traditional knowledge conference 2008 te tatau pounamu

If our programmes are based on tikanga, as they should be, then by their very nature they are basedon standards defined by historical practice, underpinned by theories of the causes of and appropriateresponses to social harm (Jackson, 1990). The important difference is that they are our standards, ourpractices and our theories. One way of ensuring the survival of our practice is for Māori practitioners,providers and communities, to develop their own standards or tika for enhancing restorative justiceservice practice.It must be acknowledged that the majority of Māori practitioners cannot escape the state’sstandardization process, particularly if they are reliant on government funding. Engagement withofficials and the policies and legislation they generate is unavoidable. However, engagement can takeplace in a variety of ways. For example, we might choose to engage on the state’s terms, according tobureaucratic timeframes and processes. This form of engagement will invariably follow a top-downapproach where Māori are asked to assist in identifying a few culturally relevant principles, et cetera,that are tagged to the end of pre-conceived Eurocentric frameworks.An alternative process would be for Māori to develop their own tika on restorative justice practice,separate from the state’s standardization process. A full set of Māori designed standards would:underline the authority of tikanga as the basis for Māori practices for responding to social harm;ensure/encourage discussion and debate of all relevant issues related to standardization asopposed to a small number of “cultural elements”; andprovide the basis for meaningful dialogue between Treaty partners by focusing attention onfinding ways of empowering Māori to deliver appropriate services to their own rather than onMāori as passive recipients of programmes formulated and controlled by the state, provided thestate is both willing and capable of engaging meaningfully on these terms.Glossaryhapūiwitikatikangatino rangatiratangawhānausub-tribe, clantribedoing what is rightcustoms and traditionsself-determination, sovereigntyextended familyReferencesArchibald, B. (1999). A comprehensive Canadian approach to restorative justice: The prospects forstructuring fair alternative measures in response to crime. In D. Stuart, R. Delise & A. Manson(Eds.), Toward a clear and just criminal law: A criminal reports forum. Toronto, Canada:Carswell/Thompson.Barlow, D., Hickman Barlow, M., & Chirico, T. (2005). Long economic cycles and the criminal justicesystem in the U.S. Crime, Law and Social Change, 19(2), 143–169.Blagg, H. (1997). A just measure of shame? Aboriginal youth and conferencing in Australia. BritishJournal of Criminology, 37(4), 481–501.Braithwaite, J. (1996). Restorative justice and a better future. The Dalhousie Review, 76(1), 9–32.Consedine, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Healing the effects of crime. Lyttelton, NZ: PloughsharePublications.Cormier, R. (2002). Restorative justice: Directions and principles— developments in Canada. Ottawa:Department of the Solicitor General.277