By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

immigration was considered a threat to the nation’s homogeneity rather than as acrucial source of diversity and growth (Belich, 2001: 224) 8 .The only thing that seemed to stir white New Zealand was the increasingurbanisation of Māori, who, at that time, made up about 5 percent of New Zealand’stotal population. In the post­war period, the urban Māori population increased from13 percent to 23 percent in fifteen years (Metge, 1964). Many Māori families,directed by the Department of Labour and Employment, had shifted from rural tourban communities to help out with the war effort, and to take advantage of labourmarket opportunities. This move, however, severed the tight bonds that still existedwithin Māori communities (Durie, 2008; Metge, 1964). A large proportion of thegroup who had moved shared similar attributes: they were between the ages ofsixteen and thirty, were unmarried, unskilled and under­ or un­employed, and wereeager for adventure or new experience (Metge, 1964). The new visibility of Māori inurban centres had been accentuated by the ‘patterns of dress and public behaviourwhich singled them out, not only as country folk, but also as Māori – culturally aswell as ethnically “different” from the Pakeha population (New Zealanders ofEuropean stock)’ (Metge, 1964: 2). These factors, combined with the low level ofwork available, had significantly impacted on levels of Māori imprisonment, whichgrew from 431 prisoners in 1952 to 573 prisoners in 1956 (Department of Justice,1957). At this stage, however, the high level of Māori imprisonment did little todisturb post­war tranquillity.Social securityThe serene New Zealand setting was further enhanced by the state’s ability toprovide firm guarantees of security. Indeed, in the post­1945 period, its welfarearrangements were amongst the most advanced of welfare societies (Pratt, 2006).The Social Security Act 1938 (which was in place until the Social Security Act 1964came into force) stated that all persons who had been ‘deprived of the power toobtain a reasonable livelihood through age, illness, unemployment, widowhood, orother misfortune’ were eligible for assistance (Social Security Department, 1938: 5­8Modern historians consistently refer to this immigration policy as the ‘White New Zealand’ policy,similar to that which was in operation in Australia, Canada, and the United States from 1924 (Belich,2001). However, unlike New Zealand, prior to 1945 all these countries had relaxed their immigrationcontrols to allow for further diversity and growth.23