THE LABOUR PASTY

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 136, 6 December 1919, Page 9

THE LABOUR PASTY

DOES IT REPRESENT LABOUR?

(By Plain Speaker.)

By putting the above question I want the workers to consider whether.the present Labour Party represents their views. We all know that during the war thousands of workers went to the front, as they recognised it was a war of defence, and they did not want to see the brutal Hun overrun all Europe, and smash the British Empire. That was, and is, the view of the workers in general, but the men of the official Labour Party said they stood for "dignified neutrality." Was that the view of the miners, watersidevs, tramwaymen, railwaymen, seamen, and all the others who enlisted? You know it was not. These men grossly misrepresented the workers when they said, as between Germany and Britain the New Zealand workers stood for "dignified neutrality," which clearly means they did not care who won. THE PEACE TREATY. The present Labour Party issued a manifesto condemning the Peace Treaty made by Great Britain. I have, examined that manifesto, and find it is practically identical with an appeal that came straight from Berlin to a Socialist paper in England, called The Daily Herald. If you look up the issue of the Maoriland Worker for 16th July, 1919, you will find in the article headed "Our English Letter" the matter I refer to. Wheit the present Labour Party issued that Gei-man-inspired peace manifesto were they representing the workers of New Zealand ? I am sure they were not. A WHITE NEW ZEALAND. The present Labour Party left out of its platform any plank having" for itobject the checking of an influx of Chinese and Indian coolie labour. If you read the platform you will see that there-os no plank on the lines of "A White New Zealand" in it. There are too. niany Hindoo and other Asiatics coming into New Zealand now, and the workers want it checked, but though the old Labour Party had a plank in their platform declaring for a White New Zealand, the present Socialist Labour Party, led by Mr. Holland, will have none of it.

The present Labour Party men say I they are Internationalists, and that all men are brothers, whether white, black, red, or yellow. "Let them all come," I they say. In this the Labour Party is totally misrepresenting the workers of New Zealand who do not want the country flooded with Asiatic coolie labour. DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY. The present Labour Party's platform, iii clause 8, advocates "The repeal of the Defence Act.". Mark you, "The Defence Act." The platform proposes nothing in the place of the repeal of the Defence Act, but the general phrase "A Citizen Army on a Voluntary Basis." Do these men realise that-in peace time we only have a Citizen Army on a Voluntary Basis, but if we repealed the Defence Act without putting another Defence Act_ in its place, wo would have to disband all our defence forces, and dismantle all our defences. When did the workers of New Zealand instruct these men to ask for tho repealof the Defence Act ? Never ! There is not • a trades' union in this country that asked for such a thing,, yet tbe Labour Party (so called) puts it in its published platform. Is that not misrepresenting the workers ? DECEIVING THE WORKERS. On December 6th, 1918, the Expeditonary Forces' Amendment Bill, 1918, was before Parliament. That Bill provided' for the abolition of conscription: the refusal of political rights to conscientious objectors, and, most important of all, * the payment of a war gratuity to the

nurses and returned soldiers. If Messrs, Holland. Semple. M'Combs, Walker, and Fraser had wanted the Bill amended, and were in earnest about it, they would have moved in Committee to amend what they objected to, and called for a division each time. They did not do this, but, on the third reading of the Bill (where no amendment can be made) Messrs. Holland and' Fraser called for a, division on the whole Bill. The voting was 54 to 2—the two being Messrs. Holland and Fraser. Had the other members of the House voted with Messrs. Holland and Fraser, then conscription would have remained the law of the land, and there would have been no provision for payment of war gratuities to nurses or returned soldiers.

If the workers look up Hansard No. 11, page 884, 6th Dec. 1918, they will see that what 1 say is correct. I am quite prepared to admit that these men did it in utter ignorance of what they were doing. That is how they misrepresented the workers, and ignorance is not a. sufficient excuse. WOMEN'S RIGHTS. The present Labour Party talks much about women's rights. There are thousands of women workers who would have been more pleased if the party had done more to help their sons or brothers when they were at the front, but I suppose the party was busy passing resolutions of protest. It is easier passing resolutions (and much safer) than stopping bullets. The party's platform declares for—"Perfect equality between the sexes in every department of life." The wording of this shows how brainless the men were who composed it. There are, and always will be, some departments of life in which men can never be equal to women. Nature forbids. When put to the practical test this party's sympathy with women is discovered to be another way i_ which they misrepresent the workers. Note this! The present Labour Party is the only party in the country that has no woman candidate standing in its name. The Labour Party selected over forty candidates, but not one woman. Mr. Massey's party has its woman candidate. Sir Joseph Ward's haa its woman candidate. Tho present Labour Party loves women, flatters them, advertises big—''Ladies Cordially Invited," but forgot them altogether when selecting positions. Thus they misrepresent the real workers of this Dominion.