A/HRC/27/65 of individuals and communities. The methodology of the Commission is based on indigenous customs, such as healing circles, traditional counselling provided to participants and other customary and spiritual ceremonies. Through this process, new relationships will be established based on mutual recognition and respect. Under the court-monitored Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, financial redress is provided outside the Commission through a modest common experience payment to all former students and a separate independent assessment process for abuse claims. 80. The Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand, established in 1975, is an example of a restorative justice process to facilitate reconciliation derived from the needs of the community, including the Māori and Pākehā.61 The Tribunal broadly fit the ideals of restorative justice through the provision of a forum for grievances by participants, the validation of claimants’ experiences through research and the incorporation of Māori tradition through a focus on restoring the mana (authority) of the victims, their families and the offenders’ families.62 81. The Australian Apology in 2008 officially recognized the harm caused by its policy of removal of indigenous children from their families.63 The context and purpose of the Apology demonstrate similarities with aspects of restorative justice process in that it was intended to help heal the damage of the past and prepare for the future. 82. The Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and Reconciliation Commission is mandated to consider the widespread transfer of indigenous children from their families to non-indigenous families precipitated by the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Commission gives a voice to the Wabanaki people, promising to practice equal State/indigenous involvement in order to achieve peace and reconciliation through a restorative justice model. 83. As these cases illustrate, restorative justice must be understood as a process, not an event. Robert Andrew Joseph suggests eight “giant steps” in the process of achieving reconciliatory justice: • Recognition: finding truth and describing injustices; • Responsibility: the acknowledgement of responsibility for injustices; • Remorse: a sincere apology for injustices; • Restitution of lands and resources, and the power to determine their use; • Reparation for injustices in financial terms, recognizing that many harms are untouched by this compensation; • Redesigning State political-legal institutions and processes to empower indigenous participation in self-government and State governance; • Refraining from future injustices by assuring past and present injustices will not be repeated; 61 62 63 Joe Williams (citing Edward Durie), “Conflict resolution: the role of the Waitangi Tribunal”, in Turning the Tide: a New Approach to Conflict Resolution, Peter Greener, ed. (Auckland University of Technology, 2001), p. 9. Donna Durie Hall and New Zealand Māori Council, “Restorative justice: a Māori perspective”, in Restorative Justice: Contemporary Themes and Practice, Helen Bowen and Jim Consedine, eds. (Lyttelton, Ploughshares Publications, 1999), p. 26. Australia, Department of Social Services, “Apology to Australia’s indigenous peoples”, available from www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/Indigenous-australians/programs-services/recognitionrespect/apology-to-australias-Indigenous-peoples. 19