DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY

POLITICAL PARTIES

by Walter Edward Murphy, B.A., Lecturer, School of Political Science and Public Administration, Victoria University of Wellington.John Sidney Gully, M.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Assistant Chief Librarian, General Assembly Library, Wellington.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.Bruce Macdonald Brown, M.A., New York Office, Department of External Affairs.Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Martin Joseph Silvester Nestor, M.COM., Chief Research Officer, New Zealand National Party, Wellington.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.William James Gardner, M.A., Senior Lecturer, History Department, University of Canterbury.John Sidney Gully, M.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Assistant Chief Librarian, General Assembly Library, Wellington.Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.

BELLAMY SOCIETY

The impact of Edward Bellamy's novel, Looking Backward, on socialist ideas in New Zealand was felt particularly in 1889–90 and in the 1930s. His Christian democratic socialism was in some ways an adjunct and in other ways an antidote to Marxist ideas. His Utopia inspired radical spirits among trade unionists and was much discussed in relation to the maritime strike of August 1890, which ended in their defeat and disillusionment. In the early 1900s his disciples included David Low, later to become the renowned political cartoonist. A shorter work, The Parable of the Water Tank, was banned in 1932, drawing attention to it and its author. Many of the leaders of the Labour Party were sympathetic to Bellamy's ideas and, when it came to power, interest in his work increased. In 1936 the “Edward Bellamy Society of New Zealand” was formed in Wellington, with Alexander Scott as president. Three Labour members of Parliament, W. J. Lyon, H. E. Herring, and (in 1938) Mrs C. Stewart, became members, and seven others were regarded as “Bellamyists”. A branch was set up in Auckland in 1937, and a Bellamy Club formed in Kaitaia in 1940 lasted for a year. Between 1936 and 1938 the Wellington membership, though small, was active, publishing pamphlets, seeking the dissemination of Bellamy's ideas in schools, prisons, and public works camps, sponsoring radio broadcasts, and, in 1938, putting forward proposals to the parliamentary National Health and Superannuation Committee and a Select Committee of the House of Representatives. In so doing it undoubtedly influenced the Social Security Scheme. The Society ceased to function in 1941, though it was not officially deregistered until 1955.

Many features of New Zealand life – full employment, home ownership by working-class people, free education and health service, motherhood endowment, universal superannuation, and other State-supplied benefits – were proposed as radical measures by Bellamy disciples in 1890, and the Edward Bellamy Society helped to establish and shape them in the late 1930s. So this lucid and persuasive American socialist (he called his Utopia “nationalist”) had a marked influence on the Labour movement and social legislation in New Zealand.

by Walter Edward Murphy, B.A., Lecturer, School of Political Science and Public Administration, Victoria University of Wellington.

COMMUNIST PARTY

From as early as 1871 when James McPherson was corresponding with the International Working Men's Association, Marxist ideas have been known in New Zealand. The first Marxian organisation was the Petone Marxian Club whose first meeting was held on Trafalgar Day, 21 October 1912. Amongst its aims was a resolution to meet every Monday at 8 p.m. until the day of the Revolution. The New Zealand Marxian Association was founded in 1919. From this and other Marxian clubs, the New Zealand Communist Party was formed in 1921 by those who wished to participate actively in the leadership of the workers. The first secretary was E. J. Dyer, and other early members were A. Galbraith, S. Scott, A. McLagan, and F. P. Walsh. The party issued a manifesto based on the 1903 Bolshevik one, which emphasised the socialist revolution, the overthrow of the power of the capitalists, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

From the first, the party endeavoured to become affiliated with the Labour Party but was rejected because it would not agree to the Labour Party's constitution. Party members became increasingly active in the trade unions, and during the Second World War many important unions had Communist leaders. From the conclusion of the war, however, the party lost ground in the unions.

While the party was powerful in the trade unions and the Labour Government was passing socialist legislation, the Communists did not contest parliamentary elections but exhorted party members to support the Government. The Labour Party did not proceed along the road to complete socialism as far or as fast as the Communists wished, and as the Communist Party was losing ground in the unions, its members began to contest parliamentary elections. The party candidates have never been close to winning a seat but their numbers have steadily grown from three candidates in the 1946 elections to 23 at the 1963 elections where 5,167 votes were cast for them, being 0·26 per cent of the total votes cast.

The party's long-term programme remains much the same as that outlined in its 1921 manifesto. But its immediate programme has varied with the exigencies of the times. During the 1930s, for instance, the party took a lead in supporting the workers in the struggles of the unemployment crises. At the 1949 elections the party wished to repeal compulsory military training, introduce equal pay, abolish income tax up to a certain wage, and increase it considerably over that figure. It also advocated Samoan self-government and supported the Soviet proposals for banning atomic warfare. By 1961 the party was definitely critical of the Labour Party, alleging that it protected business interests and was failing to support the workers' policy. Other points in its programme included support of a peace policy, the banning of nuclear arms, the recognition of the People's Republic of China, the withdrawal of New Zealand from SEATO, and the development of trade with the socialist world.

The first periodical issued by the party was the Workers' Vanguard published in April 1926. This was soon followed by the Red Worker (1926?–November 1933?) and the Workers' Weekly (3 October 1931 – 30 June 1939). The People's Voice was established on 7 July 1939 but it was suspended in 1940 and replaced by In Print until 1943 when it was revived on 14 July and continues as the party's popular weekly. The party's monthly publication commenced as In Print in December 1943 and then changed its title to New Zealand Labour Review in August 1945. It continued as this until May 1960 when it changed to its present title, New Zealand Communist Review.

The New Zealand Communist Party is supported mainly by trade unionists and a small following in the universities. But because of its rather narrow and dogmatic views and its uncritical acceptance of the policies of Communist-controlled countries, together with the favourable economic and social conditions prevailing in New Zealand, the party has never had a large following.

by John Sidney Gully, M.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Assistant Chief Librarian, General Assembly Library, Wellington.

  • New War or New Order, Scott, S. (1948)
  • New Zealand Communists Present Their Case, Scott, S. (1949)
  • Political Science, March 1953, “How Marxism Came to New Zealand”, Roth, H.

COUNTRY PARTY

The Country Party was formed by the Auckland Provincial Executive of the Farmers' Union in 1922, and contested elections from 1925 to 1935 with the support of that body. The party was led by Captain H. M. Rushworth, a prominent figure in the Farmers' Union and a member of Parliament from 1928 to 1938. The Country Party appealed exclusively to small farmers, claiming to represent their interests against the influence of urban elements in the Reform Party. The Country Party stood for free trade and against the protection of secondary industry. It advocated a vigorous land-settlement policy and cheap credit for farmers, to be financed through an agricultural bank.

The party reflected a certain discontent among farmers with the economic policies of the Reform Government, but its influence never spread outside Auckland Province. Its performance in elections from 1925 to 1935 is shown in the following table:

Election No. of Candidates Total Votes Average per Candidate
1925 5 2,398 479
1928 5 11,990 2,398
1931 6 16,710 2,785
1935 5 16,612 3,322

Two Country Party members sat in Parliament: Captain H. M. Rushworth, who represented Bay of Islands from 1928 to 1938, and A. C. A. Sexton, Franklin, from 1935 to 1938. Otherwise the party made little impression on Reform strength in rural areas, although it did loosen the party's hold in several seats in south Auckland and the Waikato.

by John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.

  • Farming First (1926–38) (Periodical).

DEMOCRAT PARTY

The Democrat Party was formed in 1934 and contested the 1935 election with 50 candidates, none of whom won a seat. The party was led by T. C. A. Hislop and organised by A. E. Davy, the former organiser for the Reform and United Parties. It amalgamated with the National Party in 1936.

The Democrats stood to the right of the Coalition parties, declaring in 1934 that “the Labour Party is Socialistic in policy, the present Government Socialistic by inclination, action and fact”. The party's programme in 1935, however, had a superficially progressive flavour. It promised to restore the unemployed to work at full normal wages, to restore Public Service wage cuts, and to reduce taxation, while at the same time proposing a national health and pensions scheme. The Democrats also promised to reduce the exchange rate and to guarantee farmers' export prices by means of a subsidy. This programme, although it promised much, was generally impracticable.

The Democrats were made up partly of that section of the United Party, particularly the urban members of Parliament, who were in disagreement with the Coalition's economic policies. This group was led by W. A. Veitch and A. J. Stallworthy, two former United ministers who had lost their posts when the Coalition was formed in 1931. Five other former United Party candidates and members of Parliament were Democrat candidates in 1935.

The Democrat Party polled a total of 65,662 votes, but although a number of candidates received strong support, none was elected. The party's main effect was to split the anti-Labour vote, resulting in the loss of a number of Coalition seats to the Labour Party.

by John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.

DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY

The Democratic Labour Party was formed by John A. Lee and W. E. Barnard in April 1940 immediately after the former's expulsion from the Labour Party. The party attracted many rank and file Labour Party members dissatisfied with the Government's performance, particularly its failure to carry out its 1935 proposals for credit and currency control. Democratic Labour policy demanded “complete control in the interests of the people of currency and credit” and greater use of “debt-free currency” to develop industry and housing. It maintained that the country's manpower resources were overcommitted in the war effort and called for the return of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force to the Pacific area.

Of the party's 52 candidates in the 1943 election, only Lee saved his deposit, and he was soundly beaten by an official Labour candidate, although his majority in 1938 had been the highest in New Zealand. Democratic Labour candidates were, however, responsible for the loss of four Labour seats to the National Party. After this defeat little more was heard of Democratic Labour, and by 1947 it had virtually ceased to exist.

The bulk of Labour voters remained loyal to their party; comparatively few were prepared to risk a government defeat in wartime by voting for a splinter group.

Although Democratic Labour inherited many of the ideas and some of the mystique of the pre-1935 Labour Party, its failure was certain. None of Lee's sympathisers in Parliament, apart from Barnard, joined him, and the trade union movement remained almost entirely loyal to Labour.

Despite its name, the party does not seem to have been notably democratic in the management of its own affairs. Only two conferences were ever held, and complaints of domination by the national executive and by Lee himself were frequent.

by John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.

  • The Speech of a New Zealander, Barnard, W. E. (1940)
  • Election Pamphlets, Democratic Labour Party (1943), (a collection in the General Assembly Library)
  • Expelled from the Labour Party for Telling the Truth, Lee, J. A. (1940)
  • I Fight for New Zealand, Lee, J. A. (1940)
  • John A. Lee's Weekly (1940–48).

INDEPENDENT POLITICAL LABOUR LEAGUE

The Independent Political Labour League owed its origin to a resolution of the annual conference of Trades and Labour Councils in April 1904, demanding the immediate formation of an independent labour party to secure labour representation in Parliament and on local bodies. The existing New Zealand Socialist Party had antagonised unionists by its emphasis on revolution rather than reform. The election victory of the Australian Labour Party in December 1903 seemed to point the way for a renewed attempt at Labour independence, this time on more moderate lines. In September 1904, Trades Council delegates meeting in Wellington under the chairmanship of J. T. Paul drew up a provisional constitution and platform for a new political organisation. The main demands put forward were land nationalisation and extension of State ownership of industry. At the first national conference, in April 1905, which claimed to represent more than 1,000 members in 10 branches, the name Independent Political Labour League was adopted.

The league contested the general elections of 1905 when seven of its eight candidates lost their deposits. Efforts to gain the support of radical members of Parliament failed. The leaders of the league were themselves divided on their attitude to the Liberal Government, whether to oppose it or support it, and this confusion spread through the ranks.

The death of Seddon seemed to ease the task of weaning the workers from the Liberal influence but Sir Joseph Ward, the new Premier, was able to decapitate the league by promoting some of its leaders to the Legislative Council. The league held its fourth, and last, conference in Christchurch in December 1907, under the chairmanship of James Thorn. It fell apart the following year, having become all but indistinguishable from the Liberal Party. Several league members, however, contested the elections of 1908 and one of them, David McLaren, was returned for Wellington East in the second ballot.

by Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.

  • Here and Now, Aug 1952, Early Labour Breakaways, Roth, H.

KNIGHTS OF LABOUR

The Noble Order of the Knights of Labour was founded in the United States in 1869 as a secret fraternal society. Its aim was to unite all classes of labour, regardless of skill, sex, colour, or creed, for a programme of social reforms. The order reached the peak of its influence in 1886. In later years its membership was drawn increasingly from rural areas while single tax and land nationalisation theories predominated in its propaganda. The knights were already in decline in the United States when they extended their influence to New Zealand. The first contacts were made by correspondence with an organisation of Christchurch unemployed, the Canterbury Labour Union. In December 1887 this body changed its name to “The New Zealand Knights of Labour”. An Auckland assembly was formed in June 1889, but real progress dated from the following year when an organiser from the United States toured New Zealand and formed assemblies which he affiliated to the parent body in Philadelphia.

In the South Island the knights were confined mainly to Christchurch, Dunedin, and the West Coast. Their strongholds were in the North Island and particularly in the Wellington Province where virtually every township had an assembly in the early nineties. Two district assemblies functioned at Auckland and Wellington until 1895, when the whole of New Zealand was joined together as a national assembly under a national master workman. Peak membership of the knights in New Zealand has been estimated as 5,000 in some 50 assemblies, but even higher figures have been claimed.

In New Zealand, as elsewhere, the knights broke away from narrow craft unionism and promoted the “new unionism” by helping to organise unskilled and semiskilled trades. Their membership was not confined to manual workers, but included clerks, shopkeepers, small businessmen, farmers, and land-hungry settlers. They were one of the first political organisations to admit women not only to membership but also to leading positions. In their propaganda the knights were greatly influenced by the single tax theories of Henry George. Many of the reforms which they put forward were adopted by the Liberal Government. They strongly supported the principles of cooperation and arbitration and their educational work prepared the ground for the acceptance of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. They paid much attention to the political education of their members who were required to read and discuss papers at the regular assembly meetings.

The knights' influence was strongest in the early nineties when they claimed the allegiance of 14 members of Parliament. They were the first national political organisation in New Zealand and, according to one writer, they “taught the progressive party how to organise”. Their influence declined under the Seddon administration when many knights, who had taken up land in special settlements, forsook their earlier radicalism. The last meeting of the national assembly took place in 1897. A year later the knights had ceased to exist in New Zealand.

by Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.

  • New Zealand Labour's Pioneering Days, Salmond, J. D. (1950).

LABOUR PARTY

After some 10 years of indecision and internal strife in the Labour movement, the New Zealand Labour Party was formed at a joint conference held in Wellington on 7 July 1916. For long the majority of trade union leaders had remained content with that alliance with the Liberals which produced the Arbitration Act and the social legislation of the 1890s. Moreover, the remarkable personal popularity of Seddon was itself a formidable barrier to any notions of independent Labour representation. But the growing conservatism of the Liberals even before Seddon's death and the rigidity with which the arbitration system functioned in practice began to arouse widespread trade union dissatisfaction. By 1905, therefore, the trades councils had resolved, although not without differences of opinion, to form an independent political party. Before much progress had been made, however, an infusion of radical doctrines from abroad transformed the situation in the Labour movement.

Moderates and Militants

In 1906, three militant socialists, Semple, Webb, and Hickey began agitation on the West Coast. They found the miners extremely susceptible to demonstrations being more effective in getting results than arbitration and conciliation. The Blackball Mine strike of 1908, instigated by Hickey, broke the spell of the arbitration system; no longer was New Zealand “a country without strikes”. In the same year the three formed the New Zealand Federation of Miners, soon broadened and renamed the New Zealand Federation of Labour. The New Zealand Labour movement thus became sharply divided into two camps. On the one hand were the “moderates”, represented by the trades councils and their political party, the Independent Political Labour League, reformed and renamed in 1910 as the New Zealand Labour Party and reorganised again in 1912 as the United Labour Party. On the other were the “militants”, represented by the “Red Federation” and its political subsidiary, the New Zealand Socialist Party.

The moderates subscribed to a cautious socialist objective and in essence they believed in reform by legislation. The militants, however, despite their association with the Socialist Party, remained for the most part scornful of political action. They stood for industrial unionism, that is, organisation on lines of industry, not craft, and they conceived of the strike as essentially a political weapon. In 1912 the Federation of Labour adopted in its preamble the doctrines of the syndicalist American Industrial Workers of the World: “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common … Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organise as a class, take possession of the earth and the means of production and abolish the wage system”.

In fact these ideas were more militant theory than militant practice. But their logical consequence was that possibilities for cooperation between the two groups commonly foundered on two issues. First, the militants thought it essential and the moderates, dangerous, that union leaders should have power to call nationwide strikes. Secondly, the moderates accepted the wage system and the Arbitration Court which had come to enshrine it; to the militants, the Court meant “Labour legironed”.

This was the situation at the time of the Waihi strike in 1912. But the defeat of the strike by Massey's Government and particularly the device of registering a new “Arbitration Union” caused the militants much reflection. In 1913 they took the initiative in seeking a greater measure of political and industrial unity in the Labour movement. The Unity Conference which they called in July 1913 established two new organisations: the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the political body, and the United Federation of Labour (UFL) the industrial body. In the determination of the constitution and policy of the two, the balance of advantage lay with the militants, and a conservative section of the moderates withdrew from the conference.

The somewhat imperfect degree of unity thus achieved, however, was soon jeopardised by the great 1913 wharf and mine strike. To many moderates the conflict seemed a confirmation of their worst fears. The defeat of the strike by the Reform Government, after a bitter struggle, severely weakened the UFL and significantly handicapped the SDP, for the latter became indelibly associated in the public mind with revolutionary syndicalism. These events strengthened the reflections of the militants on the merits of political, as opposed to industrial, action. But it was the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914 which really rescued the Labour movement from its prevailing confusion.

The First World War and the Foundation of the Party

The militants believed the war to be an unnecessary clash of rival imperialisms. Moreover, they saw in it the seeds of the collapse of capitalism. This belief, together with their expectation that the unpopularity of wartime measures would gravely weaken the grip of the Government in New Zealand, gave them a new sense of urgency in seeking to re-establish Labour unity. Their anxiety was heightened by the impending threat of conscription which they interpreted as not merely a measure to intensify prosecution of the war but also as a weapon by which the governing class sought to destroy the Socialist movement.

The moderates, on the whole, supported the war. But they were opposed, initially, to manhood conscription, believing that conscription of wealth should either precede or accompany it. They were concerned, too, about wartime profiteering, about the rapid rise in prices without compensating increases in wages, and a host of other problems. Despite, therefore, their fundamental division of opinion on the merits of the war, a working unity – skilfully stimulated by the militants – was established between the two groups. Its first notable achievement was the broadly based Anti-conscription Conference of January 1916. Moreover, there had grown up at the local level Labour Representation Committees (LRCs), formed for the purpose of electing members to Parliament to represent Labour interests. In the 1914 General Election six “Labour” men, (three ULP, two SDP, and one independent) had been successful. In 1915, influenced no doubt by the rumours of the impending Reform-Liberal wartime coalition and drawn together by common views on many problems of the day, these men formed a Labour group in Parliament. Under the leadership of A. H. Hindmarsh, they functioned virtually as an Opposition and demonstrated in practice the advantages of unity.

The introduction in May 1916 of the Military Service Bill to enact conscription provided the final spur. The SDP Executive Committee (of which Peter Fraser was secretary) decided that a unified party should be formed without delay and took the initiative in arranging a joint conference between representatives of the SDP, UFL, LRCs, and Labour members of Parliament. The motions for the establishment of a new party, named the “New Zealand Labour Party” (a concession to the moderates), were moved by the Hon. J. T. Paul, a member of the moderates “old guard”. Its platform and policy, however, were drawn up by the leaders of the SDP, 11 of whose members formed the great majority of its 13-strong executive.

In effect, therefore, the SDP transformed itself into the New Zealand Labour Party and, except for local preservation of the name in Wellington and Palmerston North (two centres where radicalism remained strong), passed formally out of existence. The new party represented a compromise between moderates and militants, on the initiative of the latter. Its platform was virtually that of the SDP. But it was, on the whole, attuned to the moderate position, for the SDP platform, itself fashioned in the compromise of 1913, did not differ greatly from that advocated after 1905 by the trades councils.

The Trade Unions

In the years between 1916 and 1935, when the first Labour Government took office, the leaders of the party faced essentially two problems: first, to win the wholehearted backing of the trade union movement; and, secondly, to broaden the basis of their support beyond the industrial working class to an extent necessary to win a parliamentary majority in an electoral system which was weighted towards rural interests.

By 1919 an aggressive new industrial organisation, the Alliance of Labour, was fast displacing the dying UFL. Its leaders, Arthur Cook and James Roberts, a new generation of militants, looked with some suspicion on the Labour Party and revived notions of industrial action. But the economic squalls which struck New Zealand in the 1920s did not provide an appropriate climate for such policies. By 1924 the lions of the Alliance were prepared with some resignation to lie down with the lamb of arbitration. Although, thereafter, there was little difference of policy or ideology between the Labour Party and the Alliance, their relations remained cool. The depression of the early 1930s resolved this problem. By 1933 the unemployed outnumbered the trade unionists. Lacking even the degree of protection hitherto conferred by the Arbitration Act (following an amending Act in 1932), the industrial labour movement in New Zealand was “beaten to its knees”. It was the parliamentary Labour Party which then became the movement's most effective defence against the ravages of the depression and, in consequence, the political arm became decidedly the senior partner of the two. It was under the wing of the Labour Government, which in its first year of office enacted compulsory unionism, that the divided industrial movement was reorganised in 1937 into the New Zealand Federation of Labour.

Land Policy

As early as 1922 when, with the aid of some Reform-Liberal vote splitting, Labour won 17 seats in Parliament, the party could see the limits of urban worker support. The leadership thereupon began to turn their thoughts to wider fields. It is indicative of the radical temper of the party in these years that the instrument chosen for the conversion of the countryside was the “usehold” land policy.

Land policy was only one aspect of the wide range of Labour's prescriptions for New Zealand's ills, but it was in many respects the most crucial, and by 1924 the “usehold” policy had become the showpiece of the party's platform. It provided, in essence, for the replacement of freehold tenure by a system of perpetual lease from the State, subject to occupation and use and with compensation for improvements. An amendment at the 1924 annual conference took it further than its architect, Walter Nash, originally had intended and provided that land could be sold or transferred only to the State. Labour contended that such a policy would eliminate New Zealand's economic vice of speculation in land, with its consequent inflation of prices, and would give the genuine farmer security of tenure while freeing him from the burdens of mortgage indebtedness which the freehold system imposed.

In the Franklin by-election and later, the general election of 1925, the party carried this message to the rural fastnesses. The results, if not surprising to the cynics, were decidedly disappointing to the enthusiasts. Probably because on this occasion Reform and National (the Liberals) took care not to split their votes in key electorates, Labour lost five seats. It may be argued that 1925 did not truly represent a Labour setback, for the party's total vote showed a substantial increase. But the party leadership was not comforted by such an analysis. They knew that if they were to win political power they must capture provincial constituencies and their campaign experience convinced them that for this task the “usehold” policy, whatever its economic merits, was not an asset but a liability. Here one may detect a critical change of direction in the party's history. Not without socialist soulsearching – and care was taken in phraseology to preserve some illusions – the 1927 annual conference adopted the report of a special committee which jettisoned the essential provisions of the land policy. In its place the party began to stress the importance to the farmer of cheaper credit, thus tacitly accepting the inviolability of the principle of freehold land.

This landmark may be taken as symbolising a gradual process of erosion which throughout the twenties ate into the more socialist planks of the party's platform. In 1933, in midst of the depression, the whole policy was recast. In the process the basic platform which, amended and extended, had served from 1916 was lost from view. The revised policy was concerned more directly with the problems created by the depression. Stimulated by the national preoccupation with monetary matters which overtook New Zealand in these years, it stressed the importance of financial reform and especially the role in recovery which should be played by public credit.

The 1935 Election

Labour interpreted the “slump” as less a crisis of overproduction than of underconsumption, a phenomenon which it attributed to a breakdown in the system of distribution and exchange. The party conceded that the collapse of export prices overseas was the principal cause of New Zealand's predicament, but contended that the policy of the Coalition Government had seriously and unnecessarily aggravated the situation. The remedy it proposed was to plan and direct the exchange and distributive sectors of the economy. Capitalist production was unchallenged in this policy; not social ownership but social control was its hallmark.

Labour faced the 1935 election with confidence. With one exception the party had registered a steady accretion of parliamentary strength: eight seats in 1919, 17 in 1922, 12 in 1925, 19 in 1928, 24 in 1931. And with the coalition of Reform and the Liberals in 1931, Labour now was plainly the alternative government. Moreover, the Labour Party had introduced to New Zealand politics a novel degree of local organisation, centrally controlled. An efficient central office and research bureau had been organised by Walter Nash, who as National Secretary from 1922–32 laid the foundations of party organisation and finance. The toll of unemployment had rendered the trade unions virtually helpless and created within the Labour movement a degree of unity and determination rarely equalled. And by its vehemence and tactical ability the parliamentary Labour Party had presented a formidable opposition to the Government and won much useful publicity.

In addition, through the new emphasis in policy and because of the prevailing circumstances of the day, the party was able to make an effective appeal to many sections of the community. Cheaper credit and guaranteed prices, abetted by the dairy-farmer's addiction to cheap money theories (a propensity greatly nourished by the Douglas Social Credit Movement), provided the key to unlock rural strongholds which had hitherto proved impregnable. Further, as a result of an approach to the party late in 1931, by W. T. Ratana, there began in 1932 that alliance with the Ratana Church which did much to win for Labour the political allegiance of the bulk of Maoridom. Finally, to all but alarmist minds, the party was freed from the contamination of communism. The introduction in 1925 of a membership pledge and the affirmation in the platform that Labour was committed to democratic constitutional processes drew the boundary between Labour and the younger Communist Party. In the depression years relations between the two were embittered and recriminatory.

The sweeping victory of 1935 brought Labour 55 seats in Parliament and ushered in a period of office, first under Savage and then under Fraser, which was destined to last until 1949. The new Government showed energy and initiative in dealing with the problems of the day and in establishing a pattern of governmental participation in and regulation of New Zealand society which, in all essentials, remains to the present day. A vigorous policy of public works was initiated; guaranteed prices for dairy products were instituted; the domestic marketing of primary commodities was regulated; industrial legislation was amended to make membership of an appropriate trade union compulsory for the employee; and the Social Security Act of 1938 established a wider and more generous social welfare structure embracing old age, widowhood, unemployment, invalidity, hospital, maternity, and other benefit payments.

Aided by recovering export prices, the expanded domestic activity stimulated the New Zealand economy and rapidly reduced unemployment. In the 1938 election, a grateful and relieved electorate rewarded the Government and Savage personally with a degree of public popularity and affection unequalled since Seddon's heyday. In the process, however, the party faced an internal crisis of serious proportions.

The Lee Affair

As early as 1932–33 there had been division of opinion in caucus on whether loans or credit should be the principal means of financing recovery. The concentration on financial affairs which then began to dominate party policy led to the growth within caucus of a monetary reform group which began to conceive itself a socialist left wing. Its leader was John A. Lee.

It would be misleading, however, to interpret the events which followed wholly in such limited terms. In these years many Labour members, including Savage, talked too much and too loosely of credit; and in so far as they held coherent financial opinions some of the older Ministers may well have shared Lee's monetary views. Again, while in predilection with monetary reform at the expense of reflection on private ownership of production, Lee and his followers were less socialist in doctrine than they supposed, they did represent something of a “Young Turk” restiveness with the leadership of the older generation. In his selection of Cabinet, which both in 1935 and in 1938 he insisted be entrusted to him personally, Savage had disregarded Lee's personal claims to inclusion. And with the trials and temptations of office, the sense of team spirit and intra-party democracy which had given such élan to the parliamentary party, steadily declined. At times the senior leadership displayed a disposition simply to ignore caucus decisions they disliked; at others, to accept public credit for measures into which they had been pushed by a caucus majority. Again, there was some ground for antagonism between the older group, which enjoyed trade union confidence and hence controlled the party “machine”, and the dissidents who as individual members supported Labour more from intellectual conviction than from working-class background.

That the affair took the turn it did may be attributed largely to Lee's personality. A gifted man in many ways, his judgment was clouded by vanity. In 1939 the “Lee Letter” attacking the financial orthodoxy and caution of Nash received wide publicity. Lee maintained that he had intended, initially at least, that it be seen only by Labour members. Despite warnings from the National Executive and a conference vote of censure in 1939, he publicly pursued his attacks. But it was an article reflecting harshly on the stricken Savage that proved to be his undoing. Without preliminary notice, his expulsion was moved at the annual conference of 1940. After a long and acrimonious debate, the motion was carried by a “card vote” of 546 to 344.

While Lee's conduct made it difficult for his many sympathisers to defend him, the consequences of the whole affair for the Labour Party were unfortunate. His expulsion diminished the enthusiasm of the party's local structure. Many active branch workers either resigned or lapsed into merely nominal membership. In some areas whole branches melted away. Moreover, since the party was a product of compromise, the leadership was frightened by the renewed visitation of the spectre of division. It responded by making a fetish of unity. In the process little room was left for genuine differences of opinion or healthy controversy. The circumstances of the Second World War reinforced this authoritarian trend. The party leadership was the Government. In the prevailing atmosphere, criticism of the Government came to be regarded as amounting almost to sabotage of the war effort.

Compulsory Unionism

Another development, while neither a product nor a cause of these events, decisively influenced their shape. That was the change in character and structure which overtook the party partially as a consequence of the introduction in 1936 of compulsory trade unionism. Although in its origins Labour was essentially a trade union party, it had won office in 1935 in spite of the long-sustained indifference of a large and influential section of the trade union movement. The party's constitution provided for both individual membership through local branches and for the affiliated membership of trade unions. In 1931 an amendment to rights of representation at the annual conference introduced a modified card-vote system and gave to the larger affiliations (that is, the unions) a voting strength more commensurate to their numbers. But it was not until the unions were enormously inflated in size by compulsory membership that the party felt their full weight. In 1935–36, the last year of the ancien régime, the Labour Party had a total membership of 33,114. By 1937–38 the figure had reached 162,157. The following year it exceeded 200,000. To some degree no doubt this increase represented an enlarged branch membership in the years of Labour's greatest popularity and the recovery of long-affiliated unions from the decline in membership which had been caused by unemployment. But its essence was compulsion.

The party then began to assume many of the characteristics of a very large-scale organisation. No longer could annual conferences be relatively intimate affairs. On the contrary, they assumed the flavour of large and not always orderly public meetings. Even before 1936 the volume of remits to conference had grown too big to permit of their individual consideration. From that year they were consolidated and referred to special committees for report and recommendation. In 1940 a further amendment to rights of conference representation introduced a full card-vote system and further strengthened trade union influence in decision making. Gradually the role of the active branch member diminished, and the annual conferences, not without occasional revolts, steadily declined in both enthusiasm and influence. It would be a distortion to lay all this at the door of compulsory unionism. It was no doubt a product of many causes for similar trends have been evident in Labour Parties in countries where the voluntary principle remained intact. But the compulsory provisions enacted in New Zealand in 1936 made its impact on New Zealand Labour so much the more clear cut.

The 1949 Defeat

These developments and the diversion of social energy occasioned by the war were the primary considerations which in 10 years so aged the party that, when the Fraser Government emerged successfully from the Second World War, it was as a somewhat elderly administration bent above all on remaining in office to manage the welfare State it had created. The Government's last radical step was to take full public ownership of the Bank of New Zealand in 1945, a measure forced upon a reluctant Minister of Finance both by conference and caucus.

The Government now faced mounting opposition both from a reorganised and revived National Party, and from a somewhat incoherent left wing, political and industrial, in the Labour movement. Some militant unions – for example, the watersiders, miners, freezing workers, carpenters, and drivers – impatient with the policy of economic stabilisation and rejecting injunctions not to embarrass the Government, resorted to striking. In 1949 they broke away from the Federation of Labour to form a new and more militant industrial organisation, the short-lived Trades Union Congress. In 1949, too, Peter Fraser asked the Labour Party, founded in opposition to conscription, to accept peacetime compulsory military training. His request was indeed a logical extension of the policy the Labour leadership had pursued in the Second World War. Inevitably, however, it divided the movement sharply between right and left wings, between those who wished to align New Zealand with the Western bloc and those who preferred to steer virtually a neutralist course. It is a tribute to the fundamental strength and loyalty of the party that, in such disarray, it still waged a campaign of respectable proportions in the 1949 general election. But the Government was heavily defeated.

The Decade of the Fifties

There followed the waterside dispute in 1951 which in some ways re-enacted the events of 1913. Far from firing the Labour movement with a fresh resolve, the dispute further weakened it by creating a division between the parliamentary party and the Federation of Labour. Although relations subsequently were restored, they did not regain the cordial intimacy that had resulted from the close personal relationship between Peter Fraser and F. P. Walsh. And while only a minority in the Labour movement could have regretted the eclipse of the dissidents' leadership, the aftermath of the strike saw the trade union movement as a whole robbed of much vitality.

Under Walter Nash, who was elected leader of the parliamentary party on Fraser's death, Labour adhered to the basic policy of social welfare (on the basis of a mixed but regulated economy) which had been developed during the years of Government. From the depths of the “snap” election in 1951 when the party was reduced to 30 seats, Labour's parliamentary fortunes gradually revived. After a campaign in which neither side looked over its shoulder at the worsening external trade situation, the party won the 1957 general election by the narrow margin of 41 seats to 39 – although its popular majority of votes was substantial. Three years later, however, the majority proved insufficient to withstand a counterswing induced by public reaction to the problems the Government encountered by endeavouring to augment welfare in a decidedly unfavourable economic climate.

It may have been inevitable that over the years the party leadership, burdened with the realities and responsibilities of office, should move some distance from the rank and file. It may have been inevitable that the attainment of high minimum standards of material welfare should diminish reforming political enthusiasm. It may also have been inevitable that the “Cold War”, which presented to the Labour Party, as it did to democratic socialist parties the world over, a schizophrenic international situation, should take its toll of rank and file zeal. But while in the decade of the fifties Labour waged a parliamentary campaign with relative success, the party failed to grapple with its own internal malaise. No remedies were proposed, indeed no diagnosis was made because no problem was recognised or, at least, admitted.

by Bruce Macdonald Brown, M.A., New York Office, Department of External Affairs.

  • Humanism in Politics, Paul, J. T. (1946)
  • The Rise of New Zealand Labour, Brown, Bruce (1962)
  • Peter Fraser, Thorn, J. (1952)
  • Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, Sep 1960, “Socialism and Social Reform in Twentieth Century New Zealand”, Milburn, Josephine, F.
  • Political Science, Vol. 9, Nos. 1 and 2, Mar and Sep 1957, “The British and New Zealand Labour Parties – A Comparison”, Overacker, L.
  • American Political Science Review, Vol. XLIX, No. 3, Sep 1955, “The New Zealand Labour Party”, Overacker, L.
  • Political Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, Mar 1954, “The New Zealand Labour Party – Its Formal Structure”, Penfold, W. J.

LIBERAL PARTY

The Rise of the Liberal Party

After Sir George Grey's defeat in 1879, his party split into several ill-defined groups. The more conservative section saw a solution to New Zealand's problems in an intensified public works programme and in financial reform. This group followed Vogel and Stout and were later led by Ballance. A second group derived more directly from Grey. These were the “Labour sympathisers” who included many members of the “Young New Zealand Party”. They represented mining interests (Seddon and MacGowan), small farmers (John McKenzie), as well as small-business men (Ward and Hall-Jones). Montgomery was their leader in the House. In addition, a few intellectual radicals, like Stout and W. P. Reeves, were receptive to the ideas of the English Fabians. This group possessed no party organisation in the accepted sense, but appeared to cut across the other opposition groups.

Following upon Stout's defeat in 1887 a committee of management was set up to coordinate the various opposition groups in the House. In July 1889 Ballance was elected Leader of the Opposition and assumed all the functions formerly exercised by the committee. Seddon became his unofficial lieutenant, while Perceval and Fitchett, of the “Young New Zealand Party”, were appointed whips. The new leader insisted upon a certain amount of discipline among his supporters and cooperated with Atkinson in arranging and expediting debates. In 1890 a temporary alliance between the Opposition and a section of Atkinson's supporters secured the Government's defeat in the House; however, they were unable to force the Ministry to resign.

The 1890 Election

During the 1890 election campaign the Opposition showed little of that crusading spirit which was to become the keynote of later Liberalism. It did appear, however, that members had benefited by their reunification, because they offered a uniform series of criticisms of ministerial policies. At first there appeared to be little unity among the policies they advocated themselves, but, as the campaign wore on, Liberal candidates committed themselves to two clear-cut proposals. First, they offered a graduated land and income tax in place of the property tax; and, secondly, they promised to end the unrestricted sale of Crown lands. In addition, most Opposition candidates were vaguely committed to some form of industrial conciliation and arbitration.

Two alterations in the electoral system favoured the Opposition in 1890. During the expiring Parliament plural voting was abolished and manhood suffrage conceded. This enfranchised many who belonged to social classes unlikely to favour Conservatism. Also, as part of Atkinson's general retrenchment programme, the number of European constituencies was reduced from 95 to 74. As a result many sitting members had to contest seats with others. The unofficial returns were interesting and their significance became apparent when it was realised that most of those beaten had been Atkinson supporters. Atkinson summoned Parliament in January 1891. The day before the House met, the Opposition caucus took the unprecedented course of confirming Ballance as party leader. Although this was done only to find out whether the party could expect a majority in Parliament, it established that a party leader is elected by his parliamentary caucus and all parties since have followed the precedent. Three years later, when Ballance died, the Liberal caucus confirmed Seddon as his successor; and, in this case, saw fit to set aside Sir Robert Stout's claim to the position.

Old House 95 New House 74
Retired 22 Members of old House 46
Died 2 New members 27
Defeated 25 Vacancy 1
Returned 46
Total 95 Total 74

The Party's Unity

Two developments marked New Zealand political life in the nineties. These were the growth of an identity of political interest between the ministry and the constituencies, and the emergence of a strong esprit de corps among ministerial supporters in the House. During Ballance's premiership Cabinet ministers began moving about the country, meeting the people and studying local problems at first hand. In this way the Ministers were able to explain their views to the public directly, could hear local grievances, and could assess local requirements for public works. Thus they were freed from their former dependence upon the often doubtful good will of the private member. The Ministers found themselves able to speak authoritatively on many local matters and it is little wonder that some of them quickly became national figures. By dint of their readiness to grapple with important problems affecting the constituencies, Ministers convinced their parliamentary supporters that they shared, and could benefit by, ministerial policies. The logical consequence was to limit the private member's independence to the extent that he must support the Government in the House and on the hustings. Because the broad outlines – the principles – of party policy had been agreed upon in caucus, it came to be accepted that the private member, to some extent, shared in ministerial responsibility. Conversely, should any member disagree publicly with the ministerial policy, he might find himself disowned by the parliamentary party as a whole. In any event, this supposed loss of independence by Liberal members of Parliament, which the Opposition naturally played upon to the full, was much more apparent than real.

The Liberals: Electorate Organisation (1890–99)

The Liberal Party inherited a traditional system of political organisation within the constituencies. During the early years of the new ministry the plethora of local factions, which had complicated New Zealand politics for so long, continued to exist. Organisation centred around the local candidates, but were generally independent of these. Political loyalties seldom transcended provincial frontiers. Most political associations made efforts to straddle the field and only lent their support to candidates ready to accept their platforms or special fads. At first the new Ministers endeavoured to establish local Liberal organisations of the traditional type. The National Liberal Association, inaugurated by Seddon in Dunedin in May 1890, was the first. Similar groups followed in other centres. The Liberal Electoral League (Wellington), the Hawke's Bay Liberal Association (Napier), and many others were all founded before 1893. Canterbury, which was noted for its political factions, had its Industrial Political Union and its Labour Association; and both supported the Liberal Government. Besides these, various economic groups – such as the Trades and Labour Councils, the Knights of Labour – and special bodies like the Greyite “Auckland Anti-poverty League” supported the Government. Such organisations continued to draw up and submit their political platforms to local Liberal candidates. This system was not without its embarrassments; especially when the body added extraneous planks like prohibition or the elective executive to an otherwise acceptable platform. Government candidates might be returned committed to these.

From the outset, Liberal Ministers insisted that because they were responsible for the government of the country, they alone should be allowed to decide policies affecting the whole of New Zealand. They pressed their point and won its acceptance in 1893 when Seddon publicly repudiated the Auckland Liberal Association's platform and candidates.

The Ministry moved equally decisively to solve the vexed question of insuring that only approved Liberal candidates would receive their support at elections. Prior to 1893 local political groups had controlled nominations and had either selected by public meeting, or requisitioned by public petition, prominent local men to stand for Parliament. The candidates, thus nominated, would then outline their views, making clear their relationship to the current ministry. The system's grave weakness lay in that while aspiring candidates might claim to support a popular ministry, there was no guarantee that they would continue to do so if elected. By extending the powers of caucus and by allowing his Ministers to establish more direct relations with the constituencies, Seddon solved this dilemma so far as sitting members were concerned; however, there were still no means of ensuring that suitable new candidates would be forthcoming. In 1893 Seddon therefore created the Liberal “hallmark”. In the course of his pre-election tour the Premier very pointedly indicated the various “Liberal” candidates who could claim to be ministerial supporters. The experiment was successful and the Government returned with a slender but stable majority. In 1896 he similarly eliminated a small group who called themselves “Independent Liberals”.

Development of the Party's Central Organisation

The necessity for some more centralised form of national, extra-parliamentary, political organisation became apparent in the years following the 1896 election. Among the many local Liberal associations there remained vestiges of their desire to formulate independent policies on national issues. What central organisation existed centred in the Cabinet; and thus the responsibility for the public relations aspect of politics tended to fall upon the Premier and his senior Ministers. There remained, also, two Liberal “splinter groups” within the House. One of these, led by Sir Robert Stout, was opposed to Seddon personally on grounds that derived from the 1893 leadership controversy; the other consisted of a few members who, like Hall-Jones, thought that some ministerial policies were not sufficiently progressive. In the country, there were also signs that some trade union leaders were becoming restive because they felt the Ministry had slowed progress on many matters affecting working-class interests.

In July 1899, to circumvent these threats, Seddon engaged an “organiser”, who formally dissolved each of the local Liberal associations and merged them in a new national body – the Liberal and Labour Federation. For this, which became the first New Zealand political party in the modern sense, Seddon drew up a formal written constitution which he based on the well-known and successful “Birmingham System”. This system, which had been inaugurated by Joseph Chamberlain in the 1880s in Birmingham, became the pattern on which all succeeding political parties in New Zealand have based their organisations.

The Liberal and Labour Federation of New Zealand

Unlike most of its successors the federation was not, in its initiation, a popular or spontaneous political movement. It was organised downwards pyramidally and the initiative for forming its hierarchy came from the Premier, who also became the party leader.

The precise nature of the relationship between the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties was never clearly defined. Cabinet retained its right to be the ultimate arbiter over all matters of policy, although even these, in so far as they arose out of the party platform, were adopted only after consultations between the Cabinet, caucus, and the advisory committee of the party. The platform was drawn up by the Ministers after similar consultations and was adopted, after prolonged discussion, by the Council. More and more, however, the party came to concentrate on its propaganda and fund-raising functions while policymaking remained with the Ministers. Wherever there was close cooperation between members of Parliament and their local branches, Cabinet was given a useful means for keeping in touch with popular reactions to its measures. Seddon was the main unifying factor in the edifice and, as long as he lived, there was little chance of any split becoming permanent. For New Zealand, the Liberal and Labour Federation was important, because, for the first time, it enabled Ministers and members of Parliament to rely upon organised support in their constituencies.

Dissident Groups (1900–12)

While the creation of the federation halted dissentions among the Government's supporters temporarily, it did not eliminate them. In July 1905 a group of Liberal “country” members elected Roderick MacKenzie as their leader and proclaimed their intention to advocate country interests in the Government caucus. In the same month four members of Parliament, T. E. Taylor, F. M. B. Fisher, G. Laurenson, and H. D. Bedford, seceded from the party to form the “New Liberal Party”. Almost immediately they involved themselves in the “Voucher Affair”– a rather doubtful attempt to discredit Seddon. They contested the 1905 election, with a purely academic policy, when only Fisher and Laurenson were returned.

A more serious rift had appeared in 1904 when, at the annual conference of the Trades and Labour Councils, delegates decided to found an Independent Labour Party. Seddon had foreseen such a possibility in 1903 and had tried to forestall it by appointing two Labour leaders, John Rigg and J. T. Paul, to the Legislative Council. Nine Labour candidates unsuccessfully contested the 1905 elections. Because this split in Liberal ranks worried Ward, Seddon's successor, he tried to reconcile Labour by appointing J. A. Millar, who had led the maritime strike in 1890, as Minister of Labour. This gesture, however, was nullified in 1908 when Ward declared his “rest from legislation”. The effects of the Labour split can be judged from the table which appears at the top of the following page.

Other signs revealed no less clearly that the Liberals were losing touch with the public and with certain sections of their own party. In 1908 McNab's defeat on issues arising from his agricultural policies showed that the small farmers were no longer satisfied. In 1909 A. W. Hogg resigned his portfolios because Cabinet refused to accept his views on land reforms; and, shortly before the 1911 election, G. Fowlds resigned from Cabinet and the party because, as he put it, “the Liberal Party was living on its traditions and had lost many of its earlier principles”. The unofficial results for the 1911 election showed a dead heat in the House of Representatives.

Government (and Speaker) 34 Reform 37
Independent Liberal 1 Labour 2
Socialists 2 Speaker 1
Maori Seats 3
Total 40 Total 40

During the first Address-in-Reply Debate in 1912, Ward offered to resign to allow a younger Liberal ministry to take office. The Government retained office on the Speaker's casting vote. Ward honoured his promise and caucus elected T. Mackenzie in his place. Two of Ward's Ministers withdrew their support and several members crossed the floor to defeat the new Ministry. The Mackenzie Ministry fell on 10 July 1912 and Massey'sReform Party came to power.

The Liberal Party (1912–28)

The stagnation of the parliamentary Liberal Party in the years following Seddon's death was matched by similar stagnation in the electorate organisation. Few Liberal candidates mentioned the “federation” in 1911; and, when Mackenzie's Ministry fell, there were no full-time Liberal organisers, no permanent party officials, and little remained of the complex central organisation. Shortly after his defeat Mackenzie went to London as High Commissioner; and, as Ward was overseas, the party leadership became vacant. Ward became acting leader in November 1912 and was elected leader in September 1913. He took immediate steps to improve his party's organisation in the country. The Liberals did not regain power in 1914; and, on 12 August 1915, Liberal leaders joined Massey in a wartime coalition. Both parties agreed to shelve controversies for the duration of the war and Ward took steps to halt his party's organising activities. To this end he gave instructions which stopped partisan selection and announcement of candidates, all political meetings, and the circulation of his party's literature. The party's two unpaid organisers also ceased activities.

In August 1919, as a result of this gesture, when Ward suddenly withdrew from the coalition, his party was ill prepared for the general election his action precipitated. Ward lost his seat on 27 November 1919 and the new Liberal leader, W. D. S. MacDonald, died shortly after his election. His place was taken by T. M. Wilford, but Wilford's position was challenged by a “numerous section” of the party who wished to remain leaderless pending Ward's expected return to the House. Wilford's section of the Opposition contested the 1921 election as “National” candidates; and Ward, who stood as the lone Liberal, failed to win a seat. In February 1922 Wilford effected a reconciliation with the dissidents and became leader of the “United Liberal Party”. He retained this post, despite a violent fluctuation in his party's fortunes in 1925 and sundry changes in his party's label, until shortly before the 1928 election, when he yielded place to Ward.

After 1922 the Labour party gained much stronger representation in Parliament and, in this way, demonstrated the hollowness of the Liberal's claim to be the old “Liberal and Labour Federation”. It may now be as well to examine the fluctuating fortunes of the Liberal Party in the House between 1890 and 1928 as shown in the table.

During the heyday of Liberalism (1896–1908), a sufficiency of “others” voted with the Government to ensure large majorities in the House. In crucial divisions in the 1920s Liberal members usually voted to prevent Labour “intransigence” from upsetting the Reform Government.

The Liberal Record

In recent years many New Zealand politicians have spoken with a certain nostalgia of the Liberal Party's record. Today both the National and the Labour Parties claim to be Seddon's successors. In their own eyes, at the time, the Liberals came to power committed to do something about as many social and economic ills as possible. For convenience their achievements between 1890 and 1912 may be summarised under five general headings: land, labour, industry, welfare and Government services, and taxation. As often as not, their legislation in each of these fields stated new social principles; and these, together with Seddon's technique for ascertaining popular feelings about the new legislation, as well as the Government's ceaseless efforts to improve their measures, enabled the Ministers to keep their statutes up to date with current public opinion.

In the field of land legislation Liberals were committed to ending the unrestricted sale of Crown lands and preventing the aggregation of large estates. With these general principles in view they introduced various forms of leasehold, broke up large estates by means of their Lands for Settlement Act, opened hitherto sacrosanct Maori tribal lands for leasehold settlement, and enabled prospective small holders to obtain adequate finance to develop their farms through the facilities offered by the “Advances to Settlers” scheme. All this was the responsibility, primarily, of Sir John McKenzie.

In their approach to labour relations, they stressed the essential harmony of interests between worker and employer. They extended the well-known conciliation and arbitration principles to the solution of industrial disputes. Their Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act established machinery for the peaceful settlement of such disputes. They also legislated to improve factory and apprenticeship conditions, wages, introduced employer's liability and accident assurance. Legislation was introduced to protect vulnerable groups, such as the gumdiggers, miners, shop assistants, shearers, and servants. Much of the Liberal's success in this field was due to the first Minister of Labour, W. P. Reeves, and to the first Secretary of Labour, Edward Tregear. By means of their legislation in the industrial field, the Liberals codified the New Zealand mining laws, laid the foundation of the modern tourist industry, encouraged immigration, and set up the Department of Agriculture. Under the general heading “welfare and Government services” can be found some of their most far-reaching achievements. They originated old age pensions, Government annuities, and the State fire and accident insurance. They legislated to control health facilities, food and drug standards, introduced the technical schools system, and started a free textbook scheme. They also entered the field of housing and originated a scheme whereby persons on low incomes could obtain low-interest State loans to finance their needs in this respect. This “Advances to Workers” scheme was a logical extension of their successful Advances to Settlers Act of some years earlier. In the field of taxation the Government revolutionised the basis for raising revenues. Shortly after they came to power they abolished the inequitable “property tax” and substituted for it the graduated land and income tax, which fell more equitably upon all sections of the community.

Discussions of the Liberal Party's decline become confused by unprofitable comparisons of the personalities of its last leaders – Seddon and Ward. While the decline may be partly understood by such a comparison it is also true that Liberalism, as a political force, had spent itself by 1903 and that it had ceased to count by about 1908. By the 1920s, when the party was torn by internal dissention and faced with the split away of Labour as an accomplished fact, it survived only because of Ward's mystique as the heir of Seddon.

Later Liberal Movements

From time to time, particularly after the fusing of the Liberal and Reform Parties in 1935, attempts have been made to revive Liberalism as a political force. The most extensive of these attempts occurred in 1963 when two groups, the New Zealand Progressive Liberal Party (Auckland) and the New Zealand Liberal Party (Christchurch), combined under the title of the New Zealand United Liberal Party (Inc.) to contest the general election. The new party put up candidates in 23 constituencies and polled 10,339 votes or 0·86 per cent of the total vote. All these candidates forfeited their deposits. From the Liberal point of view the results, which were most disappointing, showed that the electors were wedded to the existing two-party system. Thus a strong Liberal revival in the immediate future is extremely doubtful.

by Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.

  • Bloodworth Papers (MSS), General Assembly Library
  • Constitution, the Liberal and Labour Federation of New Zealand (1903)
  • State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, Reeves, W. P. (1902)
  • Democracy in New Zealand, Siegfried, A. (1909)
  • Sir George Grey, Rutherford, J. (1961)
  • The Life and Work of Richard John Seddon, Drummond, J. (1907).

MAORI POLITICAL PARTIES

Since the earliest days, Maori politics have been dominated by the necessity of making terms with the European world and way of life. Although traditional tribal differences and the land question have complicated issues, Maori politics have always hinged on the social and economic aspects of this central problem. In general the race has formed itself into two groups. The politically “advanced” section has solved the problems of integration satisfactorily and its political views – on all except the land question – coincide closely with those held by Europeans. On the other hand, the “conservative” section has clung to tribal beliefs and customs which emphasise the traditional differences between the two races. It is from this conservative element that the various Maori political movements have sprung – the sole exception being the Young Maori Party of Ngata. In most instances the founder has posed as a Messiah and has given his political ideas a confusing, pseudo-religious basis. This, of course, has made it more difficult for the conservatives to integrate.

Basic Ideas

There are three main ideas underlying Maori political movements and varying emphases provide each movement with its individuality. The first of these stresses Maori separateness, usually combined with a demand for self-government. This idea originated in the debate leading up to the founding of the “King” movement (Kingitanga) and matured during the period of isolation which followed the Maori Wars. In this connection Maoritanga (“the Maori meaning”, or “all things Maori”), Kotahitanga (“to unify”, or “keeping the race united”), and the Ratana Morehu (“the remnant”) reflect successive interpretations of this. The question of the retention of tribal lands is another major factor in Maori political thinking. Many Maoris believe that Europeans have broken the Treaty of Waitangi by their constant pressure to alienate Maori lands. This feeling, which dates from Wiremu Kingi te Rangitaki's Maori Land League of the 1850s, was further embittered by wartime confiscations and the efforts of successive governments to buy up the remaining tribal lands. The third factor arises from the need for integration into the European way of life by acquiring new skills and adapting traditional living habits to a changed environment. This idea is comparatively recent as a political force and dates from the early 1890s.

The Maori Representation Act of 1867 was designed to meet the objection that Maoris had no say in framing legislation affecting their interests, particularly in respect to land. For a generation after 1867 Maori members of Parliament were drawn from among the chiefs who had supported the New Zealand Government during the wars or whose tribes had not been disaffected. In this period the four Maori members usually divided equally upon European questions while they tended to consider Maori matters from a tribal standpoint. During the 1890s, when a Maori political renaissance occurred, it seemed that the Maori members might soon form a third force in New Zealand politics. This movement culminated in the formation of the Young Maori Party in 1909, but the members were soon absorbed into existing European political parties. In the early 1900s, when Mahuta Te Wherowhero and H. Kaihau joined the legislature, the disaffected tribes from the Maori Wars gained a forum for their views. A further development took place in the 1930s when T. W. Ratana won the four seats for members of his movement. Almost immediately the Ratana members joined the New Zealand Labour Party and ceased to exist as an independent group.

Principal Political Movements

The following, taken chronologically, are the principal Maori political movements:

Kotahitanga. The Maori Parliament movement, which advocated complete self-government for the Maori race, flourished in the early 1890s when it was felt that Maori members of Parliament were unable to secure acceptance of their views by the European members. The Maori Councils Act of 1900, which created Maori local-government institutions in many areas, met their most urgent demands. This movement is not to be confused with T. W. Ratana's later Maori Welfare League, which had the same name. In the early 1900s the movement was largely absorbed by the Young Maori Party.

The Young Maori Party arose in the 1890s among the old students of Te Aute College, but was not formally constituted as a political party until 1909. Ngata was its secretary-organiser and Buck and Pomare were both members. They believed that Maori lands should be retained and developed by the Maoris themselves and that the Maori people should be encouraged to learn European skills and habits of living. They also demanded more forceful Maori representation in Parliament. After 1912, when Pomare joined the Reform Ministry, the group broke up, Ngata and Buck becoming identified with the Liberal Party.

Muru Raupatu was the name given to those who followed Sir Maui Pomare after he differed with Ngata on the land question. Its aim was to secure adequate compensation for land confiscated after the Maori Wars. In the 1920s Pomare obtained an award of £5,000 per annum to the Taranaki Trust. Since then compensation has been awarded to other tribes.

Mana Maori Motuhake: “the Maori coming into his own separate rights”. This was a short-lived political movement in the early 1920s and a forerunner of Ratana. It aimed at complete separation of Maoris and Europeans for the purposes of government, advocated the creation of a Maori parliament to control Maori Affairs, and demanded the abolition of the Public Trust, the Native Land Boards, and the Native Land Courts.

Ratana Independent Movement. The Ratana political movement arose during the early 1920s out of the Messianic teachings of T. W. Ratana. Emphasis was placed on the separateness of the Morehu or “remnant” of the Maori people and there was a desire to emulate European skills and way of life. Ratana believed that tribal differences would hinder development along these lines and he made his followers sign a covenant of loyalty to his movement. He insisted that the Maori members of Parliament should be representatives of the race rather than of their respective tribes and in January 1928 he selected four of his followers to contest elections. After 1935 Ratana's preoccupation with Maori welfare induced him to seek a political alliance with the New Zealand Labour Party. From 1938 until 1963 all Maori Labour candidates were also ministers in the Ratana Church. On the land question Ratana generally accepted Ngata's development schemes.

Kauhanganui Independent Group. This made its appearance as a political group during the early years of the twentieth century. It has the backing of the elders and chiefs of the Waikato tribes and is thus closely associated with the “King” movement, which has ceased to be a political force in itself. While Kauhanganui is no longer separatist, it seeks to protect Maori lands from further confiscation and calls for the revision of New Zealand statutes to remove all provisions oppressive to the Maoris.

Independent Maori Group. This was formed in the Bay of Plenty area in 1960 and aims at securing Maori representatives in Parliament who are not tied to any particular party. It advocates the retention of Maori lands by the Maoris and a policy for their proper utilisation – including lower rates of interest for development loans. In this respect the group appears to follow Sir A. T. Ngata and to oppose the Ratana movement.

Recent Trends

The Ratana group has held the balance between the European parliamentary parties on two occasions, between 1946 and 1949 and, again, between 1957 and 1960. Even with this advantage, however, the Maori members were unable to secure a final settlement of their traditional complaints. As a result, the Ratana-sponsored members appear to be losing prestige among some sections of the Maori electorate; in the 1963 election, for instance, the Labour Party successfully sponsored a non-Ratana candidate for Eastern Maori.

For the future, it is probable that, as more Maoris become integrated in the European community, Maori conservatism will gradually lose its significance. If, as is sometimes suggested by the Maoris themselves, their separate representation were abolished, and they were included in one common Maori-Pakeha electoral roll, this process might be greatly accelerated.

by Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.

  • Prentice Papers (MSS), Hawke's Bay Museum and Art Gallery
  • Journals of the Legislative Council, 1893, L.C. No. 6
  • The Story of Te Aute College, Alexander, R. R. (1951)
  • Ratana – the Origins and Story of the Movement, Henderson, J. McL. (1963)
  • Franklin Times, 9 Nov 1960
  • Bay of Plenty Times, 26 Oct 1960.

Pages

POLITICAL PARTIES 22-Apr-09 Walter Edward Murphy, B.A., Lecturer, School of Political Science and Public Administration, Victoria University of Wellington.John Sidney Gully, M.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Assistant Chief Librarian, General Assembly Library, Wellington.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.Bruce Macdonald Brown, M.A., New York Office, Department of External Affairs.Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Martin Joseph Silvester Nestor, M.COM., Chief Research Officer, New Zealand National Party, Wellington.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.William James Gardner, M.A., Senior Lecturer, History Department, University of Canterbury.John Sidney Gully, M.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Assistant Chief Librarian, General Assembly Library, Wellington.Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.Herbert Otto Roth, B.A., DIP.N.Z.L.S., Deputy Librarian, University of Auckland.John Richard Sinclair Daniels, M.A., Local Government Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.