Bob Edlin: Iwi ensure respect is shown to a crash site....

Iwi ensure respect is shown to a crash site – but how are the beliefs of crash victims and their families respected?

About this time a week ago, the New Zealand Police released a statement to report that two people had died in a helicopter crash north of Wellington earlier in the day.

Work was under way to recover the deceased and to examine the crash scene, near the Battle Hill regional park.

The statement included:

Police would like to thank our partner agencies who assisted in the response this morning, including Maritime New Zealand’s Rescue Coordination Centre, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Westpac Rescue Helicopter, Civil Aviation Authority and Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Next day an update was issued.

Police were working to formally confirm the identities of the victims and Civil Aviation Authority investigators had completed their preliminary scene examination.

An expression of gratitude this time was extended to include two iwi.

Police would again like to thank our partners who assisted in the response and recovery phases of the operation, including Maritime New Zealand’s Rescue Coordination Centre, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Westpac Rescue Helicopter, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Atiāwa ki Whakarongotai, Civil Aviation Authority and Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Hmm. What help had the iwi provided?

PoO emailed the Police Media Team to ask:

What was the assistance provided by Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Atiāwa ki Whakarongotai?

A week later we have received no answer – nor the courtesy of an acknowledgement that our request had been received.

Google was not so coy and said:

… local iwi have been integral to the response and recovery efforts.

Direct Support and Recovery: Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Atiāwa ki Whakarongotai were officially thanked by the NZ Police for their assistance during the response and recovery phases of the operation.

Cultural Protocols: Iwi provided essential support by honouring cultural protocols and integrating tikanga into the handling of the remains of the pilot and passenger.

Whānau Support: They have been involved in providing cultural and emotional support to the families and whānau of the deceased contractors.

Co-Pilot similarly said the iwi “were part of the coordinated response team assisting Police and other agencies at the crash site”.

Their presence reflects standard practice in Aotearoa where mana whenua support recovery operations, provide cultural guidance, and help ensure respectful handling of the site and those involved.

In other words, iwi oversight was considered essential to ensure the Police, ambulance services, rescue helicopter teams, civil aviation investigators and regional council staff were respectful to “the site” (by doing what, exactly?) and to the victims.

The pilot and his passenger – pest control contractors working on Transmission Gully – were Joseph Mark Keeley, 54, from Tauhara, and Cole Christopher Ritchie, 25, from Wharepapa South.

News media, which nowadays often include the tribal affiliations of people named in their reports, made no mention of them being Māori.

But at least one was a Catholic because a Stuff report this week said:

A friend who spoke on behalf of the family said Keeley’s funeral at Taupo Catholic Church on Tuesday morning would be followed by a wild food feast at his house.

“Bring a beer and a chair and stories,” the man said on Facebook.

This raises questions about which cultural and spiritual practices – if any – should be officially approved as appropriate after a tragedy of this sort and the rights and feelings of accident victims and their families.

For example, a staunch Protestant – especially from evangelical, Reformed, Baptist, or fundamentalist traditions – is likely to be deeply offended or strongly uncomfortable if a Catholic priest attempted to deliver last rites.

This would amount to the imposition of “false” doctrine or an attempt to “Catholicize” their death.

A priest should proceed only if requested or if the person had indicated some desire for it. The key factor is consent and alignment with the person’s known faith.

Just as surely, a Protestant pastor cannot validly administer the last rites to a Catholic.

According to Catholic teaching and the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1003), only an ordained priest or bishop can validly confer the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

What about the imposition of Māori rituals?

Any staunch Christian – often this means conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist believers who prioritize strict adherence to biblical teachings, especially against idolatry or syncretism – generally does not fully accept being subjected to traditional Māori spiritual rituals, particularly those with pre-Christian spiritual elements.

This issue arises frequently in contexts like workplaces, schools, public events, marae visits, or official ceremonies involving pōwhiri (formal welcomes), karakia (incantations/prayers), or blessings that may invoke atua (traditional Māori deities/ancestral spirits), mauri (life force), or other non-Christian spiritual concepts.

Many people would contend such rituals invoke other spiritual powers or deities, which conflict with the First Commandment (“You shall have no other gods before me”) and defy warnings against idolatry or cautions against participating in non-Christian spiritual practices.

Conservative Christians may be uneasy that even their participation in cultural ceremonies might compromise their allegiance to Christ, especially if the ritual retains traditional spiritual elements.

To express unease and disquiet, however, is to invite accusations of racism.

Atheists have cause to be troubled, too.

PoO asked a scientist mate about government agencies partnering with tribal leaders to have Māori rituals imposed on non-Māori accident victims.

His response:

I too don’t want mumbo jumbo of any kind, Māori, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever, to prevail over how my remains are ‘managed’ when I die. It is hugely arrogant of Māori to assume otherwise, in the absence of knowledge of the victims’ beliefs.

And:

I do wonder how anyone Jewish would feel about having an Imam reading their last rites?!?

A Māori friend of PoO, on the other hand, said the short answer to our question about whether non-Māori should be allowed a say in spiritual protocols after public deaths like accidents or drownings was “no”.

“This is primarily a public/official nod to Māori sensibilities that incorporate the dead of all persuasions and It seems to be an organisation by organisation issue in which individual wishes are not part of the process and, even if they were, I can’t imagine how that might work.

“A mention on your driver’s license might work for organ donation but hardly practical or sensible in the circumstances of a helicopter crash or a drowning for that matter.”

An analogy (our friend suggested) might be the minute silence at a public remembrance. He recalled such a moment at a rugby test just after the death of a NZ soldier in East Timor.

While there were almost certainly dissenters they respected the significance of the event for others.

Further back in time there was the obligatory standing for God Save the Queen before a movie. The observance of that decayed over the years as the relevance of the monarchy and the acceptance of conformity to a public ritual declined, but there was a time when any attempt at dissent would have been dealt with reasonably harshly.

We did not write to Professor Jerry Coyne about public ceremonies increasingly incorporating Māori cultural and spiritual practices.

But we did not note something which he wrote today:

“I won’t deny anybody their belief in God, but I don’t want people forcing their beliefs on me, which is what occurs when newspeople ask for my prayers. I have none to give, though I wish people in trouble well…”

Our Government should take guidance from the professor.

Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.