¹ In 1871, 254,928; in 1881, 487,889; in 1891, 624,455; in 1901, 770,304; in 1911, 1,005,585; and in 1921, 1,214,677. These figures are exclusive of Maoris.

² For a good, brief description of the New Zealand economy see Belshaw, Horace, “Economic Organization,” in Belshaw, (ed.), New Zealand, United Nations Series (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1947)Google Scholar. The best description of the industrial movement is Hare, A. E. C., Report on Industrial Relations in New Zealand, published for Victoria University College (Wellington, 1946)Google Scholar. Although completed almost ten years ago, this evaluation is in the main still valid. There is no full-length study of the New Zealand labor movement but the following are helpful: Salmond, J. D., New Zealand Labour's Pioneering Days; The History of the Labour Movement in New Zealand from 1840 to 1894 (Auckland, 1950)Google Scholar; Crowley, D. W., “New Zealand Labour Movement, 1894–1913” (Otago University Honors thesis, 1946)Google Scholar; and the shorter version of this thesis in “Outline History of the New Zealand Labour Movement, 1894–1913,” Historical Studies, Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 4, No. 16. The Maoriland Worker, published by the “Red Fed” after 1910, is a valuable sourceGoogle Scholar.

³ For a graphic account of this movement by one of its leading spirits, see Hickey, P. H., “Red Fed.” Memoirs: Being a Brief Survey of the Federation of Labour from 1908 to 1915, New Zealand Worker Print, 1925Google Scholar.

⁴ This expression was used by H. E. Holland, the first leader of the present Labor party.

⁵ Twenty-one of the 34 candidates supported by local labor groups or ad hoc committees were elected. All but five of these were Liberals who had been endorsed but not selected by labor.

⁶ Among the more important stumbling blocks to winning the trades and labor councils to the idea of independence were the unwillingness of Labor parliamentarians to burn their political bridges behind them, the feeling of many unionists that independence would be suicide, and the adroitness of Richard Seddon, the Liberal leader, in nipping incipient insurgency in the bud by appointing its leaders to office. A Political Labor League, launched in 1904, went out of existence in 1909; a “New Zealand Labour Party,” created by vote of the Trades and Labor Council conference of 1910, functioned only in the election of 1911, being superseded by the United Labor party in 1912. The last organization was an attempt to fuse the industrial and political activities of labor in a single organization, as well as to compromise the divergent points of view of “arbitrationists,” “direct actionists,” and “socialists.”

⁷ Of the 18 candidates in that election, nine had been selected by the Social Democratic party, five had been sponsored by local “Labor Representation Committees,” and the remaining four ran with the support of other local labor groups, sometimes with Liberal support. Of the six who were elected, only two had been endorsed by the Social Democratic party. The election, held in an atmosphere of patriotic enthusiasm shortly after the outbreak of the war, strengthened the position of the Reform party in parliament.

⁸ The party's present aims are stated as follows: “The purpose of the Party is to educate the public in the principles of Co-operation and Socialism; to elect competent men and women to Parliament and Local Authorities; and to ensure the just distribution of the production and services of New Zealand…. The objective of the Party is to promote and protect the freedom of the people and their political, social, economic and cultural welfare.” When the constitution was revised in 1951, a motion to reinstate the original socialist objective was defeated by a vote of 149 to 359.

⁹ H. E. Holland, M. J. Savage, and Peter Fraser.

¹⁰ The following table, compiled from the official election figures published after each general election, tells the story. Only the votes for endorsed Labor candidates are included. Maori as well as European electorates are given.

¹¹ For a brief account of the development of New Zealand parties, see Lipson, Leslie, The Politics of Equality: New Zealand's Adventure in Democracy (Chicago, 1948)Google Scholar.

¹² The surprise of the 1954 election was the heavy vote polled for the candidates of a revived Social Credit Political League. Although none of its candidates was elected, it polled more than 11 per cent of the total votes and resulted in the election of 25 candidates without an absolute majority, an unusual situation in New Zealand. The success of the Social Credit Political League suggests dissatisfaction with both of the other parties.

¹³ Chapman, R. M., “The Significance of the 1928 Election, A Study in Certain Trends in New Zealand Politics during the Nineteen-Twenties,” Auckland University College M.A. thesisGoogle Scholar. In this significant statistical study electorates are classified in five groups: city; town; country-town; balanced (town and country); and rural. In 1935 the Labor vote rose in all classes of electorates, but the increase was 69 per cent in country-town seats, 45 per cent in rural seats, 40 per cent in the towns, and only 27 per cent in the cities. Chapman advances the thesis that by 1925 Labor had absorbed the “manual worker” seats, and from then on further gains were at the expense of the Reform party.

¹⁴ Mr. Nordmeyer was speaking at the time of the dispute on the waterfront.

¹⁵ The organization is set forth in New Zealand Labor Party, Constitution with L.R.C. and Branch Rules, as amended at the 1951 conference. The citations which follow are to this edition of the constitution unless otherwise indicated. Much of what follows is drawn from personal observation at Wellington L.R.C. meetings over a period of six months, and attendance at single L.R.C. and branch meetings at Palmerston North (“fat lamb” country), Hamilton (dairying), Greymouth (West Coast mining), and Oamaru (South Island agricultural), as well as Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin.

¹⁶ The Constitution (See. 14 A) fixes minimum branch dues at five shillings per member.

¹⁷ For example, in 1952 the Clerical Workers' Union, an affiliate of the Federation of Labor, was not affiliated with the party, but some of its members were active in party branches.

¹⁸ The jurisdiction of a few L.R.C.'s (e.g., Wellington) covers several electorates.

¹⁹ As of 1952, branches and affiliations were entitled to the following representation: 50 members, one delegate; 51 to 125 members, two delegates; 126 to 200 members, three delegates; 201 to 300 members, four delegates, with one additional delegate for every additional 100 members up to a maximum of seven.

In the Auckland L.R.C. there were approximately 50 delegates from trade unions and 40 from branches; 121 of the 176 representatives in the North Canterbury L.R.C. (Christchurch) were from affiliated unions; in the rural area of Oamaru, 26 of the 40 delegates represented unions.

²⁰ Constitution, 1951, sec. 10 B.

²¹ 1916, J. McCombs, M.P.; 1917, A. Walker, M.P.; 1918 and 1919, J. T. Paul, M.L.C.; 1920, Peter Fraser, M.P.

²² At the 1920 conference opposition to the influence of parliamentarians was so vocal that when Peter Fraser, M.P., was elected president he refused to serve, and only reversed his decision after conference had unanimously refused to accept his resignation. (Report of the 4th Annual Conference, 1920, as given in the Maoriland Worker, August 11, 1920.)

²³ New Zealand Worker, May 7, 1924. The statement was made by R. Semple.

²⁴ Estimated from the “Comparative Statement of Receipts and Payments, 1946–47 to 1951–52,” as given in Report of the 36th Annual Conference, 1952. Grants to electorates and expenses of annual conferences and meetings of the executive were not included in the above estimates.

Much of the credit for building up an adequate headquarters staff rests with Walter Nash, the present parliamentary leader, who held the post of secretary from 1922 to 1931. During the latter part of that time he was also a member of parliament. The three secretaries who followed him, and who served collectively for 15 years, all “graduated” into parliament. There was sufficient criticism of this practice so that when the present secretary was chosen his lack of political ambitions was cited by some as an asset.

²⁵ As of 1952, representation was as follows: branches or affiliations with membership not exceeding 200, one delegate and one vote; branches or affiliations with membership of 201 to 500, two delegates and two votes; branches or affiliations with membership of 501 to 1000, three delegates and three votes; branches or affiliations with membership of 1000 to 1500, four delegates and four votes; one extra delegate or vote for each additional 500 members over 1500.

²⁶ However, if one of the organizations a delegate represents is entitled to more than three votes, this rule is interpreted to mean that he may cast that number but no more.

²⁷ Labor Representation Committees—Rules, Sec. 4 B. The rules governing eligibility of conference delegates are identical with those applying to L.R.C. delegates.

²⁸ Earlier conferences concluded with the singing of the “Red Flag,” but those radical days are no more.

²⁹ Prior to the 1938 conference 700 remits were received. In 1939 the number was over 1000. Remits must be forwarded to the head office at least three months before the date of conference. Two months before conference the head office sends copies of the remit paper to L.R.C.'s, branches, and affiliations.

³⁰ Premised on general elections at regular three-year intervals, this plan was immediately thrown out of gear by the unexpected dissolution of 1951. The 1951 conference, held before parliament was dissolved, dealt largely with constitutional questions, and the 1952 conference dealt mainly with policy issues.

³¹ An important source of income is special levies upon union members. It is often stated that waterside workers are expected to contribute £1 per member in an election year.

In reporting on the 1938 parliamentary election (Report of the 23d Conference, 1939), the national executive singled out the following unions for “special thanks” for their generous contributions:

Waterside Workers' Union £4,574

N.Z. Workers' Union 2,809

N.Z. Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union 2,500

N.Z. Seamen's Union 1,500

Post & Telegraph Association 1,000

Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants 1,000

³² The rival National party, which attacked compulsory unionism in the 1949 campaign, did not repeal this provision of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act after it came to office. It did, however, make compulsory unionism contingent on a secret ballot if petition of 15 per cent of the union's financial members demanded it. The opinion was widespread in Labor circles that this change of heart on the part of their political opponents was prompted by the conviction that compulsory unionism indirectly aided the National government because of its conservative effect upon the Federation of Labor.

³³ Preceding the 1951 election, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was the only important union which had taken such a poll. The law could be circumvented by the unions' making loans with the understanding that they would not be repaid, and by collecting levies from union members on the job.

³⁴ Constitution, 1926, Secs. 16, 17, 18. The date for selecting candidates was fixed by the national executive but the casting and counting of the ballots was conducted by the L.R.C.'s in cooperation with affiliated unions. Although the constitution did not require it, a postal ballot was often used. Candidates for selection were not permitted to canvass in their own behalf or to instruct others to canvass for them.

³⁵ In Dunedin, a city with 16,000 to 18,000 affiliated members, the addresses of only 6,000 to 7,000 would be available. In a postal vote only about 1,000 of these would be returned. In one electorate in which there were about 2,000 members only 378 ballots were returned in a postal ballot and the selected candidate received only about 200 votes. There were instances in which waterside workers were polled on the wharves, although this was not strictly constitutional.

³⁶ The vote was 304 to 240. There had been earlier unsuccessful attempts to limit voting to branch members, or to void selection ballots in which less than a certain percentage of the members had participated.

³⁷ Report of the 19th Annual Conference, 1935. In its report to the conference that year the executive refers to the “time and thought” given to the character and suitability of candidates, and the frequent joint meetings with parliamentary members in an endeavor to arrive at decisions which would serve that end. The list of candidates selected included 14 who had never previously contested a parliamentary seat. Only three of them had trade union backgrounds.

³⁸ This procedure had been approved in advance by the 1945 conference. A motion to rescind the action was ruled out of order at the 1946 conference.

³⁹ Report of the 35th Annual Conference, 1951.

⁴⁰ In one instance the same person was nominated by several electorates. After placing the one whom they considered the strongest candidate in the strongest Labor electorate the selection committee found itself faced with “impossible” candidates before all the other selections had been made.

⁴¹ The significant alterations in the pledge were the omission of any promise to support the party's platform, and the clause barring those identified with organizations declared incompatible with membership in the party.

⁴² Lee grew up in Auckland in a period when it was a crossroads for radicals. He says his thinking was influenced by Jack London and Upton Sinclair, and describes himself as a “Voltairian Socialist” opposed to “Popes—political as well as religious.” The day he came back from the war he joined the Labor party and was an unsuccessful candidate in 1919. He was elected in 1922 and 1925, but lost in 1928. In 1931, 1935, and 1938 he was elected in Grey Lynn by large majorities. Charges of irregularities in selection ballots on Lee's behalf were reported to the national executive in 1931. Although the executive reported that the irregularities were of a minor character, conference directed that a new ballot be held under supervision of the national executive. Lee won by a vote of 208 to 108. In 1932 the executive singled out Lee as one of the new members to be congratulated on the “splendid manner” in which they had launched their parliamentary careers. The conference that year congratulated Lee and Peter Fraser for taking a stand in the House of Representatives which led to their suspension. Fraser's part in this is described in Thorn, James, Peter Fraser (London, 1952), p. 99Google Scholar.

⁴³ According to Lee, he originally intended to limit circulation of the letter to members of the Labor party. After an uncorrected copy which Lee had shown to a parliamentary friend was circulated among non-Labor members, Lee decided to circulate the corrected version. Needless to say, the letter was widely circulated among Labor's “enemies.”

⁴⁴ Report of the 23d Annual Conference, 1939. Lee's side of the story, written after his expulsion, appeared as a pamphlet entitled I Fight for New Zealand.

⁴⁵ The article appeared in the issue of December 6, 1939. Its theme was that the fate of nations is affected by the physical and mental illness of leaders, who may tend to become “pathological autocrats.” Although it was not generally known at the time, Savage was a desperately sick man. He died of cancer while the 1940 conference was in progress. In a “confidential report,” written by him and read at that conference, Savage bitterly attacked Lee, who, he claimed, had made “desperate attempts” to destroy him as a political force.

⁴⁶ Report of the 24th Annual Conference, 1940. The exact wording of the motion was as follows: “That John A. Lee, M.P. for Grey Lynn, having been guilty of conduct and acts inconsistent with his position as a member of his Party, this conference in the interests of the Labour Movement, hereby expels him from the New Zealand Labour Party.”

⁴⁷ The official version of Lee's expulsion is recapitulated in Report of the 30th Annual Conference, 1946. Lee's side is stated in a pamphlet issued by the Grey Lynn Democratic Labour party and entitled, Expelled from the Labour Party for Telling the Truth.

⁴⁸ The question of Lee's expulsion was not on the order paper of the conference and hence branches and affiliations had no opportunity to discuss it or instruct their delegates how to vote. Lee's own L.R.C. in Auckland had expressed confidence in both Lee and Savage, after the Lee article had been read, and a motion of censure proposed. Lee's supporters maintained that while his opponents at conference were given unlimited time, his supporters were kept strictly within the three-minute rule. The Hon. W. E. Barnard, Speaker of the House of Representatives, who was the only member of parliament to resign from the party in protest over the action taken against Lee, stressed undemocratic procedures in caucus and conference in a pamphlet entitled The Speech of a New Zealander. There is the same emphasis in “Mr. Lee Expelled,” Tomorrow, April 3, 1941.

⁴⁹ Report of the 25th Annual Conference, 1941. This action was unanimously endorsed by the conference of that year.

⁵⁰ In addition, W. E. Barnard, who ran as an Independent, was defeated by an official Labor candidate.

⁵¹ Lee's party polled four per cent of the total vote. The percentage of the total vote polled by Labor dropped from 55.8 in 1938 to 47.4 in 1943, but it was slightly higher than in 1935.

⁵² Efforts to bring about a reconciliation between Lee and the Labor party, initiated at various times by branches and industrial groups, failed. In 1952, Lee was publishing a sheet called John A. Lee's Fortnightly, which included two pages of comment by him.

⁵³ An interesting debate on this point took place in 1927. When a seat was denied a delegate from the Westland Timber Workers, the Deniston Miners' Union argued that if non-Communists sent Communists to represent them they “must trust them,” and that “the thing which mattered was the Unity of the working class.” Ten years later the party again defeated a remit which would have exempted from the pledge delegates from unions, but at the same time voted down as “impracticable” a resolution which would have required all members of affiliated organizations to take the pledge.

⁵⁴ In 1952 the executive warned members not to associate with the coming “Peace Carnival” in Sydney, which it described as a “smoke screen” for Communist activities. (Report of the 36th Annual Conference, 1952.)

⁵⁵ The latter action, endorsed by the 1948 conference, was taken during a disagreement between the waterside workers and the Labor government.

⁵⁶ In the 1949, 1950, and 1952 conferences every convenor of a committee was a member of parliament or associated with the head office.

⁵⁷ James Roberts, who had been head of the Waterside Workers' Union, was sometimes referred to as the “uncrowned King of New Zealand.” Although it was not unusual for presidents to be re-elected, none of his predecessors had served for more than four years. During Roberts' regime, there were repeated attempts to introduce election of the president by direct vote of the party membership, or limit his term of office. All were unsuccessful.

⁵⁸ Both were concerned with “Peace and War.” One committed the party to strive for the development of the peaceful use of atomic energy; the other to take the initiative in launching a “Commonwealth Peace Movement.” A resolution calling for the withdrawal of New Zealand's forces from Korea was defeated by a vote of 336 to 127.

⁵⁹ They dealt with the following topics: “Principles of Labour” (the party's position on socialism), “Labour versus Communism,” “Industrial Relations,” and “Peace and War.”

⁶⁰ In 1952, remits were submitted from 59 branches, 15 L.R.C.'s, and less than a dozen unions. Remits usually come from the same few constituent groups.

⁶¹ One branch delegate, who was attending her first conference in 1952, reported that in her branch there was no discussion of the remit paper and that she felt poorly prepared for her responsibilities in conference. In another branch “consideration” of remits was limited to the chairman's statement, “We oppose (or favor) that one, don't we?”

The procedure followed in adopting the revised constitution of 1951 is a good illustration of how little control members may have over matters of vital concern. By vote of the 1950 conference, a committee on constitutional revision was directed to prepare a draft for discussion the following year. The committee was composed of the members of the national executive and five members from outside that body, selected by the executive from a panel of 47 nominated at the 1951 conference. The initial draft of the constitution was prepared by a subcommittee of this committee on constitutional revision, and was adopted by the full committee at meetings on March 29 and 30, 1951. At the 1951 conference discussion of the constitution was overshadowed by issues related to the waterfront dispute of that year. There were numerous attempts from the floor to amend the draft submitted, but very few were successful.

⁶² In 1951, 119 of the 218 unions were not represented; 372 of the 634 branches sent no delegates. In the case of branches, financial considerations are very important. It is a problem of loss of wages and the difficulty of securing leave of absence from one's post, as well as one's expenses while attending the meetings. It is difficult for school teachers, for example, to be absent from their jobs. Not infrequently a person is chosen because he has relatives or friends in Wellington with whom he can stay. The larger unions pay the expenses of their delegates, and union secretaries incur no loss of income if they are sent as delegates. For this reason branches are often represented by union delegates. Area representatives on the national executive have their expenses paid by the head office and sometimes represent their respective branches.

⁶³ Reading the correspondence, which is part of the regular order of business, takes an amount of time out of all proportion to its importance; also the reports of the Labor members on the city council, hospital board, and other local bodies are often time-consuming. One gains the impression that there are times when officers welcome routine business as a way of avoiding controversial matters.

⁶⁴ Constitution, 1951, Sec. 12 D.

⁶⁵ It should be noted that the pledge, as revised in 1951, omitted reference to “Platform” or “Objective.” The member now commits himself merely to observe the “Constitution and Policy of the Party.”

⁶⁶ This was in strict accordance with a resolution moved by Holland and adopted at the party's first annual conference. (Maoriland Worker, July 18, 1917.)

⁶⁷ The constitution provides that in case of a disagreement between the parliamentary Labor party and the executive, the question be submitted to a joint conference of the members of the two bodies. In the dispute over the selection of the cabinet this procedure was followed and a compromise reached. Upon this point both sides seem to agree. However, Lee and Barnard maintained that this was a matter which lay within the exclusive control of the parliamentary Labor party, and that the executive had no right to interfere. Each side charged the other with failure to carry out the terms of the compromise formula. See Report of the 23d Annual Conference, 1939; J. A. Lee, I Fight for New Zealand; and W. E. Barnard, The Speech of a New Zealander.

⁶⁸ One of the posters used in the 1951 campaign showed likenesses of Holland, Savage, Fraser, and Nash, with the caption “Another Great Leader.”

⁶⁹ Motions to this effect had been beaten or sidetracked repeatedly by Nash, Minister of Finance, who held the strategic post of convenor of the conference committee to which they were referred. He opposed the action on the ground that existing controls were so effective that the legislation was unnecessary. In 1944 a committee under different leadership (that of H. E. Combs, also an M. P.) recommended a resolution on monetary policy which included unequivocal support of nationalization of the Bank of New Zealand. The report was adopted by conference without Nash's support.

⁷⁰ Report of the 33d Annual Conference, 1949; and Thorn, James, Peter Fraser, p. 269Google Scholar. The issue was a highly explosive one because of Labor's traditional opposition to conscription in time of war and the tendency to identify military training with compulsory military service. Peter Fraser had himself been among those jailed for opposition to conscription in World War I. At a special conference held June 3, 1940, the party had given the Labor government a free hand to conscript “men and money” during the war, but what was widely referred to as “peacetime conscription” was another matter. Fraser's initial request to the 1949 conference was for a vote authorizing the government “to use all the resources of the country, including compulsory military service.” Opposition to this was so vocal and so bitter that Fraser later substituted a resolution requesting the government “to use all the resources of the country essential for the defense and preservation of our people, our country and our Commonwealth, and that if the resources are not available without compulsory National Service, the Government be requested to obtain the views of the electors on the question at a referendum.” A referendum was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of compulsory national service.

Fraser's handling of this issue was criticized on several counts. Left-wing party members alleged that when the issue was raised in caucus and the Prime Minister encountered opposition and a demand for additional information, he went straight to conference, implying that he had full caucus support. When the referendum was held, Fraser was attacked for failing to explore alternative courses before asking for a referendum, and for preventing opponents of compulsory military service from presenting their views. The referendum was held in August; the conference the previous May. Views critical of Fraser are expressed in Frank Langstone, M. P., Why I Oppose Conscription, and in Conrad Bollinger, The Referendum Exposed, both published by the New Zealand Peace and Anti-Conscription Federation.

⁷¹ There is no provision in the party's constitution for attendance of F.O.L. representatives at caucus meetings and Sec. 19 B would seem to preclude it. Nevertheless, the report of the parliamentary Labor party for 1941 made it clear that there were some occasions when F.O.L. representatives were present.

⁷² Even during the war the Waterside Workers had been involved in frequent disputes over the Labor government's stabilization policy, and in 1949 they had supported the Auckland Carpenters in a dispute which the F.O.L. claimed was instigated by Communists. This led to an exchange of acrimonious letters between “Jock” Barnes, leader of the Waterside Workers, and K. Baxter, secretary of the F.O.L. A second issue arose over the Waterside Workers' affiliation with the Maritime Section of the World Federation of Trade Unions, from which the F.O.L. had withdrawn in 1949. The executive of the F.O.L. asked Barnes to withdraw his letter to Baxter and disaffiliate from the Maritime Section of the World Federation of Trade Unions. When he refused, and the action of the executive was upheld by the F.O.L. conference, Barnes led the Watersiders out of the conference and organized a breakaway Trade Union Congress, including groups of freezing workers, hotel workers, and transport workers, as well as the watersiders. With an initial support of an estimated 75,000 workers, this represented a serious threat to the F.O.L., which had about 200,000 members before the break.

The 1951 strike began when the waterside workers were locked out by their employers after wage negotiations had deadlocked and the workers had refused to work overtime as prescribed by the regulations of the Waterfront Industry Commission.

⁷³ In view of the earlier differences between the F.O.L. and the Watersiders, it is not surprising that the F.O.L. leaders were content to see the militant leadership of that important group defeated.

⁷⁴ Report of the 14th Annual Conference of the New Zealand Federation of Labor, 1951.

⁷⁵ Webb, Leicester, “Trade Unions at the Crossroads: Some Lessons of the New Zealand Strike,” Australian Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Dec., 1951), p. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ See note 10 for these figures.

⁷⁷ For a trenchant criticism of the labor movement by an English economist see Dudley Sears, The Challenge to New Zealand Labour, a pamphlet published by the Christchurch Co-operative Book Society Ltd., 1946; and Airey, Willis, “Andre Siegfried's Democracy in New Zealand: Fifty Years After,” Political Science (N.Z.), Vol. 6, pp. 33–51 (Sept., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁸ Some think that at the present time P. P. Walsh is grooming Moohan, the vice-president of the party, as Nash's successor. Moohan, who was secretary of the party before his election to parliament, was elected vice-president in 1954. A gifted speaker, he is considered by some critics to be an exponent of Catholic reaction and anti-Communism. The sectarian issue has never been as divisive in the New Zealand Labor party as it has been in the Australian Labor party, but in 1952 there was a certain amount of concern by members who felt that the influence of Catholics in the party was growing.