Reviewed by Allison Morris

This report summarises the outcomes of discussions at a series of conferences/hui among practitioners, policy makers, and academics on a number of critical issues facing restorative justice in New Zealand.  These critical issues were: accountability, ownership, and leadership; practitioner-related issues; indigenous traditions and the spirituality of restorative justice; restorative justice in schools; victim-related issues; offender-related issues; human rights abuses and restorative justice; and defining restorative justice.  Each section of the report is introduced by Howard Zehr and ends with his ‘reflections’ on the discussion, but the principal contribution of the report lies in the ‘conversations’ among participants, liberally supported by direct quotes which capture the depth and range of feelings generated by the topics.  The focus of the report is undoubtedly on the practices and future of restorative justice in New Zealand, but its messages are of wider interest and significance and, since New Zealand has gone further than most countries in implementing restorative justice, these ‘conversations’ have some authority.  In a short review, I can do no more than pick out a few of the themes which are universally relevant. 

Although recognising that there is no single method of delivering restorative justice and expressing a reluctance to define it in restrictive or prescriptive ways, concerns were expressed about the danger of dilution.  Any programme can claim to be ‘restorative’ and apparently this often happens as a way of accessing funding.  The answer to this was seen to lie in clearly expressing the critical values and principles which underpin restorative justice.  These were, at different times, said to be respect, humility, co-operation, cultural sensitivity, honesty, integrity, love and inter-connectedness.  This lead to discussions about the need to reflect these values and principles in a nationally accepted code or standards of practice.  But, at the same time, concern was expressed that such standards or codes of practice could prevent variations in practice, could enable further State control and could be culturally biased.  These standards, therefore, need to be the product of wide consultation and not determined by fiat or dictate. 

Another universal theme is the interface between the State and the community and, although there was undoubted agreement about the need to resource community programmes properly, an important caveat was introduced: it was suggested that once community based programmes were funded primarily by the State, there was a danger that they were no longer accountable to their community.  Getting the balance right was seen as the key to successful partnership. 

A common question is whether or not restorative justice can be used for all kinds of offending.  Concerns were expressed in these discussions about the different levels and modes of gate-keeping about which kind of case was ‘suitable’ for restorative processes with the result that, in some participants’ views, too many cases did not proceed to a restorative process.  In particular, it was noted that the apparent lack of remorse should not be a barrier to a restorative meeting (as it seems to be) because it was often impossible to predict on the basis of initial attitudes which meetings would be successful.  Indeed, there was some support for compelling offenders to attend restorative meeting if victims wanted these to happen.  The rationale for this was that this showed that the process was victim centred.  This is certainly more or less the situation with respect to family group conferencing the youth justice system in New Zealand and practice there suggests that this can work.   

The opposite (and equally or more common) scenario was not discussed:  where an offender wants to participate in a restorative process but the victim does not.  Restorative processes can again occur in the youth justice system in New Zealand without victims being present.  There are ways of bringing home to an offender the consequences of her or his actions other than through the presence of the victim and the victim does not need to be present for reparative outcomes to be agreed.   Such processes and outcomes can be victim-centred, but perhaps here, too, the answer really lies in restoring the balance:  restorative justice processes are not competitions: the needs and interests of both offenders and victims need to be addressed.  

For more information or to order a copy of the book:

Centre for Justice and Peace Development
School of Social and Cultural Studies
Massey University
Private Bag 102 904
North Shore MSC
Auckland
New Zealand

http://justpeace.massey.ac.nz/index.htm

w.j.tie@massey.ac.nz

November 2003