I want to suggest that it is due to two factors, one of which is less visible than the other. The first, more visible factor is that there is disagreement and division in the Communion about the course TEC has taken with respect to ordaining bishops in same sex partnerships, and giving clear signals it is moving towards formal authorisation of blessing of same sex partnerships. That must mean (I suppose, I have not been talking to Down Under archbishops and bishops about their thinking) that it is difficult to be unambiguous in talking about this visit. An unambiguous speech-act in one direction might give a wrong signal that ++Schori is not welcome; in another direction it might give a wrong signal to other parts of the Communion that Down Under we are conforming to some of the stereotypes across the internet, that 'Australia and New Zealand' are following TEC, in TEC's pocket, poised to join TEC's new global movement, and the like. So ++Katharine Jefferts Schori is welcome, but enthusiasm for this visit at this time is restrained.
The less visible factor, perhaps because it is of more concern to one section of our Down Under churches than to all, is this: a number of us feel we are in fellowship as Anglicans with the many clergy and congregations in North America who have decided to leave TEC or ACCan for other forms of being Anglican (particularly ACNA). Much as we recognise that we are in fellowship with Presiding Bishop Schori because she is a bishop in good standing with a church which is a member church of the Communion, we are equivocal about the role of her office in the departure of our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not understand why they have had to be deposed, why litigation about property is occurring, especially in situations where it turns out that no replacement Episcopalian congregation can sustain the buildings they have secured through litigation and so the building is sold to anyone except the new ACNA congregation. But we especially cannot fathom why the turn of events through this decade has moved in the polarising and divisive direction it has taken.
If this is the way forward on embracing change in respect of same sex partnered clergy and blessings of same sex partnerships then we do not want a bar of it. The 'lead' being given by TEC, the 'model' for the future of Anglicanism is not one we wish to take up. There has to be a better way.
I know of no Anglican in Aotearoa New Zealand who wishes to see our church divided in the way division has occurred in North America. So this less visible second factor is a concern potentially shared by all of us.
But for some of us this second concern is already a serious concern. There are Anglicans here for whom the most difficult thing about responding to the Presiding Bishop's presence in our midst is not that there is disagreement with her on homosexuality (we have such disagreements among ourselves), but that there are Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ in the USA who are now formally out of the Anglican Communion because of the way things have been handled in the last decade.