon schemes, could function as a heart for Maoritanga in its state of dispersion. History shows that
          civilisations whither when they lose their land base. Israel shows what happens when they gain one (The
          Dominion, 22 July 1985).

Durning’s proposal was consistent with the general principles of autonomy and self determination, which are the
underlying themes of the Church’s interest in land rights. The political difficulty with Durning’s proposal is the
likely response of the Pakeha majority, who may respond with the not uncommon cry of separatism. Also, Maori
social and political structures make its realisation highly unlikely. In spite of the commitment and goodwill which
has surrounded attempts at political unity since the mid-1800s, an enduring and sufficiently strong united Maori
political structure to lead and manage such an entity has not been achieved.
However, from both Catholic and Treaty of Waitangi perspectives Durning’s idea is theoretically legitimate,
although on an iwi rather than national basis. Indeed, a possible model for limited Maori self government existed in
New Zealand, but was never firmly established, between 1852 and 1986. Section 71 of the Constitution Act 1852
permitted the establishment of native districts in areas where the population was largely Maori. The Act provided
for traditional laws and customs to have recognition and status as it were not enjoyed nationally. It is possible that
a reorganisation of local government boundaries and legislation could see local authorities used as vehicles to
achieve greater Maori self-determination in those parts of New Zealand which maintain predominantly Maori
populations. A radical shift in prevailing Pakeha political thought would have to occur before such an idea could
gain moment.
In both Australia and in New Zealand the Roman Catholic Church generally overlooked the advocacy of the land
rights that it officially taught indigenous peoples could claim. While the circumstances and contexts are different
there are sufficient similarities between the two countries to suggest that the changed approach from the 1960s
onwards occurred because the Church changed its approach, rather than its thinking. The different political contexts,
however, explain the different emphases that the Australian and New Zealand churches have given to land rights
through reconciliation and economic an political development.

Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference. (1971). Racism. Pastoral Letter, August 1971.

Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference. (1972). Aborigines. Pastoral Letter, August 1972.

Catholic Commission for Justice Peace and Development and Te Runanga o te Hahi Katorika ki Aotearoa. (1988).
Submission to the Parliamentary Maori Affairs Select Committee on The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill 1988.

Durning, J (1962).. Unchristian Racialism Denounced.. The Text of a Homily Preached at St. Mary of the Angels
Church, Wellington, 1 February 1962. In The Marist Messenger. Wellington. Society of Mary.

Egan, John (1986). The Moral Basis of Land Rights. In Brennan, Frank, Daniel, William, Egan, John, and Honner,
John (eds.). Finding Common Ground: An Assessment of the Bases of Aboriginal Land Rights (2nd ed.). Blackburn,
Victoria. Collins Dove.

Henry, Hugh (1984). Between Gospel and Policy: The Catholic and Social Problems. In Brennan, Geoffrey and
Williams, John K., Chaining Australia: Church Breaucracies and Political Economy. St Leonard’s, New South
Wales. The Centre for Independent Studies.

Liston, James (1934). Bishop of Auckland. Observations Re The Maori Race. Report to His Excellency the
Apostolic Delegate, Sydney, 1 October 1934. Auckland Catholic Diocesan Archive. LIS 106-1.

Livingston, Kevin. Voices in the Wilderness: Apologists for the Aborigines in the Past. In The Australasian
Catholic Record, Vol LVI No. 2, April 1979. Manly, New South Wales.

Manning, Kevin (1998). Media Release, The Vatican Calls for Land Reform. Sydney. Australian Catholic Social
Justice Council.

Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

O’Farrell, Patrick (1969). Documents in Australian Catholic History: Volume II 1884-1968. Melbourne. Geoffrey

O’Sullivan, Dominic (1999). The Roman Catholic Church, The Treaty of Waitangi and Maori Policy. In Brookfield,
John. Proceedings of the 199 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference. Sydney.
Australasian Political Studies Association Conference.

Paul VI. (1967).Populorum Progressio. Vatican City.
(2 March, 1998).

Pius XI (1931). Quadragesimo Anno. Vatican City
(2 March, 1998).

Power, Patrick (1997). Chairman, Australian Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Social Welfare. Justice and Wik. In
CommonWealth. Sydney. Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission.

Prowse. Christopher C. (1995). Racist Attitudes Towards Aboriginal Australians in the Light of Contemporary
Catholic Concepts of Social Sin and Conversion. Doctoral Dissertation in Moral Theology. Rome. Pontifical Lateran

The Dominion. 22 July, 1995. Wellington.

Towards Reconciliation in Australian Society (1988). Sydney. Australian Church Leaders Joint Statement. (1988)..

Vickie, Stancea (1997). Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Land Fund., Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. Social Action Committee of the Leaders of
Catholic Religious Orders in Victoria Submission No. AB47.

Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985.

Waikato Raupatu Settlements Act 1995.


To top