Time does not wipe away injustice. Reconciliation does

The coupling of the two words, ‘Maori’ and ‘Victim’ have most frequently occurred in ways which have been pejorative.



Take for example, a Herald column on 27 July 2004 entitled, ‘A victim mentality makes only victims’ in which Colin James refers to the challenge that the Maori Party posed in standing up against the Foreshore and Seabed Act:



“There is a case for that kaupapa but it can't win. Either the government's bill will pass or a more unfriendly one will. So the Maori party risks irrelevancy. It will not win the battle it is founded to win. And it will not be a force for development if it perpetuates victimhood”.



To be asked then, to focus on the Maori Party commitment to victims’ issues, in the eyes of some commentators, might be politically unwise. That is, of course, only if you succumb to that point of view.



For contrary to the expectations of some, the Maori Party has and will continue to be a force for development, a force for empowerment, a positive force for making a difference.



And it will do so, alongside a consistent and unwavering belief in respecting and valuing the pain and processes of victimization, and the requisite journey towards reconciliation and healing.



It is all to do with the stories that are told.



Takiwai Murphy in his celebration of Mana Maori, Te Pumaomao, captures our view that:



Injustices in one generation transfer to another as justice cries out to be addressed by reconciliation. Time does not wipe away injustice. Reconciliation does.



As an example of what Takiwai means, I want to take you back, just three years in time, to the context in which Colin James was writing.

The 5 May 2004 will be forever etched in my memory as the day New Zealanders stood together, to fight for the right to simply have our day in court, the right to due access before the law.



We came together, right across Aotearoa, for the cause of access, for the cause of justice, for the cause of nationhood. These were causes to believe in, the course of justice is something that we will always be proud to fight for.



Leading the hikoi down Lambton Quay was one of those moments when I truly felt we were walking history into place. The hikoi brought together cultures, peoples, iwi, hapu, all united in our resolve to protect our whakapapa, our tikanga, our foreshore and seabed.



We of Ngati Kahungunu commenced our part of the hikoi to Parliament at Ruawharo Marae, Opoutama, Mahia.

Sand brought from Hawaiki by Ruawharo aboard the Takitimu Waka was taken to Wellington from Mahia beach by marchers as a symbolic demonstration of our unbroken ties with the Foreshore and Seabed. It was, if you like, the histories and stories of one generation being brought together in this generation.

Ngahiwi Tomoana, Chairman of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi incorporated, spoke for us all when he said:

"The legislation is regrettably even worse than feared. It ignores all of the concerns which Maori have raised about the issue and involves not just a taking of the coastline from Maori but also a very real restriction on our tikanga and our rights under international law and the common law."

It is not up to the Crown to legislate to change due process to suit the Government of the day. We never ceded consent to the Crown, for the foreshore and seabed. In the same way we never ceded our hapu sovereignty.



Time does not wipe away injustice. Reconciliation does.



It is a mistake to think that this was ever about winners and losers. We have persevered with developing a Bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act because we are determined, still, and forever more, that justice is something worth fighting for.



We owe it to tangata whenua to fulfil the commitment we made to them, that we would do all that we could to repeal this Bill. But we owe it also to past and present generations of New Zealanders who believe in fairness, in access to due process, to justice, to peace and to reconciliation.



We believe that there is no apparent reason for treating Maori differently under the law in terms of the protection of their property rights. Indeed, if anything, the history of Maori land alienation is such that their property rights are owed more, not less, protection.



There may be some here, who will say, what does the Foreshore and Seabed have to do with victims’ rights?



What does it have to do with the latest information on victims as according to the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006?



According to this survey, Māori and Pacific peoples have risks in the region of one-fifth higher than the average. Maori emerged as higher risk than average on all measures and in particular confrontational crime.



Under the framework of our Maori Party, we are as committed towards addressing the fact that Maori are at higher risk of victimisation than other New Zealanders, as we are about repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In fact, we are committed to every issue, every Bill, every debate as providing an opportunity to advance justice for tangata whenua.



We are not prepared just to let the passage of time tick by, to let bygones be bygones, to let injustices go unchallenged.



And so when I look at that data from the survey, and I learn that Maori are more than 50% higher than the average victimisation rates in assaults and threats by partners, by people well known or by other offenders, we know that the pervasive violence reflected in these statistics must be confronted at every level.



Who are these partners, these people well known, these other offenders? Do we know them? Are they sitting in this room?

Would we invite them into our place for a cup of tea? Say hello to them at the supermarket? Take our tax bills to them to sort out?



Do we know them as victims? Do we know the victims they have created? Are they Maori? Pakeha? Pasifika? Asian?

If we want to achieve a fair and just community we must review both the structural functioning of society and the operations of its justice system. The Maori Party is totally committed towards the notion of restorative justice, in keeping with our practice of upholding the tikanga and kaupapa left to us by our ancestors.

We believe in the need for manaakitanga to be effectively acknowledged so that the mana of all peoples might be properly and respectfully acknowledged.



Manaakitanga is seen through the creation of an environment where the care and welfare of one’s neighbours, as well as one’s whanau, is an important measure of social harmony.



We are driven by justice values and processes that are restorative rather than adversarial and punitive, which reflect reconciliation, undo any harm and deal with interpersonal and/or inter-collective disputes which disrupt social harmony.



A critical success factor for us, is that this nation must acknowledge the fundamental importance of whanau, hapu and iwi social structures which are intricately connected to the proper protection of the well-being of whanau, hapu, and iwi.



Our over-riding belief is that Maori can sanction or care for Maori offenders and victims according to the responsibilities and reciprocal obligations inherent in the rangatiratanga of whanau, hapu and iwi.



At Hoani Waititi marae, we have been committed to restorative justice processes for nearly two decades. The place of the ‘victim’ within the whanau process of reconciliation is essential, as is the importance of respecting and supporting the offender – while condemning the actions they have taken.



Our focus is to address the whanau and the journey they must take to take control of their destiny, rather than on the offender and his or her pathologies.



Restorative justice, in a whanau sense, is both interpersonal (the victim-offender reconciliation) but also seeks to respond to underlying injustices at a broader collective and community level.

The input of community elders and leaders is vital to the success of any whanau hui, as is the involvement of those who support the victim, and those who support the offender.



It has sometimes been said, that whanau hui are the soft options, focused on keeping Maori out of jail. It is not so.



It may be, indeed, that a very positive outcome of the whanau hui process will be to reduce the appalling incarceration rates of Maori, and that is a worthwhile goal in itself.



But the most enduring outcome is about creating a community of caring and collective responsibility for each other. The emphasis is less on punishment and retribution, and more on the restoration of harmony within our whanau, hapu and iwi.



But harmony does not come without struggle, without challenges.



I have been in many restorative justice hui where offenders have been confronted by their own whanau, describing the profound mamae, the pain and grief they have experienced as a result of the actions done to the victim.



The people have been paralysed by the forces of power and control; their red hot anger expressed by silence, by eyes cast down, by the chill of body language. In the midst of the volcano, the quietness of a statement by a kuia may finally cause the toughest crim to break, the tears flow, the journey towards healing is on its way.



A soft option? Hardly. In fact, it has not been unheard of, in some of my work with victims, for the offender to opt for the Court justice as a way out of having to face up to the whanau and take responsibility for his actions.



The key distinguishing factor in all of this process is not about categorizing the participants as the victim, the offender, the support person. Our priority is on reconciling and reintegrating the victim, the offender, the support person into the context of whanau. It is about believing in the power of whanau to effect ultimate change.



I am greatly pleased to have been able to follow Professor Irvin Waller in the programme, and to listen to the crime prevention science as it emerges in reducing victimisation in Canada.



As indigenous peoples, Maori have always been very interested in the aboriginal initiatives being supported across the globe. The models provided by the Four Circles of Hollow Water; the use of diversion and sentencing circles, of elders circles, of the Hawaiian process of ho'oponopono, of community decision making and many other holistic healing processes are very closely connected to our practices of whanau hui and wananga.

And in thinking about the international indigenous context, I was of course interested in the Australian Prime Minister’s statement about symbolic reconciliation with Aboriginal communities on the eve of the election campaign.

It started so well in John Howard acknowledging “a deep yearning in the national psyche for a more positive and unifying approach to reconciliation”. So far, so good. But then within the next sentence, that approach is redefined in such a way as to relegate the collective interests of the indigenous social structures as subordinate to “individual rights and national sovereignity”.

While his initiative to recognize Aboriginal peoples in the constitutional framework of Australia is commendable, as is his acknowledgment of the intellectual firepower of a new generation of indigenous leaders; the fatal flaw is still in his failure to accept that a “collective national apology for past injustice” is of value. Indeed, to accept responsibility and to express remorse would be likely to, according to Howard, “reinforce a culture of victim-hood and take us backwards”.

I have taken the time to refer to our Australian neighbours, because I think it is an interesting example of how reconciliation and healing must involve all sides to any dispute, for true understanding to be achieved.

Whilst Mr Howard is reluctant to ‘say sorry’ – describing this as retrenching into victimhood, the ‘victims’ of past injustice will have a completely different reading of the situation in Australia.

Again, I am reminded that victimhood becomes code for a term of abuse, instead of focusing on owning a collective responsibility for reconciliation and healing.



Finally, I am unashamedly seeking a revolution of thinking, in which we consider less adversarial alternatives, processes based on the principles of consensus, forgiveness and reconciliation.



It is about encouraging more initiatives which promote community justice models instead of building another prison.

It is about power sharing – acknowledging the Treaty partner has legitimate and valid processes to build communities.

It is about valuing our resolution skills; our peacemaking abilities; our traditional processes.



It is, at its heart, about relationships and partnerships – a foundation, we would suggest, that is fundamental to our future as a nation.