Māori, Family Group Conferencing and the Mystifications of Restorative Justice

The following blog offers up text from a presentation by Paora Moyle (in absentia) and I, assisted on the day by Moana Jackson, at the Social Movement, Resistance, and Social Change Conference held at Massey University Albany, 6-8 September 2017.

Introduction
Feted by the demi-gods of restorative justice, celebrated by advocates and policy entrepreneurs alike, the Family Group Conferencing (FGC) forum is often presented as reinvigorating the practice of ‘traditional' western restorative justice (RJ) processes, assisted by a respectful, judicious application of Indigenous philosophies and cultural practices. The FGC forum is also frequently depicted by RJ advocates as a culturally appropriate and empowering justice mechanism for indigenous peoples, including Māori. To date, however, there has been little empirical research that investigates these claims as they relate to the experiences of indigenous FGC service providers, and indigenous community members and representatives involved in FGC forums.

In this presentation, we offer primary research from one of the authors (Moyle) on Māori whānau (families) and community member’s experiences of the FGC forum. This research builds on Moyle’s (2013, 2014) previous work on Māori social worker experiences with FGC. We examine in detail Māori whānau and community member’s perspectives on the ability of the forum to enable them to have significant input into decisions regarding issues related to child care and protection, and youth justice issues. Drawing from this research we challenge claims made by RJ advocates and policy entrepreneurs that the forum offers Māori a culturally appropriate and empowerment justice process.

The Mystification of the Family Group Conference
Elsewhere we have argued that one of the marketing strategies utilised by members of the restorative justice industry, especially in setter colonial contexts, is the persistent, mythological representation of interventions like the FGC forum as being founded on Indigenous cultural principles and practice.  The functional perspective given to the role of myth in relation to the law is effectively summarised by Cavello who contends that myth operates to ‘construct reality by organising experience and perception, and that law’s reality appears to primarily express the perspective or mythology of a particular social group’. We argue that much of the restorative justice field within contemporary, globalised criminal justice lends itself to the power of a functional analysis of the role of myth in crime control, most especially the problematic elements of myth building and maintenance, namely the process of mystification.

In order to distinguish the functional role of mystification within the broader process of myth construction, Cavello (1992, pp. 29-30) writes that in contemporary societies, myth and mystification, while often co-existing, have opposite functions:

"[M]yth is used to clarify, to reveal truth, to explain sense and experience, and to guide people to a deeper understanding and appreciated of their reality - their individual selves, their society, their world - then mystification is employed to obfuscate, to confuse, to hide meaning and significance, or to imply it where there is none".

The purpose of mystifications in the RJ context is to make the movement, its objectives, its reason d'etre “seem inevitable, eternal, and externally produced”. One area where this process has been especially potent is in advocate’s claims that its core principles are imbued with, or founded upon, the philosophies and cultural practices of Indigenous peoples. This is a point Richards highlights when she observes that "[r]estorative justice’ is variously portrayed, for example, as being ‘consistent with indigenous custom, being ‘based on’ or ‘underpinned by’ indigenous customs, ‘arising out of’, ‘being fed by’, ‘owing a debt to’ or being ‘embedded in’ indigenous traditions, and/or having been ‘established by’ indigenous communities".

We contend that it is through the activities of advocates of the FGC that we observe the practice and impact of the mystification process writ large, especially when advocates of the forum claim that:
1) Construction of the Act that introduced the FGC was influenced by Māori concerns for the prevalence of institutionally racist and culturally inappropriate practices within the New Zealand criminal justice system;
2) Because the FGC and Māori justice protocols both share ‘restorative elements’ – indeed the FGC components derive directly from Māori, its use demonstrates the ability of the formal system to culturally sensitise itself, and address the justice needs of Māori in meaningful ways; and
3) That it was designed in part to enable Māori families/communities to manage the response to Māori youth offending (more about this issue later).

The persistent mystification of the FGC forum has resulted in the alleged Indigenous foundations of the forum acquiring the status of an uncontestable ‘truth’. This situation persists despite growing critical research and literature that exposes the imprecision of the aforementioned origin myths, including Mike Doolan’s (2005, p. 1), one of the primary architects of the 1989 legislation, admission that “those of us who were involved in the policy development process leading up to the new law had never heard of restorative justice”. Doolan (2005, p. 1) further acknowledges that the primary goals of the forum were to hold youth offenders responsible for their offending behaviour, and reduce referrals to the Youth Court, and not to provide Māori whānau with an avenue to “control responses to the offending of their youth”.  Today we seek to problematise the mystification of the FGC forum as it relates to oft-repeated claims of cultural appropriateness and empowerment of Māori. We situate our claims in prior research from Moyle, in primary research presented here for the first time. Over the past two and a half decades these claims have been consistently replicated in a significant amount of criminological literature.

Exposing the Gap Between Mystification and Lived Experience
Thematic analysis of the interviews with Māori practitioners (Moyle, 2013; 2014) and preliminary findings from ongoing research with whānau  participants, identified a number of key themes, two of which we will discuss here, namely a lack of cultural responsiveness, and the mystical origins of the FGC.

A Lack of Cultural Responsiveness and Capability
In the first of the two projects undertaken by Moyle, Māori practitioners involved in criminal justice and child care and protection were asked about their experiences of the FGC as practiced in New Zealand. Participants' reported that in many instances FGC involving Māori clients was often impacted by a lack of cultural competence by non-Māori professionals involved.  This, along with what they believed was the biased application of rules, created significant barriers for whānau in attaining positive outcomes from the process. 

Several of the participants spoke about the inappropriate conduct of officials involved in the FGC process. They reported this as flowing form the eurocentric, monoculturalist foundations of New Zealand' youth justice and the statutory social work systems, which has resulted in a 'one world view, one size fits all' standardised approach to engaging with a socio-culturally diverse clientele. Imported risk assessment tools were viewed as particularly problematic because their construction rendered practitioners incapable of considering relevant historical factors (i.e. colonisation), and contemporary factors (i.e. institutional racism and systemic bias) that participants believe contribute to Māori over-representation in New Zealand's criminal justice and child care and protection systems.

While participants shared some positive accounts of the FGC experience, overall their engagement with practice was negative. For example, a key findings from the whānau project was that by-and-large, mainstream non-Māori social workers did not know how to engage with them. For example, participant 19 stated that:

"The family group conference is about as restorative as it is culturally sensitive.... in the same way Pakeha [European] social workers believe they are competent enough to work with our people.... Pakeha think they're the natural ordinary community against which all other ethnicities are measured".

Participant 7 also commented that:

"In the FGC we were talking about how ‘Pākeha’ the caregiver training was when most kids in care are Māori. The social worker said, “our training teaches all prospective parents how to be culturally sensitive... culture is important to us (to child protection) but the health and wellbeing of a child must come first.” Like, being Māori is secondary, an add-on, or a choice!"

Moyle’s (2013) research with Māori practitioners showed that mainstream social workers, despite being professionally accredited as culturally competent to work with Māori, often did not understand, value or put into practice fundamental elements of a Māori worldview, such as whakapapa (genealogy/family connections). Often they did not understand that whakapapa is more than just genealogy, and is in fact fundamental to a Māori child’s cultural and spiritual identity, long term development and wellbeing. Consequently, those social workers may not reasonably investigate family connected to a Māori child. The implication of this, an issue also identified by Pakura (2005), is that it hinders the potential for enhanced and meaningful whānau involvement in the FGC process.

The Mystical Origins of the Family Group Conferencing Forum
A further thread of FGC disempowerment for Māori was linkages between the idealised origin myths of the FGC, and the actual practice of conferencing. Participants in Moyle’s research talked about how Māori have been indoctrinated with the FGC’s potential to be culturally responsive because it was presented as based on a Māori model of restorative justice. While some participants agreed with this representation, most did not, including participant 4 in Moyle’s current research with whānau, presented here, who stated that the “family group conferencing was never a Māori process... (laughing) the Pākehā took the whānau hui, colonised it and then cheekily sold it back to the native”.

While policy entrepreneurs and RJ advocates often represent the FGC as culturally appropriate and ‘Indigenous inspired’, the majority of Moyle’s research participants in both her practitioner and whānau projects experience align with the view of Māori commentators such as Love (2002) and Tauri (1998) that the process is as an attempt by the state to Indigenise child care and protection and youth justice through the co-option of Māori cultural practices. While it is possible to argue that the state members of the RJ industry have successfully mystified the forum, the largely symbolic use of Māori culture has not translated to effective practice, with the majority of participants from Moyle’s current research with whānau participants describing the process as culturally inappropriate and disempowering. Participants align this critique with the way that forum-related practice undermined and even at times excluded Māori cultural expertise. This shortcoming in practice is exemplified through the experiences of participant 21, a kaumatua (elder, who commented that:

"CYF (Child Youth & Family) said I couldn’t attend the FGC because I wasn’t whānau. But the whānau wanted a tikanga process and I was the kaumatua. Then the next week CYFs ring and ask me to attend a different FGC... talk about ‘dial a kaumatua'!"

What do Māori Want?

Moyle’s (2013, 2014) recent studies as well as the research with Māori practitioners and whānau participants presented here demonstrate that many experience the FGC as culturally inappropriate and disempowering, as ‘enforcement-based’ rather than ‘strength-based’. Given that this is their experience, it begs the question what do Māori want to make the process more meaningful?

Participants identified a range of policy changes and alterations to FGC practice they believe would enhance outcomes for their whānau and communities. The first significant change relates to the way in which youth justice and child care and protection policy is developed. Specifically, participants wanted policy makers to reconsider their preference for importing socially and culturally inappropriate interventions and instead, work directly with Māori communities to develop effective solutions that reflect New Zealand’s indigenous context. In terms of FGC process, participants wanted power sharing partnerships developed between the service agencies and Māori communities and providers. They also stressed the need for greater emphasis on community-based initiatives to deliver real changes in the lives of Māori participants, as opposed to the current preference for a top-down, managerialist approach to programme delivery, and over-emphasis on administrative, measurable outcomes such as fiscal responsibility and individual accountability.

Simply put, for the FGC forum to work as a culturally responsive, empowering and whānau inclusive process for Māori participants, it must be delivered by, or at the very least reflect the needs and cultural contexts of the communities within which it is practiced. For any intervention to be effective for whānau (i.e. the FGC), Māori need to be involved in its development and delivery: from identification of community needs, to designing and directly delivering those programmes themselves. They also need to be involved at all stages of programme development, change and local evaluation of these. We believe a good place to begin the process of making the forum meaningful would be a conscious effort by leaders in the youth justice and child protection sectors to seriously consider the issues raised by Māori participants in Moyle’s recent (2013, 2014) research and reported in this presentation.

References

Cavello, L (1992) The Mythologies of Law: A Postmodern Assessment. Master's thesis, York University, Ontario.

Doolan, M (2005) Restorative Practices and Family Empowerment: Both/And or Either/Or? Retrieved 8 August from http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/au13.

Love, C (2002) Maori Perspectives on Collaboration and Colonisation in Contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand Child and Family Welfare Policies and Practices, paper presented at the Policy Partnerships Conference, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, June.

Moyle, P (2013) From Family Group Conferencing to Whanau Ora: Maori Social Workers Talk about their Experiences. Master's Thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.

Moyle, P (2014) Maori Social Workers Experiences of Care and Protection: A Selection of Findings, Te Komako: Social Work Review, 26(1): 55-64.

Pakura, S (2005) The Family Group Conference 14-Year Journey: Celebrating Successes, Learning from Lessons, Embracing the Challenges.  Paper presented at the American Humane Association's Family Group Decision Making conference, Harrisburg, Pennslyvania, 6-9 June.

Tauri, J (1998) Family Group Conferences: A Case Study in the Indigenisation of New Zealand's Justice System, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(2): 168-182.

NZ Police National Headquarters - The Gift that Keeps on Giving.

As an Indigenous researcher and blogger I have to say that right now it feels like the officials who work at New Zealand Police National Headquarters are the gift that just keeps on giving.

The past 10 months or so have been an absolute delight for someone like me: so much material, so much (un)intentional humour from the boys and girls in blue, starting with the Police Commissioners attempt at Pythonesque humour with a self-penned sketch called 'their is no racism in the New Zealand Police Force', followed by his wonderful, Ricky Gervais inspired follow up 'Police bias and racism is unconscious' - a truly cringe-invoking performance if ever there was one.  All of it trumped just recently by the ensemble masterpiece 'lets screw over the criminologist Jarrod Gilbert and stop him from doing research because he once did research on gangs'; a piece so subtle in its brilliance that it took us weeks to realise it was comedy. 

And now, we have yet another attempt, this time from the ethnic policy bods at National Headquarters, a wonderful entry titled 'packing the sh*ts with research that makes us look bad'.

Sadly, if I was asked to rank the four entries in the NZ Police Comedy Sketch competition, the most recent attempt would be last, only because it lacks originality; it is a rehash of an old script that NZ Police dust off and update if and when someone publishes research that is critical of them, or exposes the racism that permeates its ranks.  Let me provide just two examples of this sketch I observed during my time working in New Zealand's policy sector:

Observation 1: Research into the effectiveness of youth justice.  In the early 2000s the then Criminology Research Unit of Victoria University, Wellington, was completing a 'evaluation' of youth justice practise in New Zealand.  In the preliminary findings researchers issues with the way police officers were making discretionary decisions regarding youth offenders.  The response?  Significant bitching, moaning by NZ Police officials, and significant pressure brought to bear on officials from the lead agency, the Ministry of Social Development, and the researchers to 'dumb down' or remove the findings.

Observation 2: Maori Perceptions of Police.  A couple of years before the Victoria University project (1998-1999 to be precise), the Ministry of Maori Development and Police had commissioned the same crowd to carry out research on Police and Maori perceptions of each other.  The Police perceptions of Maori component was carried out by Victoria University researchers, the Maori Perceptions of Police component, by two independent Maori researchers.  The draft report of the Maori researchers contained a significant number of negative experiences of police contact reported by Maori research participants, especially by transgender Maori. Experiences they described as racist, bullying and so forth.  Officials at Police National HQ were unhappy, to put it mildly, and wanted the material removed.  They also requested that the names and contact details of research participants who made such claims to be handed over to them for 'investigation'.  When the researchers rightly refused because to do so was breach the ethics protocols for the project, they were bullied, with comments made about warrants being served and them being forced to hand over confidential research materials. 

In the end, nothing came of the threats, mainly because officials rightly thought that the findings would never be published as they had a major say in whether it ever saw light of day.  Sadly for them it did, due mainly to National losing the 1999 election, and managers at the Ministry of Maori Development deciding to be brave.  And so we wrote up a summary of the Maori report, placed it in front of the outgoing Minister of Maori Affairs, Tau Henare, who, bless him, said 'publish and be damned', and signed it off for publication.  And right through the publication process we had to put up with the most inane excuses from Police officials trying to stop the process.  Their two main rationale?  First, that we shouldn't include any 'criticisms' of police conduct that had not been formally reported to them and investigated by them, and secondly, because the methodology was 'unsound', which was quickly made redundant when we showed them they had signed off on the research methodology two years previously.

This now brings me to the latest iteration of the 'packing the sh*ts with research that makes us look bad' sketch:

A couple of weeks ago I read the NZ Police response to the report African Youth Experiences of Policing and the New Zealand Justice System (available via www.africaonmysleeve.com), that was based on a joint project between researchers at AUT University in Auckland, New Zealand and members of the wider African community. 

The press statement released by New Zealand Police officials is a classic example of how research findings that reflect badly on a government agency, in this instance the police, are dealt with. First, the police spokesperson attempts  (very badly) to call into question the validity of the research findings, referring to issues with police conduct as 'unsubstantiated'. And how exactly should they be substantiated?  In exactly the same way they thought the findings of the Maori Perceptions of Police findings should be substantiated way back in the late 1990s; by the issues raised by research participants being handed over to the police to investigate.

That's right, racist/unethical or inappropriate conduct by police being investigated by the police so that the research findings be accepted as valid and 'substantiated'.

I am calling bullsh&t on this.

If we follow this piece of self-serving logic then no research on community experiences of policing would ever be accepted as valid, as worthy of discussion, as necessary for informing the development of policy, unless your organisation can 'substantiate' the findings.  Why is that argument bullsh&t?  Well, quite simply because over the years we have seen what happens when the New Zealand Police investigate their own. What are the chances that the process will be fair and impartial? Fat chance.

Secondly,  as with the two observations outlined above, officials resort to using facetious terminology to describe facts or information they don't like.  In this instance referring to the reports findings as 'generalised', which I am guessing means 'not specific or substantiated'.  Hopefully the officials concerned are not claiming that the authors of the report are making 'generalisable' findings, meaning that the experiences included in their report is applicable to ALL African youth, because they certainly do not make that claim. But it doesn't really matter what the term 'generalised' is meant to mean, it is the fact that it is cloaked between '...' which is important.  Why? Because in presenting the term in this way the author is trying to convey to the reader that the 'thing' being written about, a critical research project on policing, is somehow not to be trusted or taken seriously... just like the media statement released by New Zealand Police.

Furthermore, and this is where the press release rolls into farce, it is claimed that the experiences reported by the research participants are 'at odds' with the wonderful, positive feedback New Zealand Police receive from the stakeholders they deal with across various African communities.

Just a couple of points and questions on that gem; firstly,  is the fact that some people in the community are happy with your performance, and I am sure some are, 'generalisable' to ALL peoples experiences in these communities? Do these positive reports override the negative experiences of African youth?  In other words, are the only 'legitimate', 'substantiated' claims those that make you look good or feel good about yourselves?

Secondly, you seem to be surprised that independent research findings report something different to what your mates have been telling you. Really? I'd have thought you'd be used to it by now as almost every piece of independent research on police engagement with Maori and other communities tends to show exactly the same thing - a whole bunch of people saying things that contradict the experiences New Zealand Police like to report in their glossy marketing material and press releases.

And lastly, the fact that some people are happy with you doesn't nullify the negative experiences of others.  So how about a change in attitude and instead of making the same old boring, bullsh&t excuses you like to roll out to avoid having to deal with the racist attitudes and conduct of some of your colleagues, why not 'man/women' up, stop making excuses to avoid the issue and do something meaningful to rectify the situation.

Beware Restorative Justice Advocates Bearing Gifts: A Commentary on the Glorification of Family Group Conferencing

The following is a commentary on the glorification of the family group conference (FGC) forum, motivated by a reading of Carolyn Henwood and Stephen Stratford's book A Gift to the World: The Youth Justice Family Group Conference, published by The Henwood Trust (2014).

Introduction

Thus planetarised, or globalised in a strictly geographical sense, by this uprooting at the same time as they are de-particularised by the effect of false rupture effected by conceptualisation, these commonplaced of the great new global vulgate that endless media repetition progressively transforms into universal common sense manage in the end to make one forget that they have their roots in the complex and controversial realities of a particular historical society, now tacitly constituted as model for every other and as a yardstick for all things.

                                                                                Bourdieu and Wacqaunt (1999: 42).

The quote from Bourdieu and Wacquant came to me part way through my first reading of Carolyn Henwood and Stephen Stratford’s offering A Gift to the World: The Youth Justice Family Group Conference.  The sentiments expressed in the quote neatly summarise their stance on the purpose of the FGC forum, and the place they believe it has in New Zealand’s youth justice system  In short, Henwood and Stratford’s text represents a recent edition to the growing lexicon that is providing the ideological fuel that has been driving the globalisation of the FGC forum since the mid-1990s (see Richards, 2007; Tauri, 2014).  I will return to the links between the quote and the book under review later, but first I wish to provide a brief overview of the focus and aims of the book.

The Aims of ‘A Gift to the World’

Early on, the authors of A Gift to the World make it clear that the book is intended as a celebration of the FGC forum, a justice process they believe “can be a life-changing process for all involved and for New Zealand” (Henwood and Stratford, 2014: vii). The aims of Henwood and Stratford’s book are fairly straightforward: a) to provide a detailed description of how FGC’s ‘work’ (as in the process and the impact of the forums); b) give voice to the experiences of youth, their family members and professionals involved in the process, and c) challenge a number of ‘myths’ associated with the forum, including that it is “an indigenous, Maori response to offending”, that “ it is a soft [sentencing] option”, and that it “doesn’t work” to reduce crime (ibid: 85).

To achieve these aims the author’s utilise a combination of methods including analysis of FGC plans, and interviews with participants and justice practitioners.  This material was in turn used to construct seven case studies that are employed to inform the reader of the types of offences, offenders, victims and families an FGC forum can deal with, and the sorts of ‘outcomes’ the process leads to.  While the case studies appear to have been purposely selected to provide positive stories about FGC practice, nevertheless they represent one of its key strengths by providing critics and advocates alike with detailed descriptions of the FGC process that has till now been largely absent from the literature. 

I wish now to return briefly to the quote from Bourdieu and Wacquant that introduced this piece, before I launch into the substantive commentary:  This quote came to mind because the Henwood and Stratford present the FGC forum as a gift not just for New Zealander's, but to the world.  It is true the forum has been uprooted and planitarised; transferred across and into numerous jurisdictions over the past two decades.  It has been globalised to such an extent that advocates readily describe it as one of the most innovative and popular justice products developed during the 20^th century (Maxwell, 2008).  Policy makers and advocates alike wax lyrical about the crime reduction potentialities of the forum, and the ability of practitioners to create communities of concern that can work together to find meaningful ways of restoring social harmony, whilst holding youth offenders accountable for their behaviour (see Cary, 2000; Consedine, 1995; Zehr, 2002). 

However, in some instances advocates, including Henwood and Stratford, make such claims largely in the absence of empirical evidence derived from critical engagement with population groups most often impacted by the practice of the forum; including Maori in New Zealand, and Indigenous peoples residing in settler-colonial jurisdictions into which it has been transferred (Tauri, 2014).  In doing so, advocates create supposed ‘common sense’ understandings of the purpose and impact of the forum that “make one forget that they have their roots in the complex and controversial realities of a particular historical society” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999; 42).  What is often written out of the history of the FGC forum and similar interventions (such as Sentencing Circles), is the fact that it was introduced at a time when it was commonplace for policy workers in settler-colonial jurisdictions to respond to Indigenous justice ‘issues’ by creating and/or importing indigenised justice forums that utilised ‘acceptable’ (meaning civilised) elements of Indigenous cultural practice.  Often shaded from view, is the part played by interventions like the FGC in the settler-colonial states multi-pronged strategy for blocking Indigenous attempts to attain a measure of jurisdictional autonomy (Lee, 1997; Tauri, 2004; Victor, 2007). 

FGC Advocacy and the Silencing of  the Critical Indigenous Perspective

Like many academics, upon receiving a new book or journal article that falls within my research interests primary areas of research - driven as much by a concern that the material reflect the Indigenous experience as to replenish my  ego - I turn to the bibliography to see if the authors have engaged meaningfully with the work of critical scholars.  For example, when reading a text that claims to offer an in-depth discussion of myths associated with the FGC, one can reasonably expect to find that the authors have engaged with the work of Shad Maruna, Chris Cunneen, Kelly Richards, to mention but a few.  Similarly, it is eminently reasonable to expect that when an author claims that their book or article on the FGC forum engages with Maori/Indigenous ‘issues’, to find the work of Wenona Victor, Harry Blagg, Chris Cunneen, Gloria Lee and myself, given a dismissive mention in a footnote at the very least.  Tellingly, none of the critical Indigenous material appears to have been on the reading list of the authors when they were contemplating writing ‘A Gift to the World’. 

A ‘Gift to the World’ suffers from one of the common weaknesses the FGC-related advocacy literature; namely that research and critical perspectives of Indigenous scholars, practitioners and community members is largely missing.  Instead, ‘expert’ commentary on issues of importance to Indigenous peoples is almost entirely based on the views and experiences of middle class justice professionals,  While members of this group have a right to be heard, one can also reasonably argue that they have a significant stake in presenting the forum in the best possible light. 

What is largely missing ‘A Gift to the World’ is the critical lived experiences of Maori/Pacifica professionals or participants whose experience of the forum have been less than positive, or that expose the mythology that sits behind many of the ‘truth claims’ of FGC advocates, such as the belief in the ability of the forum to accommodate any and all ‘difference’, be it based on class, gender, sexuality of ethnicity (more on this issue below).  As indicated above, it is no longer possible to contend that materials that report the negative experiences of Maori and Pacifica participants, or Indigenous peoples in settler-colonial jurisdictions that have imported the forum, are rare or difficult to source.  The work of Love (2002), Moyle (2013) and my own work (Tauri, 1998; 1999; 2004; 2014) on the New Zealand context, and Rudin, Lee, Victor, Cunneen and others I mention above who report on the experiences of Indigenous peoples in other jurisdictions, leaves little room for advocates to justify ignoring these perspectives. 

In failing to engage with the critical research and literature, the authors create an interesting contradiction, in that they end up lending weight to some of the myths they seek to discredit.  For example, on page 89 they attempt to debunk the myth that “the family group conference is an indigenous, Maori response to offending”.  Given that a lot of my own work in the FGC forum focuses on this issue, it was heartening to see that Henwood and Stratford were willing to tackle it head on.  Unfortunately their approach to this issue reinforces key issues identified earlier, including failing to engage meaningfully with the extant, critical literature, and an over-reliance on the views of justice practitioners.  Furthermore, their argument that while the FGC is not a Maori justice form, it nevertheless “promote[s] participation… by a young Maori who has offended” by offering Maori participants “the opportunity to have the conference in chosen familiar surroundings, including on marae (traditional meeting area) (Ibid: 89) is severely compromised by a lack of engagement with research that contradicts this position. 

A cursory glance at the critical literature and government sponsored reviews of the process demonstrates that Maori whanau and communities are rarely ‘offered’ the gift of holding FGC’s in “familiar surroundings” (see for example, Morris and Maxwell, 1993; Maxwell, Robertson, Kingi, Morris and Cunningham, 2004; and Tauri’s 2011 analysis of their research in demonstrating the failure of the implementation of the FGC to enhance Maori ability to ‘practice justice’).  The failure to critically engage with the relevant research underlines the importance of distinguishing between what advocates and policy makers claim to be the aims of particular interventions, and the actual outcomes that result from practice.  In this instance, practice does not match the rhetoric that the FGC is a forum that offers Maori the opportunity to ‘lead’ the justice systems response to  the offending of their own (Tauri, 2014). 

Another key myth of the FGC supported by the authors of ‘A Gift to the World’, is that the forum responds easily to the cultural values and practices of diverse ethnic groups.  On pages 15-20 the authors replicate the oft-told myth of the forums ability to accommodate any and all ‘cultures’.  In comparison, a number of Indigenous and critical non-Indigenous scholars argue that the forum is more accurately described as a Eurocentric, standardised youth justice process that utilises fragments of Indigenous cultural practice others, but does little to empower us (see Blagg, 1997, 1998; Cunneen, 1997, 2002; Lee, 1997; Moyle, 2013; Tauri, (1998; 1999; 2004; 2014) and Victor, 2007).  I employ the term ‘standardised’ to describe the FGC forum with intent, for it is one of the great self-deceptions of justice practitioners and policy makers in settler-colonial jurisdictions is that justice forums derived from western criminal justice and criminological paradigms, can work for everyone or anyone regardless of ‘race’, differences in social or historical context (Tauri, 2009). 

To add gravitas to their portrayal of the cultural flexibility of the forum, Henwood and Stratford (2014: 20) cite Judge Fred McElrea who claims that “[t]he family group conference model is receptive to different cultural influences and can accommodate indigenous, European, and immigrant cultures with little  difficulty”.  Unfortunately for Henwood, Stratford and Judge McElrea, critical literature that exposes the diversity of Maori experiences (and of Indigenous peoples in other settler-colonial jurisdictions), says otherwise.  For example, what are we to make of the Judge’s comment in light of the experiences of Maori social work practitioners and whanau participants surveyed by Paora Moyle (2014; forthcoming) for her Masters and Doctoral research, who state that:

The family group conference is about as restorative as it is culturally sensitive... in the same way Pākehā [European] social workers believe they are competent enough to work with our people... Pākehā think they’re the natural ordinary community against which all other ethnicities are measured (participant 19).

In the FGC we were talking about how ‘Pākeha’ the caregiver training was when most kids in care are Māori.  The social worker said, “our training teaches all prospective parents how to be culturally sensitive... culture is important to us (to child protection) but the health and wellbeing of a child must come first.”  Like, being Māori is secondary, an add-on, or a choice!

And finally participant 21, a kaumatua (respected elder) who pointedly stated that:

CYF (Child Youth & Family) said I couldn’t attend the FGC because I wasn’t whānau [family].  But the whānau wanted a tikanga [philosophy] process and I was the kaumatua. Then the next week CYFs ring and ask me to attend a different FGC... talk about ‘dial a kaumatua.’

The material drawn from Moyle’s research demonstrates that the FGC forum does not always meet our specific cultural and social needs.  In particular, it highlights that in some instances justice officials actively work against whanau in ways that contradict claims that the forum responds to the needs of all ethnic groups with ‘little difficulty’. 

A Gift to the World?

If, as Henwood and Stratford infer in the title of their book, the FGC forum is New Zealand's ‘gift to the world’, then it would be a good idea to find out how it is being experienced ‘out there’.  And, being a critical Indigenous scholar and given  the propensity for RJ advocates to over egg the ‘Maoriness’ of the forum (see Richards, 2007), by ‘the world’ I am referring to indigenous individuals, communities and organisations residing in settler-colonial jurisdictions, and not members of the judiciary or government agencies, or FGC/RJ advocates motivated at least in part to ensure the forum is marketed as positively as possible (Tauri, 2014). 

For example, engaging with the critical work of the Stolo First Nation criminologist Dr Wenona Victor (2007) or the Cree scholar Gloria Lee (1999), reveals a world in which the cross-jurisdictional transfer of the forum is experienced less as a gift, and more as the imposition of a Eurocentric, standardised crime control process that impedes the development of Indigenous-led initiatives (Tauri, 2011).  Furthermore, engaging with the work of Kelly Richards (2007) reveals that the transfer of the FGC forum from New Zealand and Australia out to ‘the world’, was made possible in large part because policy makers and RJ advocates purposely exaggerated the Maori/Indigenous basis to the forum, especially to jurisdictions such as as the U.S and Canada that were also experiencing high level of Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system (see also Tauri, 2005; 2014). 

If the authors  of ‘A Gift to the World’ took time to engage with the critical research of Indigenous and our critical, non-Indigenous collaborators, they would find a world in which the FGC is a gift of the Trojan Horse variety.  They would find a world where once you dig through the thick veil of rhetoric about the cultural appropriateness of forums like the FGC, there lies a different reality.  They will find a situation where the forum is being experienced by some participants as an orientalised, state-dominated processes that has been imposed on Indigenous peoples, and impedes their attempts to develop responses to social harm based on their own cultural contexts (Tauri, 2004, Victor, 2007). 

Overall, the lack of attention given by the authors’ of ‘A Gift to the World’ to the range of experiences of Indigenous peoples of the FGC forum, detracts from the powerful stories revealed through the case studies.  In particular, the lack of attention to the negative impact the cross-jurisdictional transfer of the FGC has had on Indigenous people around the world, provokes me to conclude this commentary by paraphrasing a well known Indigenous dictum that underlines why Indigenous peoples should be wary of works that glorify the FGC forum: ‘Indigenous peoples everywhere, beware RJ advocates bearing gifts’. 

References

Blagg, H (1997) A Just Measure of Shame?  Aboriginal Youth and Conferencing in Australia, British Journal of Criminology, 37(4): 481-501.

Blagg, H (1998) Restorative Visions and Restorative Justice Practices: Conferencing, Ceremony and Reconciliation in Australia, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(1): 5-14.

Bourdieu, P and Wacquant, L (1999) On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason, Theory, Culture and Society, 16(1): 41-58. 

Cary, M (2000) Restorative Justice – A New Approach with Historical Roots: Corrections Retrospective 1959-1999.  St Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections. 

Consedine, J (1995) Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime.  Wellington: Ploughshare Publishing.

Cunneen, C (1997) Community Conferencing and the Fiction of Indigenous Control.  The Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 30: 292-311.

Cunneen, C (2002) Restorative Justice and the Politics of Decolonisation, in E. Weitekamp and H. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations.  Devon: Willan Publishing: 32-49.

Henwood, C and Stratford, S (2014) A Gift to the World: New Zealand’s Family Group Conference.  Wellington: Henwood Trust.

Lee, G (1997) The Newest Old Gem: Family Group Conferencing, Justice as Healing, 2(2): 1-3.

Love, C (2002) Maori Perspectives on Collaboration and Colonisation in Contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand Child and Family Welfare Policies and Practices, paper presented at the Policy and Partnerships Conference, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo.

Maxwell, G. (2008) Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Implementing Restorative Justice in International and Indigenous Contexts, Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 11: 81-95.

Maxwell, G, Robertson, J, Kingi, V, Morris, A and Cunningham, C (2004) Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice.  Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. 

Morris, A. and Maxwell, G. (1993) Juvenile Justice in New Zealand: A New Paradigm, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 26(1): 72-90. 

Moyle, P (2013) From Family Group Conferencing to Whanau Ora: Maori Social Workers Talk about their Experiences, unpublished Masters thesis, Massey University.  

Moyle, P and Tauri, J (2015) Indigenous Peoples and the Mystifications of the Restorative Justice Movement, unpublished paper. 

Richards, K (2007) ‘Rewriting History’: Towards a Genealogy of ‘restorative justice’, unpublished PhD thesis. Penrith: University of Western Sydney.

Rudin, J (2003) Pushing Back – A Response to the Drive for the Standardisation of Restorative Justice Programmes in Canada, paper presented to The 6^th International Conference on Restorative Justice, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 2 October. 

Tauri, J (1998) Family Group Conferencing: A Case-Study of the Indigenisation of New Zealand’s Justice System, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(2): 168-182.

Tauri, J (1999) Explaining Recent Innovations in New Zealand’s Criminal Justice System: Empowering Maori or Biculturalising the State, Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(2): 153-167.

Tauri, J (2004) Conferencing, Indigenisation and Orientalism: A Critical Commentary on Recent State Responses to Indigenous Offending (key note address), paper presented at Qwi: Qwelstom Gathering: ‘Bringing Justice Back to the People”, Mission, B.C, 22-24 March.

Tauri J (2009) An Indigenous Commentary on the Standardisation of Restorative Justice, Indigenous Policy Journal, 20(3), online.

Tauri, J (2011) Indigenous Perspectives (reconfigured chapter), in R. Walters and T. Bradley (Eds.), Introduction to Criminological Thought (2^nd ed.).  Auckland: Pearson Longman: 187-210.

Tauri, J (2014) Criminal Justice: A Colonial Project in Settler-Colonialism?  African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 8(1): 20-37.  

Victor, W (2007) Indigenous Justice: Clearing Space and Place for Indigenous Epistemologies, research paper for the National Centre for Indigenous peoples Governance. 

Zehr, H (2002) The Little Book of Restorative Justice.  Scottsdale (PA): Good Books.