Criminal Justice Policy Review http://cjp.sagepub.

com/

The Pacific Island Community in New Zealand: Domestic Violence and Access to Justice
Susan J. Wurtzburg Criminal Justice Policy Review 2003 14: 423 DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253721 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/14/3/423

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Department of Criminlogy at Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Additional services and information for Criminal Justice Policy Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/14/3/423.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 2003 What is This?

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

ARTICLE

10.1177/0887403403253721 Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND CRIMINAL COMMUNITY JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

The Pacific Island Community in New Zealand: Domestic Violence and Access to Justice
Susan J. Wurtzburg
University of Canterbury

A brief introduction is provided to the 1995 New Zealand Domestic Violence Act, which came into force July 1, 1996. This Act was designed to provide better protection to the victims of family violence. The research reported here examines whether it provides increased safety for Pacific Island women living in Christchurch, New Zealand. The data include formal interviews with 76 people and participant-observation at a battered womens shelter and at an organization facilitating programs for violent men. It was found that for many Pacific Island women, access to rights legislated by the Domestic Violence Act were affected by gender, language, religion, and family structure, among other factors. Keywords: domestic violence; New Zealand; Polynesia

In the research reported here, I investigate the interplay of beliefs and behaviors concerning ethnicity, gender, domestic violence, and conflict resolution. The research is focused on Pacific Island people and how they adapt Polynesian concepts and actions to a New Zealand context (Wurtzburg, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b).1 In this article, I examine a portion of this larger projectnamely, how gender and ethnic origin affect access to the Domestic Violence Act and how it is implemented in Christchurch, New Zealand.
AUTHORS NOTE: The author would like to acknowledge all the women and men who spent time with her and assisted with this research. Some of them also consented to be interviewed and thereby shared intimate details of their lives. The contributions of everyone have been disguised to maintain anonymity in the interests of protecting participants privacy and ensuring safety, both cultural and physical, for all. For this reason, the author cannot individually acknowledge everyone. However, she does most gratefully thank the people who
Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2003 DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253721 2003 Sage Publications 423-446

423

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

424

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

The Domestic Violence Act was ratified by the New Zealand government in 1995 and came into force July 1, 1996, replacing the previous Domestic Protection Act. Both of these pieces of legislation deal with mistreatment of one another by family members, and they are and have been the most relevant law for victims of domestic abuse who are attempting either to extract themselves (or their children) from violent household situations. The 1995 Domestic Violence Act came about as the result of several different developments, which occurred more or less contemporaneously in nongovernmental community services and the government agencies, including the legal system. Among lawyers and court employees, their personal experience combined with two well-received publications emphasized the need to reform the 1982 Domestic Protection Act (Davison, 1994; Department of Justice, 1993). At the same time, there was growing awareness among police and social service providers of the connection between domestic violence and the homicides of women and children (New Zealand Police Research and Development Group, 1997, p. 4). Simultaneously, community agencies, such as battered womens shelters (known in New Zealand as womens refuges), also agitated for legal changes because the 1982 Act was proving inadequate for their clients needs. Growing public awareness of the need for legal reform eventually resulted in the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1995. The clearly stated objective of the new law is to reduce and prevent violence in domestic relationships by (a) recognizing that domestic violence, in all its forms, is unacceptable behavior; and (b) ensuring that, where domestic violence occurs, there is effective legal protection for its victims (Section 5 [1]). There are five means by which the Act works to achieve these goals, as follows:

helped her in New Zealand, primarily in Christchurch, but also in Wellington and Auckland. There were also many who spent time with her in Rarotonga (Cook Islands), Viti Levu and Kadavu (Fiji), Tahiti and Huahine (French Polynesia), Honolulu (Hawaii), Tongatapu and Vavau (Kingdom of Tonga), and Upolu (Samoa). The author would also like to acknowledge the assistance of several community and government agencies in Samoa: Mapusaga o Aiga, the Ministry of Women Affairs, the Attorney-Generals Office, and the police. In Christchurch, the author is especially grateful to Christchurch Womens Refuge, Stopping Violence Services, and the Christchurch Police. Several representatives of the Department for Courts also provided useful information, which is appreciated. The author also acknowledges the support of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury, and the Research Fellowship awarded her in 1997. She also thanks the Human Sciences Division, Lincoln University, for office and computer support.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

425

a. empowering the court to make certain orders to protect victims of domestic violence; b. ensuring that access to the court is as speedy, inexpensive, and simple as is consistent with justice; c. providing appropriate programs for persons who are victims of domestic violence; d. requiring respondents and associated respondents to attend programs that have the primary objective of stopping or preventing domestic violence; and e. providing more effective sanctions and enforcement in the event that a protection order is breached (Section 5[2]).

Despite the ideals underlying the new legislation, there are still problems with its implementation, and these difficulties are the focus of the research reported here. In addition to the troubles experienced by many citizens in accessing their rights under the Domestic Violence Act, it seems that women and members of minority communities have additional challenges to surmount in order to apply the law. This article focuses on the concerns of Pacific Islanders living in New Zealand and their attempts to exercise their legal rights when threatened with domestic violence. It is noteworthy that a recent survey of 5,000 New Zealand households showed that a small group of people, particularly Maori and Pacific Island women, are bearing the brunt of most violent and sexual offending (Kirk, 1997; see Ministry of Justice, 1998; Wichman, 1997). Although the study here does not deal with prevalence and therefore provides no data either to uphold or challenge this contention, if the above research is correct, it suggests that serious study is long overdue to determine whether these communities are unfairly penalized. I now turn to the methods used in this study to contact members of the Pacific Island communities living in Christchurch and to ascertain their viewpoints and behaviors concerning domestic violence and the New Zealand law.

METHOD
The research reported here is based on approximately 5 years of participantobservation at a battered womens shelter (womens refuge) in Christchurch and approximately 2 years working at a Christchurch organization facilitating programs for violent men. I also served for approximately a year on a New Zealand Department for Courts Domestic Violence Programmes Approval Panel. In addition to these activities in New Zealand, part of the investigation also took place in Polynesia, specifically in the Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Hawaii, Samoa, and Tonga. All my interactions

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

426

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

were documented in field notes, and I also conducted formal tape-recorded interviews with 76 individuals (50 women and 26 men aged from their mid20s to mid-60s) in Christchurch, Auckland, and Apia (Samoa). These interview transcripts make it possible to present peoples accounts in their own words, following the historically attested anthropological tradition of giving voice to others (Behar, 1996; Behar & Gordon, 1995; Chamberlayne, Bornat, & Wengraf, 2000; Stewart & Strathern, 2000). The transcribed interviews fall into two groups. One set comprises conversations with 36 people living in Christchurch, who work, have worked for, or have experience with the police, the courts, legal firms, and social service agencies. To understand how the Domestic Violence Act functions in practice in Christchurch, it was both appropriate and necessary to ask those who are knowledgeable in such areas. With this goal in mind, I interviewed social workers, including refuge volunteers (13 people interviewed one or more times), police (14), court workers (3), lawyers (2), refuge clients (3), and an academic with extensive experience in the Pacific (1). Information obtained from these interviews is compared with the views of 40 other people, all of whom were members of the Pacific Island communities and many of whom had experienced violence. In all of these categories, there is some overlap. For example, a man currently working for the New Zealand Police may identify himself as a Cook Islander and also may have experienced violence as a child. The Pacific Islanders interviewed here identified themselves as: Samoan (24 people interviewed one or more times), Tongan (4), Cook Islander (3), Niuean (3), Fijian (1), Fijian-Indian (1), Tuvaluan (1), Kiribati (1), and Pacific Islander (2).2 With regard to the New Zealand population as a whole, approximately 6% (202,236 people) of residents define themselves as belonging to the Pacific Islands ethnic groups (Statistics New Zealand, 1998, p. 19). Of this total, 50% are Samoan, 23% are Cook Islanders, 16% Tongan, 9% Niuean, 4% Fijian, and 2% Tokelauan (Statistics New Zealand 1998, p. 19). Of these total populations, approximately 2% of the men and the same proportion of women live in Christchurch (Statistics New Zealand, 1998, p. 235). However, these proportions are not constant across the entire country. In 1996, in Christchurch, there were 5,000 Samoans, 1,107 Cook Islanders, 606 Tongans, 411 Niueans, 294 Fijians, and 39 Tokelauans (Statistics New Zealand, 1998). These figures can be expressed as follows (calculated based on a total of 7,457 Pacific Island people resident in Christchurch): 67% Samoan, 15% Cook Islander, 8% Tongan, 6% Niuean, 4% Fijian, and 0.5% Tokelauan. In comparison, in my research, with regard to Pacific Islanders (total of 38, with 2 self-defined as Pacific Islander not

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

427

included here), I interviewed the following: 63% Samoan, 11% Tongan, 8% Cook Islander, 5% Niuean, 5% Fijian, and no Tokelauans. It should be recognized that all of these data are somewhat imprecise because many members of the Pacific Island community would define their ethnicity as consisting of a combination of backgrounds (Statistics New Zealand, 1997, pp. 28-29). In my interviews with participants, when asked how they defined their ethnicity, some people found this an easy question to answer, but for others, their response was complicated by emotional uncertainties relating to belonging, to how others might view them, and to other matters. Although people often acknowledged a multiethnic background in their conversation, interestingly, in my research, no one initially defined themselves as belonging to more than one Pacific Island group, although some born in New Zealand or Australia incorporated aspects of dual identity. Patricias response provides insight into her attempt to balance these considerations:
Coming from a half-caste point of view, I saw prejudice from both sides but also love and support from both sides as well. . . . I think . . . I have a very European view, but [I] also maintain my culture and Pacific Island sense.3

The concentration of Samoans interviewed in this study both reflects and is justified by the high numbers of Samoans living in Christchurch when compared with other Pacific Island groups. Possibly, to be more representative of the Christchurch population, it would have been ideal to interview more members of the Cook Island community. One of the disadvantages of my method for meeting potential research participants was that it relied on the referrals that I received, and therefore I did not have control over who was to be my next introduction. With respect to the people interviewed, the methodology was constrained by several factors, including the small size of the Christchurch Pacific Island population and the extreme sensitivity of the topic. I used a snowball sampling method (involving social networks), whereby I asked people whom I interviewed to help me in finding more people who would be willing to be interviewed. Similar strategies have been used by other researchers to locate potential participants in research on controversial topics, such as sexuality and child discipline in the New Zealand Pacific Island community (Schoeffel & Meleisea, 1996; Tupuola, 1996). Snowball sampling is a particularly useful technique when moral, legal, or social sensitivities surrounding the behavior in question . . . pose some serious problems for locating and contacting potential respondents

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

428

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003 Themes and Their Social Contexts Ranked in Order of Importance Family Extended family Discipline Ethnicity of children Family name Food Adoption Aid to parents Remittances Marriage Aid to children Siblings Family variation Group Large Scale

Table 1: Individual Respect Shame Politeness Finances Oratory Individual variation

Language International migration Religion Inter-island migration Christchurch Rank in the islands Customs Dawn raids Womens status Ceremonies Hierarchy in New Zealand Dancing Prohibitions Group variation

(Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981, p. 144, as cited in Singleton & Straits, 1999, p. 163). In the case of my research, this method was absolutely necessary given the sensitivities surrounding domestic violence in these communities. In these interviews, I asked people how they determined their own ethnicity and what characteristics they considered essential to maintaining this identity. From the answers to these inquiries, I compiled a list of the most frequent themes. Each theme was composed of many stories generated by different individuals during their interviews. Each story provided some insight useful for understanding the multifaceted themes. After content analysis of all the transcripts was completed, the identified themes were ordered hierarchically (see Table 1) according to their incidence of occurrence, with the most frequently mentioned ones at the top of the list. They were then classified according to four general types of social and geographical contexts, relating to the individual, the family, the group, or large-scale processes. As the results show, interview subjects generally emphasized things that related to family and group contexts, rather than issues pertaining either to the individual or to more global considerations (see Table 1). This emphasis on family and group contexts and the issues considered important by those interviewed have significant implications for access to the law and to justice in the courts, and this is the focus here. I now turn to a brief discussion of the Domestic Violence Act before discussing its implementation and then finally some of the barriers to access to justice experienced by women from the Pacific Islands.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

429

PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 1995

There were several important legal innovations in the new Domestic Violence Act. It disseminated an expanded definition of domestic violence, which is more inclusive than previous legislation and includes all types of violence against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship (Section 3). In the Act, violence is described as (a) physical abuse, (b) sexual abuse, (c) psychological abuse, including, but not limited to, (i) intimidation, (ii) harassment, (iii) damage to property, [and] (iv) threats of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or psychological abuse (Section 3 [2]). This definition of violence was a major change because under the Domestic Protection Act of 1982, violent behavior only included physical or sexual abuse, and there was no legal recognition of damage resulting from psychological or emotional mistreatment. Research has demonstrated that psychological abuse is destructive (e.g., Andersen, Boulette, & Schwartz, 1991; Busch, Robertson, & Lapsley, 1993; Murphy & Cascardi, 1999), and it may be particularly terrifying for the individuals targeted because abusers sometimes perform trivial acts of abuse to signal to their victims that they can getthem whenever they like (Seuffert, 1996, p. 2). However, psychological abuse is a difficult concept for the courts to apply, and legal precedent has and will continue to fine-tune the Acts definition over time, presumably with regard to such issues as severity, duration, and repeated nature of the behavior and its meaning for the victim. Specifically,
psychological abuse has been held to include such things as being followed and watched and receiving nuisance calls, regularly being yelled abuse at whilst the respondent drives past the applicants house, receiving unwanted mail, continuous harassment, threats and insults amounting to an abuse of power, and serious threats of violence. (Darlow, 1997, p. 8-9).

As with the definition of violence, the definition of family also has been expanded in the new Domestic Violence Act compared to the previous legislation and is regularly augmented with the development of case law (e.g., Webb et al., 1997, p. 1370-1374). This means current definitions of families with domestic relationships at times may include interactions such as flat mates or close friends that would not have been considered intimate enough to qualify as family under the previous Domestic Protection Act.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

430

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

The Domestic Violence Act allows an applicant (person experiencing violence) to obtain a protection order against a respondent (individual against whom an order is madebasically, the aggressor). A protection order, whether temporary or permanent, provides the applicant with the power to deny the respondent any contact with the applicant and her children. It also often permits the applicant to control the respondents residence in the domestic abode. Under the Domestic Violence Act, anyone who is named as a respondent must desist in physically, sexually, or psychologically abusing a protected person and may not damage their property or encourage others to perpetrate these acts. I now turn to how a woman obtains a protection order. Once women have found a lawyer to complete their application for a protection order, then the order is filed at the Family Court, which was established in 1981 pursuant to the Family Courts Act 1980 (McDowell & Webb, 1995, p. 244). This court has jurisdiction over all matters dealing with the family, including protection orders. Applicants for a protection order may need to appear in court; however, Domestic Violence Act matters typically are granted privacy and only the parties concerned, their lawyers, court staff, and the judge attend, except for special circumstances (Section 83). (Breaches of protection orders or charges of assault under the Crimes Act are heard in the District Court.) For most legal matters before the Family Court, the emphasis is on negotiation between the affected parties; however, it has been recognized that this is not appropriate in cases of domestic violencewhere there is a documented unequal relationshipbecause negotiation in court would publicly perpetrate the private abusive patterns. Under the law, there is a difference between an application without notice for a protection order and an application with notice. Basically,
a protection order may be made on an application without notice if the Court is satisfied that the delay that would be caused by proceeding on notice would or might entail (a) a risk of harm or (b) undue hardship. (Section 13(1))

An order made without notice is granted as a temporary order that becomes final by operation of law 3 months after the date on which it is made (Section 13[3]). Arrest is recommended for a breach of a protection order according to the Domestic Violence Act (Section 50). This section of the law responds to research showing that this is a helpful strategy for victims of violence (Edwards, 1985; Sherman & Cohn, 1989). However, more recent studies reach mixed conclusions regarding the putative benefits for victims (Davis,

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

431

Smith, & Nickles, 1998; Miller & Krull, 1997; Mills, 1998; Saunders, 1995). In theory, this legal requirement (Section 50) means that an individual will be arrested when he or she contravenes a protection order by contacting the person who obtained the order without his or her permission. A police policy has taken this further and suggests that arrest is the appropriate policy whenever police are called to a situation of domestic violence where there is sufficient evidence . . . In many cases, the offence will be Male assaults Female[under the Crimes Act 1961] but where the offender has breached a protection order, he or she must also be charged with that breach (New Zealand Police Research and Development Group, 1997, p. 54). Additional instructions appear in the Canterbury District Operational Instruction, termed the F6, which also emphasizes the importance of arrest and removal of the perpetrator from the scene. I now turn to how the police and the courts actually implement the law dealing with family abuse.

Implementation of the Domestic Violence Act 1995

As mentioned, the Domestic Violence Act came into force July 1, 1996. The date of this Acts implementation was well publicized, although, unfortunately, the specific details of the legal changesand there were many were not well understood by either the general public or those working in the courts, police, and other social service agencies (Hartley, 2000; Wurtzburg, 1997b). Therefore, the first few months of the new Act were chaotic and confusing to both the majority of legal insiders and to members of the public. Sally, a Christchurch lawyer interviewed 10 months after the Act came into force, remarked, It does not seem that our women clients out there know . . . about this law [the Domestic Violence Act]. Sally was not alone in noting that this lack of information rendered the law especially inaccessible for some women, in particular for new immigrants or nonEnglish-speaking residents. In addition to the challenges of learning about the legislative change, women also had difficulty in obtaining its most basic provision, a protection order. In plans for the new Act, it had been envisaged that it would be as simple as possible so that women could apply to the court for protection orders themselves, without needing the assistance of a lawyer. Unfortunately, the Act that was finally passed was too complicated for most women without legal training to deal with on their own. This confusion about the new law affected New Zealand womens safety more than mens well-being because of the gender component to domestic

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

432

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

violence. All available datafor example, from questionnaires concerning the prevalence of family assaults, prison records, hospital admissions, court appearances, sentencing documents, and prison censuses in New Zealand and overseasconfirm that most victims of battering are women and children and that the majority of assailants are men (e.g. Barwick, Gray, & Macky, 2000; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000; Edwards, 1985; Fields, 1977; Greenfield et al., 1998; Heidensohn, 2000; Hilton, 1989; Lash, 1998; Morley & Mullender, 1994; Morris, 1996; Radford, 1996; Rout, 1999; Spier, 1998; Statistics New Zealand, 1993; Stewart, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). An additional difficulty for women trying to ensure their safety is that a protection order does not come into force until served on the respondent. Many women did not realize this initially and assumed that they were covered by the order once a judge had granted it. In actual fact, the respondent might have close to 3 months (depending on when the order was served on them) to determine whether they wished to challenge the order or selected aspects of it in Family Court (Section 76). For many New Zealand women, this has added many more months of stress to a painful legal ordeal. With regard to psychological abuse, which is considered to be violence under the new Act, Jacqueline, a Christchurch lawyer, commented in late 1998,
In my experience, I have found where Ive applied for a temporary order and there is psychological abuse, unless its very serious psychological abuse, those orders will not be granted as temporary orders . . . What actually transpires is that because theres no external manifestation of a physical aspect of violence, the matter may in the first instance not be taken as seriously.

Tragically, some of these situations may later be demonstrated to the courts to be highly serious. For example, Jacqueline described the case of a woman client who was harmed when he (male respondent in a case of psychological abuse) came around to her place [and] actually tried to kill her. He has been charged with attempted murder. All of the above issues contribute greatly to the confusion and anxiety of a woman trying to obtain a protection order. One interviewer (for Barwick et al.s research) noted that it was common . . . for the protected person to have little understanding of the current legal status of their temporary protection order or their custody and access arrangements (Barwick et al., 2000, p. 68). In addition to the difficulties experienced by women at court, they also may have problems in dealing with the police. The Domestic Violence Act

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

433

clearly states that violence includes emotional abuse. However, the actual definition of violence used by police at the scene may vary dramatically from that prescribed by law. Billy, a Christchurch policeman, speaking about domestic violence, said,
Its no offence to fight in your own home. Youve just got to be able to distinguish . . . what a fight is and what an assault is . . . A fight is two people assaulting each other equally. So it can be your own interpretation of did someone get hurt.

Another policeman, Dick, also struggled with the legal definition of violence, and he explained,
Domestics (incidents of domestic violence) are very hard for us (the police) because weve got to go into someones private house and try to mediate, sort out a problem between them without really knowing their relationship and any history to their background. So its a common-sense approach. Everyone argues. Thats just part of a relationship. Its when things either have a history or hes lost the plot and caused some real damage to the person . . . If the assault is of a minor nature, say a push or a shove, then were probably unlikely to make an arrest.

Tom, another police officer, informed me that I sort of require there to be either injuries or a situation where the male has blocked the woman by detaining her in some way and then perhaps physically assaulted [her]. These statements by police officers embody a conception of family violence that differs from the legal definition of violence according to the Domestic Violence Act. In each case, the officer stated that they made decisions about whether to arrest someone (with regard to breaches under the Domestic Violence Act) based on how physical the level of abuse appeared to be; however, according to the law, emotional violence is also considered inappropriate and should be sanctioned. Ideally, once a woman contacts the police, they move rapidly to arrest the perpetrator of the violence; however, the reality may be different, as described here. Sally, practicing law in Christchurch, recollected,
One particular client [rang and] said, I phoned the police all morning and they havent come. And he has broken so many windows . . . because I wont let him in. The kids are all hiding under the bed . . . I phoned them (police), and . . . eventually they did take him away but released him within 6 hours.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

434

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

Arrest is mandatory when police are called to violent situations according to police policy under the Domestic Violence Act. However, as described above, the attitudes and understanding of individual police officers may play a role in whether an arrest actually occurs. In this regard, the following account by Tom, a Christchurch officer, is informative: We had this terrible obstacle to get over earlier on (in the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act) where everyone was getting locked up. Males were getting locked up purely on a gender basis. In contrast, Ray, another police officer, reported that theyve (perpetrators of assaults) just been wham, bam, straight to jail . . . That will have opened their eyes a fair bit. Ive certainly had some good feedback from the victims over that. When the police are uncertain about the legal definition of violence and do not arrest perpetrators, their actions penalize women unfairly and put them and any resident children at risk. Here I have presented some materials relevant to gender bias, and I now turn to cultural issues confronted by Pacific Island women with regard to the Domestic Violence Act and their dealings with the police and the courts. Additional problems in coping with English or immigration complications or other challenges that may plague new immigrants to New Zealand may contribute further to the difficulties that a Polynesian woman might experience in obtaining a protection order. I explore some of the concepts that Pacific Islanders indicated as intrinsic to their ethnic identity (see Table 1) and an explication of how these issues affect access to justice under the Domestic Violence Act.

LANGUAGE
Interview subjects mentioned the range of languages and social customs present in New Zealand, despite the fact that New Zealanders of European origin generally categorize these various groups generically as Pacific Islanders. A typical account is Fagamalamas, a Samoan who migrated as an adult to New Zealand; she remarked that in New Zealand, were all lumped together as Pacific Islanders, but we all have different cultures . . . and we dont even understand each others languages. With regard to this issue, staff of the Department for Courts and the police receive only limited training about either dealing with Pacific Island clients or the variation in Island cultures. Typically, any training that does occur relates primarily to Samoan practices, and as a result, all Pacific Islanders may be treated as Samoans, without realization of the differences that are obfuscated by this broad categorization.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

435

Contributing to the communication difficulties between public servants and Pacific Islanders is the fact that many older Pacific Island people and more recent immigrants to New Zealand may have limited skills in spoken or written English. In this regard, Gabrielle told me about her difficulties in coping in Christchurch. She lamented that Samoan people . . . dont even speak . . . English very well. Theyre so ashamed to go and ask. . . . Samoan people who come here, they feel embarrassed to speak . . . English. In her case, her difficulties with English communication contributed to her stress in extricating herself and her children from a violent domestic situation. Even in situations having nothing to do with abusive home environments, the language complications often create communication difficulties between generations of the family and between household members and outsiders. Helen recounted from her own experience the frustration of sometimes having children who cant speak Samoan and parents who cant speak English. When there is domestic violence, language difficulties affect womens abilities to contact the police or, once contacted, to explain the nature of the problem. The police are supposed to use approved interpreters when there are communication issues, but this does not always happen. For example, Ray, a Christchurch policeman told me that he has used family members, usually a child or someone like that if theyve got a reasonable grasp of the English language. Also, the parents at times. Unfortunately, many police tend to downplay the difficulties of people who are not native speakers of English. For example, Mike told me,
Most people have a little bit [of English] if theyre in New Zealand . . . You can sort of get around it (the language barrier). Because I suppose you can make a fist and [ask], Has he hit you? . . . I think a lot of people when they come to the country . . . Samoan, Japanese, Chinese, when they do get in trouble with the police, they pretend they cant speak when actually their English isnt too bad at all.

Jim also attributed strategic behavior to non-English-speaking members of the public when he said,
The reality is that the majority of people in New Zealand of ethnic origin outside of New Zealand generally speak English relatively well before they even come here . . . Some of these people as soon as they see an enforcement officer will collapse into a no-speekum-English [sic], and that may not be in respect of Samoans [only].

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

436

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

In New Zealand, once a woman has been granted a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, she has a legal document that acknowledges her right to a nonabusive environment. However, her physical safety may depend on her ability both to phone the police and to inform them if there are violations of the order. In the case of a Pacific Island woman, there are also many factors in addition to language ability that may make it difficult for her to ask for help. Some insight into these issues is provided by Alison, employed by the Department for Courts, who remarked,
If . . . people are going to get protection orders, they really need a telephone (which many Pacific Island people do not have) . . . My experience of a number of Pacific Island women is that theyunless they are living in a community where there are other Pacific Islandersthey dont know their neighbors . . . So theyre actually very isolated. The orders really dont serve them very well.

Isolation is also mentioned by Helen in an interview in Samoa, when she recalled her experiences of living in New Zealand: Instead of living in your extended family in the village, youre suddenly living [isolated] in a flat in Hoon Hay (residential district of Christchurch). A Christchurch policeman acknowledged that the women . . . dont want to make complaints if theyre Pacific Islanders, but thats generally right across the board with domestics (incidences of domestic violence). As shown, non-native speakers of English may have only limited access to legal rights because of difficulties in communicating with the police. In addition, access to court services may also be prejudiced by limited linguistic ability; in the interest of space, only brief mention is made here (see Aiomanu, 1996). The court is an alienating environment for new immigrants due to both the physical surroundings and to the formal behavior and speech that occur there. Via, an immigrant from Niue, recalling her experiences with assisting others, said, We can give them the help that they need. But with the law, no. Women feel intimidated; it is also uninviting that most of the lawyers and judges are of different ethnicity and gender (depending on the court) from these women. Womens interactions with the courts and police may also be influenced by other cultural factors, such as respect for elders. Lisi suggested that if you . . . talk back to your parents (or elders) . . . thats seen as being cheeky or disrespectful. For this reason, women may seem to be agreeing with utterances by the police, lawyers, or court officials when in fact they may disagree with the statements made. Research on language and the law shows that sometimes, even for native speakers, yes (and its equivalents, such as

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

437

head nodding, etc.) functions to indicate Im listening or Im being polite and cooperative in the conversation, rather than I confirm the truth value of the assertion or I answer affirmatively to that question (Finegan, 1997; Henley, 2002; Shuy, 1993). This is an especially difficult aspect of English usage for non-native speakers to learn, and they frequently experience heavy interference from the behavioral norms in their native language. Politeness and how it is expressed in language vary dramatically across cultures, and in particular behaviors appropriate to the various Pacific Islands contrast markedly with that of New Zealanders of European background. In addition to language and its advantages or difficulties, religion was also a frequent topic of discussion in the interviews and in conversations about ethnicity. Lisi was not unusual when she told me that one thing I always associated with being Samoan was church.

RELIGION
In Christchurch, participation in church services and church activities can help provide unity of purpose to Pacific Island people who may be from different islands with different languages or backgrounds. For example, Kasi told me that in New Zealand, we dont live in families. We usually live by whatever church you belong to. In Tonga, its either the family or the village [with which] you identify [yourself]. Here you identify which village or which church. The Samoan community is similar, as Lisi informed me: In New Zealand, your village is actually your church . . . If you . . . meet another Samoan, you work out where theyre from through the church. If you go back to the islands, its, What village are you from? Helen, whom I interviewed in Apia, suggested that from my own experience in Wellington, I know people rely on the church minister to compensate for the absence of the other networks that they would normally have [in Samoa]. This reliance on the church and minister may have negative consequences for a Pacific Island woman dealing with domestic violence under New Zealand law. Depending on the attitudes and actions of her religious elders, she may not be made fully aware of the legal options available to her, and she may find it difficult to make her own decision because of culturally prescribed influences. Jacqueline, a Christchurch lawyer observed that Samoan women . . . are pressurized by the church, by their husband, by the whole community, by all their relatives . . . to reconcile (with their violent husband/partner). If an arrest for abusive behavior has occurred, then, in the period after the arrest, women may be influenced by partners or other family members and

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

438

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

persuaded to refuse to testify or to assist the police. This compliant behavior by women is often a symptom of long-term abuse because they are accustomed to having others assert power and control over their lives. Empathy and understanding of this situation is apparent in a Christchurch policemans comment that
I have a suspicion that a lot of applications to withdraw [charges] are made on cultural grounds . . . especially those situations where the male is perhaps dominant . . . and the woman is . . . coerced into advancing grounds for not wanting to proceed . . . As a general rule, I dont make allowance for culture in my decisions whether to continue a prosecution or withdraw. Its either was there an assault or wasnt there an assault.

Nancy, a court employee said,

Certainly [with] a number of Samoan couples that Ive talked to [and] Cook Island couples, there has been a strong emphasis on getting ministers involved and on getting women to withdraw charges . . . Probably the majority of Samoan people have refused to give evidence and have withdrawn [charges] and want their partner home for whatever reason; whether there is pressure put on them or whether they feel quite genuinely that they want him home, [I dont know].

Another court worker pointed to the issue of shame and how ministers may use this to influence women to reconcile with their partners rather than to continue with legal initiatives. Church elders are not alone in this reasoning, and similar strategies are also typically used by the extended family.

THE EXTENDED FAMILY

The difference in the role of the extended family and the associated confusion of dealing with the European New Zealanders nuclear-family orientation were both topics of much debate. Marlene reminded me that generally, you provide for the family, not . . . ask for something for yourself. This is fundamental. It is noteworthy in this regard that under the new Domestic Violence Act, the legal definition of a domestic relationship has been considerably altered (Section 4). Formerly, the law had only covered different-sex married and de facto relationships. Under the current legislation, a domestic relationship is a broader category and now includes members of an extended family or unrelated people who are living in the same dwelling,

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

439

both of which are relevant to Pacific Island families and their household arrangements. With this legal change, increased numbers of women residing in New Zealand are entitled to protection from domestic violence. However, to claim this right, women need to know that it exists, and they must be able to request protection from the police and the courts. For Pacific Island women, there are some circumstancesincluding those of their living arrangements and extended family networksthat work to limit their abilities both to learn about and to implement their rights under the Domestic Violence Act. In the interviews that I conducted, people emphasized the importance both of family connections and of keeping the family name clear of dishonor. Many times, especially when the conversation was about domestic violence, the troubling consideration of bringing shame to the extended family was mentioned. Taniela said that for Tongans to get in trouble [with the police] and to bring shame on your parents or your family is something really bad. Lisi reminded me that
everything you do reflects on the whole family. It reflects on the church, and on the wider community. So, if you do good, thats wonderful . . . At the same time, if it was someone who was in prison for domestic violence or something, then its a great shame.

Gabrielle related that her father reacted with the following words when he discovered her flight from her abusive husband: Shame on you. You put the family down. You put the name of the family down. When there is domestic violence that becomes known to the community, Pacific Island women seem to bear the greater proportion of social and family blame despite the fact that generally it is the male partner who has been violent. As well as accepting external blame, women may internalize these sanctions. Maiavas account of women she has counseled is typical: Theres always that little remark (by women in cases of domestic violence) . . . Its my fault. . . . Im the one to be blamed. The linkages between shame and the name of the extended family in cases of domestic violence make greater sense when Samoan attitudes to marriage are considered. Lorraine informed me that
when you are married, you are married to the whole family. You are not married as an individual to another individual . . . Your family ties are even married . . . If I will be beaten, if I will be verbally abused, that will be on my . . . aiga, my [extended] family too.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

440

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

The influence of concern about shaming the family is so strong that many Pacific Island women will not contact the police if there is domestic violence. Police officers are often aware of this. For example, Dick said,
What we find with Polynesian families is . . . they shut down on us. Because . . . if their relatives . . . hear about . . . the police being called, its very shameful. . . . Very rarely do we get a member of a Polynesian family calling the police to say theyve had a major domestic (incident of family violence).

Because Pacific Island women often do not contact the police or the courts, it is vital when members of these communities do make the attempt to connect with these agencies that these services provide effective information and intervention. It is only by the demonstration of effective action that greater numbers of women will be encouraged to seek help. In the interests of these women and addressing their needs more efficiently, I now turn to the conclusions, including some brief suggestions with regard to public policy in New Zealand.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY

The statements cited from these interviews that are relevant to the Domestic Violence Act provide insight into how gender and ethnicity influence access to and implementation of the law in Christchurch, New Zealand. The accounts clearly show that women are disadvantaged more than men, and Pacific Island women, especially those who speak English as a second language, are additionally disadvantaged. It is also apparent that Pacific Islandersviews of family responsibility, domestic violence, and the law often differ markedly from the views of New Zealanders of European origin and from the legal statutes. The following generalizations are suggested. Police attitudes and beliefs do impact their work, for example, with decisions about whether to arrest under the Domestic Violence Act. Change is necessary in order to bring police behavior in line with policy. To improve this situation, members of the police who are familiar with domestic violence procedures, the underlying theory informing such procedures, the training process, and policy systems need to work together to devise strategy for bettering police ability to work according to the protocols (both legal and police policy ones). Basically, officers need to understand the reasons for the procedures and to believe that these are appropriate ways of

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

441

dealing with the situation in order to respond in the approved manner themselves. It has been suggested that
encouraging police officers to examine their own attitudes and beliefs in myths about wife assault and facilitating the replacement of these perspectives with more accurate information might help to ease the difficulty of the decisions which officers are forced to make. (Hilton, 1989, p. 335)

Recent research on police socialization provides a context for promoting change (Chan, 2001; Meliala, 2001). Oceanic respondents paid much attention to the topic of language. Lack of proficiency in spoken or written English has far-reaching ramifications for people living in New Zealand, and negotiating with English-speaking agency representatives, such as police, court staff, and others. In this regard, there needs to be greater recognition of and training in language issues by the police and the courts. These agencies need to put increased efforts into making their services accessible to people from other countries who speak languages other than English. Public services need to understand how daunting they are for people from other cultural backgrounds and attempt to improve means for accommodating them. Many Pacific Island informants considered the connection between religious affiliation and ethnicity extremely significant. These links are not adequately understood by agencies dealing with domestic violence in Christchurch, which contributes additional tension to stressful situations. It might be useful for both police and courts to strengthen their links with the various church ministers active in the community. A difficultywhich bears emphasisis that church elders may need education in womens legal entitlements in order for their involvement to be beneficial in assisting women to cope with domestic violence so that it does not condone the abuse. Pacific Island research subjects emphasized responsibility toward both the family and wider social networks, which contrasts strongly with the more individual-oriented broader New Zealand society, expressed in laws stressing personal responsibility and a belief in marriage contracts recognizing individual ties. In the interests of improving access to justice, both the police and the courts need to assess how the Pacific Island concepts and lifestyle may affect a womans ability both to contact them for help and to participate in police or court processes. There is a desperate need for the implementation of strategies that allow women better legal access in a

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

442

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

manner that permits them to address these problems to change their personal and family circumstances for the better. Respect and shame were both topics emphasized in discussion by Pacific Island participants. Typically, these concepts were comprehended in very different terms from those prevalent in mainstream New Zealand, and these differences have disadvantageous outcomes for Pacific Islanders negotiating complex legalities. For example, an individual may state in court that she understands something when in fact she does not, or an individual may agree to an action simply because that is the advice received from someone to whom she owes respect. It is readily apparent how either of these situations may result in miscarriage of justice. To improve matters, court workers and members of the police need to learn more about the clients whose needs they serve in order for both parties to interact more effectively. In conclusion, Pacific Island women continue to be, in effect, penalized for both their gender and ethnic origin under the Domestic Violence Act in Christchurch. The extent and prevalence of these inequities are unknown; they may occur to various degrees on a regular basis. It is clear that there is a strong need for increased discussion and understanding by members of the police and legal profession of the differences discussed here that characterize members of the various Pacific Island communities. In the interests of greater justice with regard to domestic violence policy in Christchurch, this understanding needs to be complemented by appropriate action.

NOTES
1. The project is not concerned with the prevalence of violence either in New Zealand or the Pacific Island nations; my assumption is that abusive behavior occurs in all communities, and this is well supported in the literature concerning domestic violence in general (e.g. Campbell, 1985; Counts, 1990; Counts, Brown, & Campbell, 1992; Levinson, 1989; Masumura, 1979; Schuler, 1992; United Nations, 2000). 2. One of the women who identified herself as a Pacific Islander explained her action as follows: I would like to be identified as a Pacific Islander, not as a member of . . . community because we dont want the individual island communities to get negative stereotypes. 3. For safety and privacy reasons, all the individuals who I interviewed were given pseudonyms to protect their identities.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

443

REFERENCES
Aiomanu, K. (1996). The legal needs of Pacific Island women and responses to these needs (Macmillan Brown Working Paper Series No. 1). Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury, Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies. Andersen, S. M., Boulette, T. R., & Schwartz, A. H. (1991). Psychological maltreatment of spouses. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Case studies in family violence (pp. 293-327). New York: Plenum. Barwick, H., Gray, A., & Macky, R. (2000). Domestic Violence Act 1995: Process evaluation. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice and Department for Courts. Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon. Behar, R., & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 141-163. Busch, R., Robertson, N., & Lapsley, H. (1993). Domestic violence and the justice system: A study of breaches of protection orders. Community Mental Health in New Zealand, 7(2), 26-44. Campbell, J. C. (1985). Beating of wives: A cross-cultural perspective. Victimology: An International Journal, 10(1-4), 174-185. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Prevalence of intimate partner violence and injuriesWashington, 1998. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(5), 559-572. Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J., & Wengraf, T. (2000). The turn to biographical methods in social science: Comparative issues and examples. London: Routledge. Chan, J. (2001). Negotiating the field: New observations on the making of police officers. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 34(2), 114-133. Counts, D. A. (Ed.). (1990). Special issue: Domestic violence in Oceania. Pacific Studies, 13(3). Counts, D. A., Brown, J. K., & Campbell, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Sanctions and sanctuary: Cultural perspectives on the beating of wives. Boulder, CO: Westview. Darlow, T. (1997). Are we still being beaten by domestic violence? A review of the operation of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 in Wellington. Wellington: New Zealand: Wellington Community Law Centre. Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. B. (1998). The deterrent effect of prosecuting domestic violence misdemeanors. Crime and Delinquency, 44(3), 434-444. Davison, Sir, R. (1994). Report of inquiry into family court proceedings involving Christine Madeline Marion Bristol and Alan Robert Bristol. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Justice. Department of Justice. (1993). The Domestic Protection Act 1982: A discussion paper. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Edwards, S. M. (1985). A socio-legal evaluation of gender ideologies in domestic violence assault and spousal homicides. Victimology: An International Journal, 10(1-4), 186-205. Fields, M. D. (1977). Wife beating: Facts and figures. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 643-647.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

444

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

Finegan, E. (1997). Sociolinguistics and the law. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 421-35). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Greenfield, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., et al. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends: Bureau of Justice statistics factbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Hartley, J. (2000). Legal ease and legalese. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 1-20. Heidensohn, F. (2000). Sexual politics and social control. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Henley, N. M. (2002). Body politics and beyond. Feminism & Psychology, 12(3), 295-310. Hilton, N. Z. (1989). When is an assault not an assault? The Canadian publics attitudes towards wife and stranger assault. Journal of Family Violence, 4(4), 323-337. Kirk, J. (1997, August 21). Women bear brunt of violence. The Press, p. 3. Lash, B. (1998). Census of prison inmates 1997. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice. Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Masumura, W. T. (1979). Wife abuse and other forms of aggression. Victimology: An International Journal, 4(1), 46-59. McDowell, M., & Webb, D. (1995). The New Zealand legal system: Structures, processes and legal theory. Wellington, New Zealand: Butterworths. Meliala, A. (2001). The notion of sensitivity in policing. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 29, 99-111. Miller, J. L., & Krull, A. C. (1997). Controlling domestic violence: Victim resources and police intervention. In G. K. Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 235-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mills, L. G. (1998). Mandatory arrest and prosecution policies for domestic violence: A critical literature review and the case for more research to test victim empowerment approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(3), 306-318. Ministry of Justice. (1998). Responses to crime: Annual review 1998. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Morley, R., & Mullender, A. (1994). Preventing domestic violence to women (Crime Prevention Unit Series No. 48). London: Home Office Police Research Group. Morris, A. (1996). Womens safety survey 1996. Wellington, New Zealand: Victimisation Survey Committee from Victoria Link Ltd. Murphy, C. M., & Cascardi, M. (1999). Psychological abuse in marriage and dating relationships. In R. L. Hampton (Ed.), Family violence: Prevention and treatment: Vol. 1. Issues in childrens and families lives (2nd ed., pp. 198-226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. New Zealand Police Research and Development Group. (1997). Family violence (New Zealand Police Integrated Training Programme, Module DUT 152). Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Radford, L. (1996). Women, crime, and violence. In B. Madoc-Jones & J. Coates (Eds.), An introduction to womens studies (pp. 228-249). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Rout, P. (1999). Domestic violence programmes: Southern regional plan. Christchurch, New Zealand: Department for Courts. Saunders, D. G. (1995). The tendency to arrest victims of domestic violence: A preliminary analysis of officer characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(2), 147-158.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

Wurtzburg / PACIFIC ISLAND COMMUNITY

445

Schoeffel, P., & Meleisea, M., with David, R., Kalauni, R., Kalolo, K., Kingi, P., et al. (1996). Pacific Islands Polynesian attitudes to child training and discipline in New Zealand: Some policy implications for social welfare and education. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 6, 134-147. Schuler, M. (Ed.). (1992). Freedom from violence: Womens strategies from around the world. New York: UN Development Fund for Women. Seuffert, N. (1996, July). Women in and out of law. Aotearoa New Zealand Women and Politics Network, 1-7. Shuy, R. (1993). Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Singleton, R. A., Jr., & Straits, B. C. (1999). Approaches to social research (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Spier, P. (1998). Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1988 to 1997. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice. Statistics New Zealand. (1993). All about women in New Zealand. Wellington: Author. Statistics New Zealand. (1997). Ethnic groups: 1996 census of population and dwellings. Wellington: Author. Statistics New Zealand. (1998). Pacific Islands people: 1996 census of population and dwellings. Wellington: Author. Stewart, A. (2000). Who are the respondents of domestic violence protection orders? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(1), 77-90. Stewart, P. J., & Strathern, A. (2000). Identity work: Constructing Pacific lives. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tupuola, A. (1996). Learning sexuality: Young Samoan women. Womens Studies Journal, 12(2), 59-75. United Nations. (2000). The worlds women 2000: Trends and statistics. New York: Author. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical violence and injuries in intimate relationshipsNew York, behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45(35), 765-767. Webb, D., Adams, J., Atkin, B., Caldwell, J., Green, D., Hanaghan, M., et al. (1997). Family law in New Zealand (8th ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Butterworths. Wichman, T. (1997). National survey of crime victims published. Justice Matters, 4, 1-3. Wurtzburg, S. J. (1996, August). The view from Christchurch Womens Refuge. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Psychological Society, Christchurch, New Zealand. Wurtzburg, S. J. (1997a) Trouble in paradise: Women immigrants and domestic violence. UC Research, p. 33. Wurtzburg, S. J. (1997b) Christchurch womens refuge responds to the new Domestic Violence Act. Broadsheet, 213, 35-38. Wurtzburg, S. J. (1998). Battered women. In S. Auerbach (Ed.), Encyclopedia of multiculturalism (Supplement) (pp. 1872-1875). New York: Marshall Cavendish. Wurtzburg, S. J. (1999a, November) Ethnic solidarity in New Zealand among Oceanic groups: Maintaining identity in the context of domestic violence. Paper presented at the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago. Wurtzburg, S. J. (1999b, November). Domestic violence in New Zealand: Intervention, prevention and change promotion. Paper presented to The Centre for Research in Womens Health and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011

446

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003

Wurtzburg, S. J. (2000a). The Domestic Violence Act, gender and ethnicity: Pacific Island peoples in Christchurch. Development Bulletin, 51, 26-29. Wurtzburg, S. J. (2000b). Households and families: Micronesia and Polynesia. In C. Kramarae & D. Spender (Eds.), Routledge international encyclopedia of womens studies: Global womens issues and knowledge (pp. 1037-1039). New York: Routledge.

Susan J. Wurtzburg gained her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University at Albany, State University of New York (1991). Since 1994, she has been living in New Zealand. Research interests include domestic violence, dating relationships, history of womens refuge, health needs of minority groups, problem gambling, and health ethics.

Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011