A NEW ZEALAND “I.L.P.”

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11556, 18 April 1898, Page 4

A NEW ZEALAND “1.L.P.”

What looks like the first step towards tho formation of an Independent Labour Party in New Zealand was taken by the Labour Conference at Wellington last week, when it resolved that in its opinion the Labour representatives in Parliament should assert their independence of party discipline in all matters affecting labour. It is probably no more than a coincidence, though a somewhat significant one, that this resolution was reached immediately after tho acting leader of the Opposition had in a public address advised the workers of the colony to form a separate party and take a course of their own. That counsel, as we pointed out, would, if followed, result in great advantage to the Conservative Party by dividing and weakening the Liberal element in the Legislature. We trust, therefore, that the workers will pause before they make any attempt to enforce their resolution or to follow it up by organising the Labour Party in the country on lines distinct from those of Liberalism. The resolution is not, of course, binding on the labour members of the Legislature, who are still free to exercise their “ independence ” as they have done in the past by taking the coarse which in each case commends itself to their judgment. In some degree the resolution may carry a vote of censure on some members whose independence of party leading strings has not been sufficiently pronounced ; and these gentlemen —there is no necessity to name them—will doubtless take better heed to their ways in future, aud pay more attention to the special interests they are supposed to represent. The principal significance of the resolution lies in the evidence it gives of growing dissatisfaction with the Government, aud in tho demonstration it affords of the resentment felt at Ministerial interference in the selection of candidates for Parliament. On the latter subject there are some grounds for the feeling. Mr BiJcliff was quite right when he said that if the constituencies had been left free to choose their own , candidates there would now be fewer "Opposition and more Labour members in the House. The recent byelection was doubtless in the minds of speakers who enunciated this view, but there were also seats lost at the general election from the same cause that led to the Wellington vacancy being filled by a Conservative. There is, of course, some excuse for Ministerial interference. In the unsatisfactory state of our election laws, there is always a danger that, if there is not a dominating influence employed at the choosing of a candidate, disunion will creep in, several candidates in the Liberal interest will be run, aud the result will be the return of a minority representative. This is, however, more of an argument for a speedy introduction of preferential voting, than it is a defence of Ministerial dictation in the choice of candidates. The failure of the Ministerial tactics at the recent Wellington election is a proof that it is dangerous to seek to limit the free choice of the electors. With regard to the dissatisfaction expressed with the Ministry because of the few Labour measures that have been passed of late years, we consider the Conference is rather unreasonable. It does not seem to have given due weight to tho obstructive tactics of the Opposition, which practically wasted the whole of last session of Parliament and prevented the passing of more than a few formal measures, Conservative persistence, more than Ministerial apathy, is responsible for the defeat and delay of the legislation desired by the labour organisations. The Legislative Council has also to be reckoned with as a factor in the ease; and yet the Labour Conference somewhat perversely objects to the calling of additional Liberal members to that body, which is the readiest available means of bringing the Upper Chamber into accord with the sentiment of the country. It must be admitted, however, that those Conference speakers who drew attention to the meagre record of late years, in marked contrast to the large number of useful Labour laws passed when the Hon W. P. lleeves was in charge of the Department, have emphasised a state of things that; demands alteration. The fact is no presumption of Ministerial indifference to labour requirements ; hut it is clearly a proof that the ability, earnestness and pertinacity of Mr Peeves are much missed in the promotion of that particular class of legislation. With the best intentions, and the closest sympathy with the workers, Mr Seddon’s energies are so overtaxed that it is impossible for him to give to these matters the attention that they deserve. The duties of the Premiership and of the Treasurership combined are more than sufficient to engage the time and the powers of the strongest and most capable man; and we are satisfied that the only way to secure the continued support of the labour organisations is for the Premier to strengthen his Cabinet by the inclusion of a Minister who can give that earnest and intelligent application to industrial legislation which the importance of the subject demands. Failing this, or the return of Mr Peeves to his former position, we fear that “ tho little rift within the lute” which has just become apparent will widen until it is past repairing. An appeal for patience ou the part of the labour unions and

for a more sympathetic attitude on the part of Ministers will not, we hope, prove vain. If each would only look at the facts from the standpoint of the other they would recognise the dangers and difficulties of the situation, and would see the need for a more conciliatory attitude. It must be remembered that the strength of the Liberal Party has consisted in its combined representation of agricultural and industrial interests, and-if it should allow the latter of these to become subsidiary it will he in danger of losing the support of the town constituencies. Mr M’Kenzie’s strong personality has ensured a vigorous land administration, and has compelled the House to pass progressive Jaws dealing with the agricultural interests. It is the want of a similar personality giving constant attention to the Department of Labour that has enabled Conservative obstruction to prevent the passage of necessary industrial legislation. There is no lack of discipline and consistency among the Labour Party either in or out of the Home. The movement towards greater independence is a mistaken one, as the experience of other countries has abundantly shown. A strengthening of the Cabinet in the direction we have indicated is what is required to remove the principal grievance of the Labour Conference. To cure the other evils indicated, a system of preferential voting, a reform of Parliamentary procedure, and the introduction of a species of referendum are all needed. Palpably, the only hope of securing these changes lies in the continued adhesion of the working men and women voters to the Liberal Party, under whose banner all their past victories have been gained. '