Evening Post. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5 1922. LABOUR'S TWO VOICES

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 83, 5 October 1922, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5 1922. LABOUR'S TWO VOICES

Referring to the attitude of New Zealand towards the threatened war in the Near East, the "Daily Telegraph" says that "she has shown a more marked recruiting demonstration and a more marked absence from Labour opposition to it than has Australia." Not much discernment was needed even in London for the making of so safe an observation. In the Great IWar the enthusiasms of Australia and of New Zealand ran neck and neck in an honourable competition. The danger with which the Empire has been threatened from the Dardanelles during the last three weeks has found New Zealand as united and determined as before. The eagerness with which her young men rushed in to offer their services in advance of any call from the Government —for no call has yet been made —may indeed be said, in view of their fuller knowledge, the less dramatic emergency, and the general atmosphere of slackness and depression, to be a more wonderful thing than the enthusiasm of eight years ago. Young Australia has also been keen to db the'right thing, but the response has "been less overwhelming, the official attitude has been less unhesitating, and the hostility of Labour has been much more blatant and menacing. The Australian Council of Action's denunciation of "the servile acquiescence of the Prime Minister in the veiled commands of British Imperialists to plunge Australia into another war" is the kind of hot air to which Sydney and Melbourne know better than to attach too much importance. But there is no reason to suppose that the threat "to organise all effective forms of opposition, including general strikes in. key industries and openair demonstrations," would be subject to any other limit than that of the power to carry it outf

When the- "Daily Telegraph" proceeds to suggest that in, New Zealand "the Labour attitude to some extent can be explained by the proximity of a General Election," it may be congratulated upon the accurate diagnosis of the local atmosphere. Labour in New Zealand—that is to say, Official or Red Labour—-has been singing very small lately. That it blundered very grossly at the last General Election is obvious to everybody. The, dissolution of the Coalition on the eve of the election, lack of any clear line of cleavage between the late partners, and their approximately equal' strength gave Labour a unique opportunity. But the chance was thrown away by the violence with which its anti-Im-perial, anti-national, and anti-so-cial views were pressed. The hesitating moderate voter was scared at the last moment into voting for Mr. Massey on the ground that that would be the most effective way of voting for the unity of the Empire and fov the- stability of domestic politics. There was no suspicion of the Liberals' loyalty, but there was a widespread fear that they would be more susceptible to Red /Labour pressure if they got into power than the Reform Party. The Labour leaders rendered a valuable service to the country by inclining the doubtful balance of party strength decisively in favour of the party best able to resist their demands.

There have been indications during the last; few months that the leaders of the Labour Party are endeavouring to avoid a repetition of this mistake. ' Neither the Empire nor the social order has been attacked with the same violence as before, and the exploiting of such minor matters as the problem, of unemployment and the grievances of the retrenched Civil servants has occupied a much larger share Trf attention than the ultimate objectives of the. party which made so brave a show three years ago. For Red Fed leaders, who were 'thus placed on their good behavioui, the threat of another war within two; or three mor';hs of a General Election has come -at a very inconvenient time. It has exposed them to the risk of having their anti-Imperial and pacifist opinions bVoueht into the limelight just when it was desirable to keep Lhem in the background. But in Parliament Mr. Holland and his colleagues handled a difficult position with admirable discretion. Though they believe that all wars are wrong, they did not say so. Though they often seem to believe 1 that tho Empire is always in the j wrong when it has a difference with I any other Power, they did not say so. Though they probably would not consent to any soldiei leaving these shoiffis except that ?ie might help to make some bloodless conquest for the Red Flag, they did not say so. Their main objection to the action of the Government; vY.a.fi pa %...fioastiMiMa].gi'pund,

which cast no reflection on their own patriotism.

When the Reform Party took exception to the Ward Government's offer of a .Dreadnought to the Admiralty, on the ground that Parliamerffc had not been consulted, nobody doubted that party's patriotism. In Mr. Holland's amendment the Labour Party proposed to give the Reformers a little of their own constitutional medicine, without raising Vthe issue of patriotism^ versus anti-patriotism. The amendment merely disapproved of "the action of .the • Government in committing New Zealand to military obligations without the authority of the Parliament and people of New Zealand," demanded full information before the decision was made, and urged a re-, ference to the League of Nations This was very mild stuff for the Labour Party There was a little more kick in Mr. Holland's speech, but' it was much gentler than we had a right to expect. He denied that his party believed Britain to be always in the wrong, but his profound 'military knowledge enabled him to say that this was merely a ca-se of bluff, that "Kemal had only a small handful of men and the Allies ■ could crush him with no trouble at all," and that "it was not necessary to worry at all."

The Labour Party were able to support an amendment framed on these mild lines and expounded in so reassuring a fashion without impeachment of their patriotism. It was rejected by 57 votes to/7 —a result which came remarkably close to that of the division on the despatch of the First Contingent to the South African War almost exactly twenty-three years before—--54 to 5. Further proof of the Labour Par.ty's moderation was then afforded by their letting Mr. Massey's motion go through on the voices. Yet a week later the official organ of the party concluded a ferocious article on the subject in the real old style, perorating in capitals as -follows: —

Awa-y with, the iingoiain of Measi*. Massey and Wilford f Down with war! Let us root out capitalist imperialism and its rascalities ! Up with the peaceful rule of the peoples and the international Socialist organisation of the nations! V !

Which is the real voice of Red Labour ? And what ground is there for the hope of the "Daily Telegraph" that the saner tone of New Zealand Labour may be more than transitory?"