traditional knowledge conference 2008 te tatau pounamu

The Drive to Standardize Restorative Justice PracticeAs more and more restorative justice programmes begin to develop and bottom-up, and communitydemand for such processes grows, a number of things begin to happen. Firstly, requests fromcommunities and practitioners are made for state support for their restorative justice processes;secondly, state officials (those working in the system, such as court workers, probation officers, etcetera) demand that clarity and certainty about the place and function of restorative justice be provided(Probation Officers Association of Ontario Inc., 2000); and thirdly, the state provides policy directionand financial support which in turn creates the necessary mechanisms for bringing the communitarianpractice within the rubric of the formal justice system (Roach, 2000; Tie, 2002).In New Zealand and Canada, state support has followed the usual policy development process:defining what is restorative justice, creating standards of practice and service delivery to inform fundingdecisions, and identifying and constructing the place for restorative justice in the formal system(Archibald, 1999; Cormier, 2002; Ministry of Justice, 2003).Generally speaking, the policy process established in New Zealand takes the form of top-downmanagerialism, which applies the techniques of business accounting and ethics to the policydevelopment process (Enteman, 1993). The central focus of this policy process is on fiscalresponsibility, accountability and measurable outcomes (Dillow, 2007; Easton, 1997).Top-down managerialism as a policy technique does not have a positive history in criminal justice,particularly where indigenous peoples are concerned. The reasons for this are many, but broadlyspeaking it can be explained by the fact that indigenous justice is a component of a bottom-up socialmovement (tino rangatiratanga (self-determination, sovereignty)), for which a key philosophicalfundamental requires Māori—meaning hapū (sub-tribe), iwi (tribe) and urban authorities—to exercisepower accountably (Tauri, 1999). By contrast, managerialist (restorative) justice is by definition a statecentred,top-down process designed to ensure state control of programme design, delivery and funding.It is in this context that the process of the standardization of restorative justice is occurring in manyWestern jurisdictions. The federal government in Canada has developed a set of guidelines forrestorative justice programmes based on the model guidelines developed by the United Nations buttailored to address Canadian concerns (Cormier, 2002). Central government in New Zealand is in theprocess of developing a range of standardization tools and establishing guidelines for standardization ofprogramme design and delivery (Ministry of Justice, 2003).At first glance, the state-centred process of standardization is an understandable response. After all,it is state resources, tax payers’ money and policy support that practitioners are demanding access to. Inthe New Zealand context, funding and policy support is made to and sometimes provided by theDepartment for Courts (2001), now subsumed within the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry ofJustice’s Crime Prevention Unit. In Canada, requests have been routinely made to federal, provincialand territorial governments (Rudin, 2003). The more frequently these demands are made, the more thestate is compelled to develop proscriptive policy frameworks that enable officials to make “standard”policy and funding decisions.One of the key ideological and supposed practice-based features of these proscriptive policyframeworks is the equality principle. The principle of equality—meaning equality in programmedelivery (everyone gets treated the same)—funding and expectations (like is compared to like), can bedescribed as a fundamental meta-narrative 3 of the criminal justice policy context in both New Zealandand Canada.Equality with respect to programme delivery focuses primarily on the types of case that areappropriate for restorative justice programmes. In this case, the equality concern is that everyone shouldbe treated the same by the justice system. While community capacity may mean that not everycommunity will have a restorative justice programme, the types of case that programmes can deal with3 See Lyotard (1984) for a discussion of meta-narratives.273