(1813–96).

Politician.

Daniel Pollen was born at Kingsend, Dublin, on 2 June 1813, the son of Hugh Pollen, a builder, and Elizabeth, née O'Neill. Little is known of his early life, but it is supposed that it was passed partly in Ireland and partly in the United States of America, where Pollen's father was in Washington engaged in building the Capitol.

Pollen studied medicine and graduated as M.D. He went to New South Wales in the late 1830s, and crossed to North Auckland late in 1839, or in January 1840. He signed the white residents' address of welcome to Captain Hobson on 1 February 1840, and witnessed proceedings at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. On 17 February he was elected to the provisional committee of the New Zealand Banking Co. Pollen then spent nearly two years in Sydney and the Pacific Islands, but in September 1841 he bought a 7-acre farm at the Auckland land sale and, with his business partner J. F. Hoggard, a town section in Auckland. At this time he was living in Parnell practising medicine, and the purchase of land seems to signalise his decision to remain permanently in New Zealand.

In 1844 Pollen was appointed a coroner, holding the post for the next four years. He married, on 18 May 1846, Jane Henderson, daughter of Lieut. Essex, RN, of Demarara; and, in 1847, becoming medical officer to a Scots copper-mining company, moved with her to Kawau Island. Pollen spent several years on Kawau, during which time he began to contribute articles to the New Zealander supporting the agitation for responsible government. He was also to the fore in supporting temperance, scientific, and library movements there.

When the new constitution of 1852 came into effect, Pollen was appointed chief clerk in the Auckland Superintendent's office, and on 14 March 1854 was appointed to the Executive. He held office under Wynyard, Williamson, and Whitaker. Pollen had failed to gain a seat in either the Provincial Council or Parliament in 1853, but late in 1856 was elected to the Provincial Council for Auckland Suburbs, whom he represented from December 1856 to February 1857, and November 1857 to September 1861. In 1858 he was appointed Commissioner of Crown Lands for Auckland. At this time Pollen began to champion the Maori cause in the New Zealander, and remained their supporter thenceforward.

In 1861 he was called to the Legislative Council, representing the Fox Ministry. During 1862 he was Deputy Superintendent of Auckland, in March he resigned as Commissioner of Crown Lands, and in August ceased to represent the Fox Ministry in the Legislative Council. Until 1863 he was a member of the Domains Board, and in 1866 was again Deputy Superintendent in Auckland. In that same year he became the Receiver of Land Revenue.

In the following year Pollen resigned from the Legislative Council to become agent for the General Government at Auckland. He returned to the Legislative Council in June 1868 to represent the Stafford Ministry; in 1869 was candidate for the Superintendency of Auckland (withdrawing after a hostile meeting at Thames), and in 1870, leaving the Legislative Council, he resumed his post as agent in Auckland.

Pollen had approved J. C. Firth's tentative truce offer to Te Kooti, and was censured by the Fox Government. He resigned as the Auckland agent, then withdrew his resignation at the request of the Government. For the remainder of 1870 Pollen held, in addition, the posts of Receiver of Land Revenue, Commissioner of Confiscated Lands, Commissioner under the Native Land Act 1870, and Immigration Officer.

The Vogel Government recalled him to the Legislative Council in 1873, and almost at once he joined the Executive as Colonial Secretary. He continued in this office until 1875, when for a few months he formed his own ministry. This collapsed in February 1876, and from then until October 1877 Pollen was a member of the “continuous ministry”, administering the Colonial Secretary's department under Vogel and Atkinson. For a short time in 1877 Pollen was Native Minister, and from then until his death on 18 May 1896 he remained a member of the Legislative Council and enjoyed a Government pension.

Pollen was a cultured, genial, and large-minded man. As a politician he was capable of swift, perceptive decisions; his debating style was both outspoken and cogent, and as an administrator he showed himself vigorous and trustworthy. He was a Tory who worked for the enfranchisement of women; a champion of the Maori while at the same time chairman of the East Coast Native Land Settlement Company; and a politician who combined medical and business activities with the many claims of public life. In later years in the Council his conservatism deepened. He found himself out of sympathy with the times and he opposed bitterly anything that seemed to smack of “radicalism”. His speeches, too, changed in temper, and good humour and even flippancy gave way to a biting sarcasm. It was because of this attitude from a powerful minority, which included Pollen, that the Legislative Council in the eighties gradually acquired an undeserved reputation for being a reactionary stronghold.

Pollen's eldest son, Hugh (1851–1912), also spent his life in the public service and rose to become Under-Secretary of the Colonial Secretary's Department.

by K.C.

• History of New Zealand, Rusden, G. W. (3 vols., 1895)
• New Zealand Times, 19 May 1896 (Obit).

The United Party, the successor to the Liberal Party, was formed in 1927 and, after a surprising success in the general election in the following year, it formed a Government under the veteran Sir Joseph Ward. The party later joined the Reform Party in the Coalition which governed New Zealand from 1931 to 1935.

The Liberal Party of the 1920s was demoralised and disunited following a split after 1925 between the Nationalists, under G. W. Forbes, and a small group of Liberals, under W. A. Veitch. After the 1925 election the two groups held only 11 seats. Efforts to revive the moribund party were abortive until in November 1927 the Nationalists joined the United New Zealand Political Organisation which had been set up a few months earlier by A. E. Davy, the brilliant organiser who had worked for the Reform Party in 1925. All Liberal forces joined at a unity conference at Auckland in September 1928 to form the United Party. Sir Joseph Ward, the former Liberal Prime Minister who had stood aloof from the party throughout the twenties, became the leader of the new party.

The United Party was created at a time when there was considerable dissatisfaction with the Reform Government of Gordon Coates and its election campaign was skilfully managed by A. E. Davy to capitalise on this feeling to the best advantage. The United Party attacked the Government's interference with “free enterprise”, reflecting the dislike felt by urban business for the Government's interventions in the economy on behalf of farming interests. The party also caught the public imagination with its proposal to borrow £70 million within a year for use in national development, although Ward later appeared to have made this promise rather rashly. Ward himself was an asset to the party, being a revered political veteran and still an effective campaigner. The election results, which were a severe setback for Reform, were: Reform, 27 seats; United, 25 seats; Labour, 19 seats; and Independent, five seats.

United, which was supported by Labour and the Independents, formed a government with Ward as Prime Minister on 10 December 1928. In spite of its high promises, the party was almost completely inactive in office. The lavish borrowing proposals were quickly shelved, and they could not possibly have been carried out in the deteriorating economic situation. Public works were curtailed during 1929 and unemployment increased. The situation was aggravated by the ineffectiveness of the Cabinet, five members of which had not even sat in Parliament before. Ward himself was failing and retired in May 1930, dying two months later. The leadership passed to G. W. Forbes and the Government drifted on for a year, finally joining in a Coalition with Reform in September 1931 in the face of the grave economic situation and after a series of by-elections which had disastrous results for United. The party finally lost its identity in a complete merger with Reform in May 1935.

The success of the United Party in 1928 was due primarily to the dissatisfaction felt by the urban business community at the increasing intervention in the economy by the Reform Government in the interests of its farming supporters. A particularly powerful business group in Auckland, known as the “Kelly gang”, shifted its support from Reform to United in 1928. This contributed substantially to United's gain of five Auckland seats in 1928, where National had won none in 1925. For such groups the United Party provided a safe alternative to Reform without encouraging the still suspect Labour Party. The result was that the United Party was able briefly to recast the old urban-rural alliance which had kept the Liberals in power from 1890 to 1911, and which had been split during the twenties by the Reform Government's economic policies. The economic conditions necessary for the success of Liberal economic policies were, however, no longer in existence, and the United Party had only a brief hour of success before it vanished into political oblivion.

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

The first socialist groups in New Zealand were formed in the late eighteen-nineties – Fabian Societies in Dunedin and Christchurch, a Socialist Church in Christchurch, and a Clarion Club and, later, a Socialist League in Wellington. These were primarily propaganda organisations, seeking to educate their members and the public at large by means of lectures, public meetings, and journals.

A political party, the New Zealand Socialist Party, was not formed until July 1901, following the arrival of almost 200 British socialists, the so-called “Clarion Settlers”, led by W. R. Ranstead. Branches of the new party were set up in Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch. In January 1902 Tom Mann, the British Labour leader, arrived in Wellington and was appointed national organiser of the Socialist Party. Under Mann's guidance the party combined educational work on the long-term aims of socialism with practical work for immediate reforms. In 1903, however, after Mann had left for Australia, a more uncompromising group led by Robert Hogg gained control of the Socialist Party and introduced a policy of “Revolution, not Reform”. Sterile theoretical discussions replaced electoral activity and work in the trade unions. Membership fell and branches collapsed, leaving only a small nucleus in Wellington to keep the party alive. In 1907–08 the growing industrial unrest, which led to the first strikes in defiance of the Arbitration Court, brought with it a revival of the Socialist Party. New branches were formed among the West Coast miners, at Huntly, Waihi, and elsewhere. At the party's first national congress, in April 1908, a membership of 3,000 was claimed. Socialists were among the leaders of the new “Red” Federation of Labour and the two organisations, after 1911, shared their national organ, the Maoriland Worker.

Already in 1903 the Socialist Party had contested municipal elections in Wellington and Auckland and had gained a seat on the Wellington City Council. In 1911 the first socialist entered Parliament – John Robertson who won Otaki in the second ballot. The borough of Runanga had a socialist Mayor while in other mining townships party members served on councils and school committees. Despite these successes, socialist participation in elections remained half-hearted. The party never resolved the conflict between the moderates who were anxious to work for immediate reforms through Parliament, local bodies, and trade unions, and the so-called “impossibilists” who would accept nothing short of full socialism and “bloody revolution”.

The parting of the ways came in July 1913, when the Labour Unity Congress formed a Social Democratic Party. Socialists were invited to join the new party and the great majority of them heeded the call. H. E. Holland, recently arrived from Australia, P. Fraser and M. J. Savage, leaders of the Auckland branch, F. R. Cooke from Christchurch, and P. C. Webb were among the prominent socialists who joined the Social Democratic Party. The Wellington branch alone refused to disband and maintained its old name and separate identity. During the war years, members of this branch supported the Conscription Repeal League which conducted a Free Speech campaign in 1916–17. After the war the remaining members of the branch joined in the negotiations which led to the formation of the New Zealand Communist Party in 1920–21.

A short-lived attempt to revive the Socialist Party was made in Christchurch in the early thirties. The bulk of socialists, however, remained in the Labour Party which had taken over the old Socialist Party objective of “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. Many of them reached high office in Cabinet, Parliament, and the Labour Party itself.

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

• Political Science, Mar 1957, The New Zealand Socialist Party, Roth, H.

After the collapse of the Waihi strike in 1912, the Labour leaders of the day realised that, for as long as the various industrial organisations lacked unified direction, their strike policy was doomed to failure. Accordingly, in January 1913, the “Red” Federation of Labour invited representatives from all trade unions – as well as the United Labour Party, the Socialist Party, and the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.) – to a “unity” conference in Wellington. This conference recommended that the political and industrial wings should be separated and central organisations established for each. On 1 July 1913 the Unity Congress, which set up the United Federation of Labour and the Social Democratic Party, opened in Wellington. At this meeting the militant leaders made a concerted effort to conciliate the moderates, and showed themselves prepared to compromise on many fundamental issues. Among the aims of the Social Democratic Party were provisions that “strikes should be effective when used, and under central control”. A difference of opinion arose over this, and the right-wing moderates – including such notables as Sir George Fowlds, D. McLaren, M.P., Hon. J. T. Paul, and W. A. Veitch, M.P.– withdrew and continued the United Labour Party. Shortly after the congress, the United Federation of Labour and Social Democratic Party became involved in the 1913 strike and three Social Democratic Party leaders, including H. E. Holland, were gaoled. Despite this unpromising beginning, six “Labour” members were returned to Parliament in the 1914 general elections. These were J. McCombs and P. C. Webb (S.D.P.); A. H. Hindmarsh, W. A. Veitch, and A. Walker (U.L.P.); and J. Payne (Independent). At the same time “Labour” candidates polled nearly 10 per cent of the total votes cast.

Early in the 1915 session the “Labour” members of Parliament formed an organised group in the House under Hindmarsh's leadership. In August, when Massey formed his Liberal-Reform coalition, he invited Hindmarsh's group to join. The “Labour” members declined and, as a result, became the official Opposition in the House. In July 1916, on behalf of the Social Democratic Party, Peter Fraser invited representatives of the United Federation of Labour, the Labour Representation Committees, and the parliamentary group to the conference which formed the New Zealand Labour Party.

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

• The Rise of New Zealand Labour, Brown, B. M. (1962)
• Humanism in Politics, Paul, J. T. (1946)
• Peter Fraser, Thorn, J. (1952)
• Harry Holland – Militant Socialist, O'Farrell, P. J. (1964).

The first noteworthy proponent of Social Credit in New Zealand was H. M. Rushworth, Country Party Member of the House of Representatives for the Bay of Islands from 1928 to 1938. He was not Parliamentary representative of any Social Credit organisation but because he brought forward in the House the following major Social Credit arguments, namely, that credit and the monetary system should be controlled by the people through the Government; that a gap existed between purchasing power and production costs; that the gap could be bridged by the issue of credit; and that Parliamentary party control should not be unduly rigid, Rushworth may be considered a forerunner of the New Zealand Social Credit Political League.

The New Zealand Social Credit Association is prevented by its constitution from being a political organisation. But many members felt that the principles of Social Credit could best be put into practice by the formation of a political party. Thus, in May 1953, the New Zealand Social Credit Political League was formed, the first office holders being M. J. Hayes (President), C. W. Elvidge (Vice-President), R. G. Young (Secretary), and F. C. Jordan, S. H. C. Jones, A. J. Pascoe, W. B. Owen, A. R. Mackay, and Miss R. S. Andrew (members). The League contested 79 seats in the 1954 Parliamentary elections, polling 124,372 votes, 11·31 per cent of all votes cast, but did not win a seat. The points of election policy were similar to those put forward by Rushworth 20 years previously, but they also included pledges to reduce taxation progressively which would lead to falling costs of production and an increase in the purchasing power of incomes; to abolish social security tax without reducing benefits; to support private enterprise; and to enact legislation to eliminate unfair trade practices. In both the 1957 and 1960 Parliamentary elections all seats were unsuccessfully contested, 83,498 votes, 7·21 per cent of the total, being cast in 1957 and 100,905, or 8·62 per cent, in 1960. In the 1963 election 95,176 votes were cast for Social Credit candidates, which was 7·94 of the total votes cast.

The party leader for the 1954 and 1957 elections was W. B. Owen, whose 1957 policy was an elaboration of that of 1954. A national monetary authority to ensure a balance between production and income was to be set up; bureaucratic controls were to be reduced to a minimum; farming was to be encouraged; school classes were to be reduced; health services were to be improved and preventive medicine encouraged; and a Second Chamber was to be established. In May 1960 P. H. Matthews was elected party leader and his 1960 election policy included proposals to introduce a Bill of Rights limiting the powers of Government and safeguarding the rights of the individual; to allow pensioners to travel free on Government-owned services outside holiday periods; to rehabilitate the coal industry; to rationalise retail trading hours; and to hold a comprehensive referendum on the liquor licensing question.

The League has practically no central control. The electorates are autonomous and are able to use any methods and propagate any policy they wish, provided it is not repugnant to the policies approved by the League's annual conference. Election candidates are approved by regional executives and are referred to the Dominion Council for formal approval which is withheld only if the candidate is of doubtful character or a member of another party.

From December 1954 to August 1955 the League issued its own journal, the New Zealand Social Credit News, and from August 1959 it has issued the New Zealand Guardian. League news is now included in the New Zealand Social Crediter, which is issued by the New Zealand Social Credit Association.

The New Zealand Social Credit Political League has its largest following in the farming areas of Northland, Taranaki, and Bay of Plenty, and in Wanganui, and is supported by farmers, small-business men, and others in the medium-income group who are generally dissatisfied with Labour and National governments.

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

• Political Science, Mar 1955, “The New Zealand Social Credit Political League”, Penfold, W. J.
• Dominion, 20 Jul 1933, 1 Oct 1957, 3 Nov 1960
• Evening Post, 20 May 1953, 11 Sep 1954, 15 Oct 1954.

Origin

The Reform Party, the full title of which was “the New Zealand Political Reform League”, was a conservative body, but that term must be understood in the light of our history and environment. Right-wing organisations which preceded the N.Z.P.R.L. were the Political Reform Associations (1887), the National Association (1891–99), and the Auckland Electoral League (1902). In spite of the poor prospects for a successful attack on Seddon's strongly entrenched Liberal Party, a Political Reform League was formed in Christchurch in June 1905, mainly through the work of W. J. (later Sir William) Polson and of Charles Lewis who was probably responsible for reviving the “Reform” label of 1887. P.R.L.s sprang up in other centres, and Massey accepted their support for the 1905 election. The Christchurch group produced a few numbers of the Reformer, but as Massey was a strong critic of Seddon's “Tammany machine”, he could hardly set up a full-scale organisation in competition. The 1908 election result encouraged him to put forward the Opposition as an alternative government, and he announced the Reform Party in February 1909, borrowing the title from the P.R.L.s. The name was not new, nor did it commit Massey to any new policy; but it helped to efface the “Conservative” name and party-image fastened on him by the Liberals. By the 1911 election, the parliamentary party and the P.R.L.s were virtually merged at the local level, but the N.Z.P.R.L. was not constituted until its first conference (4–5 August 1912), held after Massey had come into office. The chief architect of the 1912 Constitution was E. F. Hemingway of Patea, who had been a member of the British Primrose League. The objects of the N.Z.P.R.L. were, briefly, to correct the alleged maladministration of the Liberals and to put forward and support parliamentary candidates. The subscription was a minimum of 2s. 6d. There were to be branches of the League in all electorates, which were grouped in five divisions (October 1913). The leader of the parliamentary party was to be president of the League. He presided over the executive of 15 (1913), and its “literary” (policy and propaganda) committee; he convened conferences; he approved the appointment of organisers (five in 1914), and gave them special instructions. No procedure was laid down for the selection of candidates. Massey made little secret of his determination to keep the League to canvassing and financial functions. An attempt in 1912 to change the name to the N.Z. Democratic League failed.

Reorganisation

The League made good headway in preparing for the election of 1914, but the political truce at the outbreak of war, followed by the formation of the National Government (August 1915), led to its gradual falling apart. During the Prime Minister's absence in Europe, 1918–19, a “Progressive Reform” cave, of vaguely leftward tendencies, developed among his backbenchers. Massey turned aside the threat by taking three of the leaders into his Cabinet in 1920. By the election of 1919, Reform was, in effect, Massey's personal following, his supporters standing as “Independent Reform”, not as League candidates. He relied on his own mana, the wealth of Sir Walter Buchanan and others, and the services of E. A. James, twice General Secretary of the League, and editor of the Reform journals, Light and Liberty (1913–14) and the Newsletter (1920–28). In spite of a provisional rule (1920) that candidates should be chosen by the electorates and approved by the President, procedure remained varied, and Massey had to cope (not always successfully) with local quarrels. From at least 1915, Reform-Liberal fusion had been advocated. After the stalemate election of 1922, protracted negotiations were carried on with the weakened Liberals, but Massey was lukewarm, and Coates, confident of Reform victory, broke them off in 1925. In 1923 Massey had set up an Organisation Committee under A. D. McLeod. Five organisers were appointed, including A. E. Davy, the most controversial figure in Reform history.

On Massey's death, in 1925, Davy organised a spectacular press campaign for Coates, which was widely believed to have paved the way for the Reform victory with 54 seats, the party's peak of power. Coates set out to revitalise the League, which held a full conference in 1926, the first since 1914. The constitution was revised to ensure more vigorous branches, but many of the old habits remained. By 1927–28 the Reform Party itself was in danger, with Coates as the storm-centre. He was criticised on the one hand by businessmen for his “socialism”, and on the other by debt-ridden farmers for his alleged deference to stock and station agencies, and financial institutions. A businessmen's political conference in November 1927 was the beginning of the end for Reform. A “1928 Committee” was formed to demand “less government in business” from Coates. Davy, who had fallen out with Coates, organised the United Party, which took enough votes from Reform to become a minority government. The League then purged its membership lists, and achieved its highest level of organisation in preparation for a comeback in 1931. However, powerful Reform and ex-Reform leaders forced the reluctant Coates into coalition with Forbes at the eleventh hour (September 1931). The leaders claimed that this was not a union of parties, but the League was instructed to follow Cabinet leadership. Though some branches were still active as late as 1933, the growing strength of Labour, and the threat of the Democrat Party (with Davy as organiser) forced Reform and United together in 1935 in the National Political Federation, to prepare for the coming election. The N.Z.P.R.L. was formally dissolved in 1936, and virtually absorbed into the National Party.

Political Philosophy

Reform was not a party of historically-minded “Conservatives”, but a political defence for “men in possession” in a new country. It was not a party of doctrine, unless “anti-socialism” and Massey's mixture of practical and mystical imperialism can be called doctrine. The nearest approach to a Reform political philosophy is found in the Dominion editorials of Charles Earle, who appealed to the “true Liberalism” of Bentham and Mill, only occasionally to Burke, and most of all to the individualism of Herbert Spencer. In the 1880s “reform” had meant reducing or ceasing borrowing, and cutting down the civil service and State expenditure. By the 1900s it signified to many the ending of Seddon's “Tammanyism” and, in particular, checking the alleged favouritism to Catholics in the civil service. Massey hoped to win radical “reformers” into his Reform Party, but the basic general position of Reform was “anti-socialism”, and resistance to the rising menace of Labour. Massey had long since promised to respect Liberal legislation, and had given up his old opposition to Liberal protection and borrowing. Hence, he could attract Liberal votes in town and country, and his “freehold” banner rallied New Zealand's strong individualism, particularly as expressed in the Farmers' Union, which had been won to full support of Reform by 1911. Reform of the Legislative Council and of the civil service had less popular appeal. The party in 1911 did not offer a “conservative revolution”, but cleaner and more efficient administration of existing laws, and firmer resistance to socialism than Ward was likely to undertake. Though there were some limited local alliances with Labour against Liberal in 1911, Reform revealed itself as conservative in the strikes of 1912–13, probably gaining more support than it lost by Massey's firm action.

During the war and post-war period, controversy raged round the Protestant Political Association, which conducted a vitriolic anti-Catholic and anti-Labour campaign. Massey, an Ulster Orangeman, denied any organic connection between Reform and the P.P.A., but the latter endorsed practically only Reform candidates in 1919 and 1922, and included some prominent Reformers in its ranks. In the same years, Massey moved towards a more fervid and “British” imperialism, the obverse of which was “anti-Bolshevism”. Reform virtually claimed to be the only loyal party. Coates carried on much of Massey's imperialism, which headed the party's 1929 objectives. This latter list, which was never effectively put forward, would have committed Reform to a more radical land and social policy, and covered much of the same ground then taken by Labour. Reform however, was, in essentials a party of conservative sectional interests. Those interests were held together in prosperity and by common fear of Labour, but clashed in depression. The party rose to power primarily on the growing rural conservatism of the North Island, particularly Auckland. In the creeping depression of the 1920s, Coates found he could no longer reconcile the rural and urban interests in his party. Businessmen claimed that Coates was using the State to save farmers and to destroy urban private enterprise, while some dairy farmers looked to the more radical Country Party and even the Labour Party for bolder credit policies. In 1928 Reform lost conservative votes in both city and country to United, and could not maintain its claim to be the one authentic anti-Labour party. Yet, in spite of the apparent landslide of 1925, Reform had never succeeded in gaining a majority of electoral votes, and was thus never truly a majority party. The following figures (from Lipson's Politics of Equality, pp. 187–8) which relate to European seats only, demonstrate the electoral fortunes of Opposition (1905–08) and Reform (1911–28):

by William James Gardner, M.A., Senior Lecturer, History Department, University of Canterbury.

• Rise of the Reform Party, Webb, L. C. (1928)
• Ends and Means in New Zealand Politics, Chapman, R. M. (ed.) (1961)
• The Reformer (1905)
• Light and Liberty (1913–14)
• The Newsletter (1920–28)
• Political Science, Vol. 13, Nos. 1 and 2 (1961).

Following the Blackball coal miners' strike of February-March 1908, a conference of West Coast miners' unions met in Greymouth in August 1908 to form a New Zealand Federation of Miners. Robert Semple was elected president and Patrick Hickey secretary. The objects and preamble were copied largely from those of the Western Federation of Miners and the Industrial Workers of the World, two radical American organisations. Affirming the class struggle, they were a direct challenge to the existing industrial arbitration legislation. In 1909 the Miners' Federation changed its name to New Zealand Federation of Labour. It became popularly known as the “Red” Federation and its members as Red Feds. Besides coal and gold miners, the federation gained the affiliation of most waterside unions, as well as general labourers', shearers', and other, mainly unskilled, unions. By 1912 it united a quarter of New Zealand's organised workers. Its weekly journal, the Maoriland Worker, reached a circulation of 10,000 early in 1913.

The “Red” Federation conducted a number of industrial disputes and, by aggressive action, was able to gain important concessions for its members. It suffered its first setback in the Auckland General Labourers' dispute of 1912, and was again defeated in the bitter Waihi gold miners' strike later that year.

In July 1913 the federation joined forces with several more moderate unions to become the United Federation of Labour. It suffered a crushing defeat in the nationwide waterfront strike of October 1913. Membership declined, but a skeleton organisation was kept in existence until 1920, to be succeeded by the New Zealand Alliance of Labour. The leaders of the “Red” Federation, Semple, Webb, Fraser, Savage, Parry, and Armstrong, later entered Parliament and became members of the first Labour Government in 1935.

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

• “Red” Fed Memoirs, Hickey, P. H. (1925)
• The Tragic Story of the Waihi Strike, Holland, H. E. (et. al.) (1913).

Origin

The New Zealand National Party had its genesis in the decision, in September 1931, of the United Party, then the government (Right Hon. G. W. Forbes, Prime Minister), and the Reform Party (Right Hon. J. G. Coates, Leader and former Prime Minister, 1925–28), to form a coalition government. With a minority of members in the House, the United Government retained office precariously after the general election in 1928, when the Reform Government had been defeated. For some years the United Government had been supported in the House by the Labour Party, but the world-wide depression, with its stringent economy measures of the Government, resulted in the defection of Labour, and the United Party turned to their traditional rivals, Reform, for support.

In the general election in 1931, following shortly after the decision of the two parties to coalesce temporarily, the Coalition Government won no fewer than 51 seats. But thereafter its popularity began to decline rapidly while that of the Labour Opposition increased. In 1935 the Coalition Government decided to go to the country again as a united body, under the banner of the National Political Federation. The Federation's candidates sustained a crushing defeat, gaining only 19 seats; thenceforth, they were hopelessly outnumbered by the newly elected Labour Government, which won 53 seats (increased the next year to 55 by the admittance to the Labour Party of two Maori members). It was clear to the opposition parties that a major factor behind Labour's victory lay in the disunity of their opponents. Only by combining, it was contended, could they hope to regain office. At a meeting of the Dominion Executive of the National Political Federation, held in February 1936, it was decided to convene a conference at which the executive would recommend that a new party be formed. This conference (presided over by C. H. Weston, K.C.), was held in Wellington on 13 and 14 May 1936 and was addressed by the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes and the Right Hon. J. G. Coates, both of whom emphasised the gravity of the situation and the need for the greatest possible degree of unity and cooperation between non-Labour groups. The Federation's recommendation, that a new party be formed, was unanimously agreed to. Subsequently, after alternative names had been discussed, it was decided that the name “The New Zealand National Party” be adopted. The objectives of the party were stated to be: “To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”. An entirely new form of organisation was drawn up and the rules of the new party were adopted. These have remained virtually unaltered.

Hopes that the new arrangement would attract wider public support were borne out by the results of the 1938 general election when National won 25 seats. In 1939 the party's activities were curtailed owing to the outbreak of war. The party organisation, however, remained in being throughout the war years. Two members of the Parliamentary Party, Coates and Hamilton, joined the War Cabinet at the invitation of the Government. The National Party's official stand was that political differences should be avoided for the duration of the war, and that both National and Labour should combine to form a coalition government. The Labour Party did not accept this proposal, and in 1943 another general election was held. From National's point of view the main issues were: (a) high taxation; (b) the direction of the war effort, and particularly Labour's unwillingness to form a coalition government for the duration of the war; (c) industrial unrest; (d) shortages, due at least in part to industrial unrest; and (e) controls which, National contended, were far too numerous and restrictive. Labour's socialist ventures were also strongly criticised, but, in the atmosphere prevailing at the time, it is doubtful whether National's charges had much impact. As a result of the election, the National Party's representation increased to 34, while Labour's declined to 45. Several marginal seats were saved for Labour by the soldiers' votes from overseas. Prior to the election (in 1940), the National Party had elected a new leader, S. G. (later Sir Sidney) Holland), with whom the party's eventual success is popularly associated. Holland remained the leader for 17 years, until his resignation from parliamentary life a few months before the general election in 1957.

Prior to the election in 1946, National won another seat (Raglan) in a by-election. This victory, however, was more than offset by a change in the electoral laws which brought about the abolition of the “country quota”, thereby reducing the number of rural and semi-rural electorates where National traditionally polled heavily. Nevertheless, National's representation increased this time to 38. The last of the Independents disappeared and, since 1946, all members in the House have belonged either to the National or the Labour Party.

As in the case of every election since 1935 (with the exception of 1951), there was no outstanding issue for National in the 1946 contest. The party's election policy was based on their 1943 manifesto, with modifications to allow for altered circumstances; more emphasis was given to the desirability of easing or abolishing a number of wartime controls. The advantages of home ownership as opposed to State tenancy were also strongly stressed. Moreover, National promised denationalisation of State industries and an end to industrial turmoil, particularly on the waterfront where strikes and “go-slow” actions had become commonplace.

During the war, for various reasons, the party's organisation, though not neglected, had not been improved. Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945 and the return to civilian life of thousands from the armed forces, the organisation soon expanded and was stronger than at any previous period in the history of the party. To this, in some measure, electoral gains made in 1946 could be ascribed. Three years later, in the general election held on 30 November, National won 46 seats and, for the first time since its establishment 13 years before, the party became the Government. Holland was Prime Minister, his deputy being K. J. Holyoake.

Following the industrial upheaval in New Zealand in 1951, when the Government's handling of the strike was severely criticised by its political opponents, Holland decided to dissolve Parliament to secure public endorsement of what the Government had done. This result was a victory for National, its representation in the House increasing to 50. In 1954 the party lost five seats, and in 1957, when it lost another six seats, it returned to the Opposition benches after eight years in office. But at the 1960 general election the party won 46 seats and so regained the Treasury benches. K. J. Holyoake, who became leader of the party and Prime Minister a few weeks prior to being defeated in the 1957 general election campaign, had acted as Leader of the Opposition. He now became Prime Minister, his deputy being the Hon. J. R. Marshall.

Present-day Objects

The objects of the party, as set out in its rules are:

To unite all men and women of good will who are unswervingly loyal to her Majesty the Queen, who realise the immense political, financial, commercial, and cultural advantages which accrue to New Zealand from close association with the other nations of the British Commonwealth, and who desire to promote the political and economic unity of the Commonwealth.

To maintain an efficient system of national defence.

To formulate and carry out policies designed to benefit the community as a whole, irrespective of national interests, particularly to bring about cooperation between the country and city interests, and between employers and employees.

To encourage the growth of private enterprise and healthy competition.

To encourage the development of individual effort and initiative and to take such steps as will grant the greatest possible measure of personal freedom and to foster the growth of good will between all sections of the community.

To encourage, wherever possible, for our mutual interest and safety, close contacts with Australia and other portions of our Commonwealth.

To arouse and maintain interest in political matters, to advocate the policy of the party, and to oppose subversive and other doctrines which are contrary to the principles and policy of the party.

To pursue a policy of progressive, social, and humanitarian legislation.

To encourage and assist the candidature for Parliament of able, honourable, and loyal supporters of the party.

To carry out educational and organising work in furtherance of the foregoing aims and objects.

To keep in touch with and, as may be deemed practicable, to cooperate with other organisations which have similar aims.

Support for the Party

The party has consistently affirmed that it strives to represent all sections of the community, and is strongly opposed to special privileges for any group or groups. Among its most active supporters and workers are many in the low-income bracket, including social security beneficiaries. It is beyond question, however, that the party is most strongly entrenched in rural and semi-rural areas. National holds practically all these seats, but also 13 which could be classified as purely urban. It has not held a Maori seat since 1943, when the late Sir Apirana Ngata was defeated for Eastern Maori.

In the general election in 1960, National contested 76 European seats and four Maori seats, winning 46 European seats but no Maori seats. The total vote for National was: European votes, 549,097; Maori votes, 7,792. Grand total, 556,889, or 47·59 per cent of valid votes cast. The Labour Party, which was the only other party to win seats in the House, polled 484,956 European votes and 23,090 Maori votes, a grand total of 508,056, or 43·42 per cent of valid votes cast. Labour won 30 European seats and four Maori seats. The present National Government has, therefore, a fairly comfortable majority of 12.

Party Organisation

Membership of the party is open to all citizens who subscribe to its principles. The membership fee is a minimum of 2s. 6d. per annum. At the present time, membership totals over 200,000. The party is strongly organised, having over 1,300 branches situated in all parts of the country. With but a few exceptions, all offices in the party are elective, and this includes candidature for parliamentary honours.

The party is organised as a pyramid. At the base are the branches, each with a membership of 20 or more. These elect representatives to electorate committees, though in city electorates the divisional committees may permit electorate committees to be elected at a general meeting of members. There are five semi-autonomous divisions (Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago-Southland). Divisional committees comprise representatives elected by each electorate committee in the divisional area, and divisional executives are appointed by their respective committees. The Dominion council of about 50 comprises the president, the leader, the vice-presidents, the Dominion treasurer, all divisional chairmen, and such number of members elected by annual meetings of the divisions on the basis of one member for every four electorates, or part of four, within their respective boundaries, and five members elected by the National members of Parliament. The Dominion executive of about 20 is elected by the Dominion council from its number. The Dominion conference is held annually and comprises four delegates from each electorate, the members of the Dominion council, and those members of Parliament who are members of the party. The president and vice-presidents are elected at the annual Dominion conference. Branch members are eligible for nomination for selection as the official candidate for Parliament, and are eligible for selection as a representative of the branch on the selection committee to select the official candidate. The party constitution also makes special provision for representation by women's and junior sections. Party headquarters, consisting of the general director and the research and publicity officers, together with their respective assistants, are situated in Wellington. The party publishes a monthly newspaper, Freedom.

by Martin Joseph Silvester Nestor, M.COM., Chief Research Officer, New Zealand National Party, Wellington.

• Constitution and Rules of the New Zealand National Party (1951)
• Handbook on Organisation, New Zealand National Party, Dominion Headquarters, (1949).

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.

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.

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.

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).