New Zealand—A socialist country? (1947)

From the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds that Socialism involves a complete sweeping away of the prevailing system of society which is known as capitalism and the introduction of a system of society based upon the common ownership of the means of life. The introduction of reforms which occur in the normal evolution of capitalism and are necessary to its more effective working, do not constitute socialism though the reforms may be put through by politicians calling themselves Socialists as in New Zealand to-day.

New Zealand was opened up :by the New Zealand Company, and not by independent settlers as took place in America, hence its particular evolution. The dominant figure of the company and the man who defined its policy was Edward Gibbon Wakefield. He looked at the American colonists’ progress in the early days, and from his capitalist’s outlook found it unsatisfactory, because each ‘settler was virtually independent, making their own clothes, candles, soap, etc., in addition to growing their own food. That was not Wakefield’s idea. Where all are independent, as were the early American colonists, there is little capital accumulated, as there are few, if any, labourers to exploit.

Wakefield saw that if many workers could be attracted to New Zealand they would require the products of manufacturing industries in order to support life, thus creating more employment with resultant profits to the capitalist class.

Primarily employment was to be in the form of work on the land and steps were to be taken by the company to see that the ownership of the land was concentrated in a few hands, thus preventing the workers from becoming smallholders and achieving a measure of independence.

England in 1840 was, for the labouring masses, a country best left behind. The history of 1830-1840 is of revolts by agricultural workers, miners and iron workers against their appalling conditions: revolts which were ruthlessly put down. The French revolution was too recent for clemency, which might he mistaken for weakness. With the industrial revolution accomplished, there was unemployed capital as well as labour; Wakefleld believed that both could be profitably employed in New Zealand.

Alas, his hopes were doomed to failure for many years. The New Zealand Company bought up land from the Maoris at less than the proverbial song and sold it in large lots to those who were to become capitalist farmers and would, it was hoped, employ and exploit the labourers which the New Zealand Company intended to persuade to emigrate.

In order to induce workers to go out to New Zealand the Company gave free steerage passages and undertook to give paid employment in the service of the company if the workers could not at once find masters. The company did not bargain with having to redeem this pledge; they made the fatal mistake of not ensuring that buyers of land went to the colony in order to employ labour to work it. With promises of employment, hundreds of working people emigrated from England. The rough sea journey was a smooth passage compared with their sufferings when they arrived and found none of the promised jobs, and were forced to take employment with the New Zealand Company at less than a subsistence wage.

Few landowners but many labourers continued to arrive, as having once been set in motion the recruitment did not cease. Agents in England continued to be paid at a fixed rate per emigrant, and news did not filter through to warn the prospective worker emigrants.

Finally, in 1844 matters had reached such a pass that the company ceased employment and payment altogether and distress was widespread. Here the lack of any elementary form of doles became evident. The destitute labourers in England had, meagre though it was, Parish relief or relief in the Poor House. In New Zealand, however, nothing of the kind existed and charity was most tardy.

As colonization continued the price of land increased still more and the land remained in the hands of the few. As the franchise had a property qualification the government represented the interests of these few. Legislation therefore, for the provision of hospitals, schools, and the relief of pauperism, was blocked in successive Parliaments. By 1853 only four hospitals had been built in the whole of New Zealand, and these left everything to be desired, but they became the beginning of relief, the Poor Law infirmary without the Poor House ! Another attempt to deal with pauperism was the setting up of Soup Kitchens in Auckland, and in 1865 a contributory form of health insurance was inaugurated among the road makers, on the basis that they paid the whole contribution.

The year 1865 also saw the passing of the repressive “Master and Apprentice Act,” which contained a clause stating that boys or girls refusing to serve their apprenticeship could be sent to jail for three month’s This related to children of twelve.

1868 saw the first attempt at unemployment insurance, which was a tax of 10s. a year on adult male^ to provide a fund for the destitute, the sick, orphans, etc.’

By 1898 it had become necessary to make some provision for the aged poor. These were the young labourers of the early immigration ; they had not grown rich or become landed proprietors, as some earlier colonists of other countries had done. In old age, after a life time of privation, they were awarded a pension of 6s. 11d. per week.

Meanwhile, industry was going forward in New Zealand, and the introduction of refrigerating ships made export of food a paying proposition to the big farmers. The workers learned that organisation on the industrial field was essential if their standard of living was to be maintained. The United Federation of Labour was formed in the teeth of opposition from the employers, who victimised the members at ever, conceivable opportunity. The climax came in October 1913, when the employers cancelled their contract wit: the Wellington Watersiders and staged a lockout During the bitter weeks which followed the workers were completely defeated. The Labour Disputes Investigation Act was passed making sudden strikes illegal, and the Federation of Labour lost most of its power as the unions became more and more concerned with arbitration.

The Social Democratic Party originally declared Socialism to be its aim deteriorated into reformism. like the British Party, and in 1916, the present Labour Party emerged from it, its avowed object, being simply the nationalisation, that is the taking over by the state of the means of production.

It was this Labour Party that took office in December, 1935, on a programme which included state control of currency and credit, guaranteed farm prices, i national health service, and a recognition of the “right to work” !

Whatever else it may be, it, is clear that a programme of this kind bears no relation to Socialism. When Socialism is established there will be no currency, no credit, no guaranteed farm prices, nor any of the provisions that capitalism is forced to make to try to combat the effects of slumps and booms. State intervention in these problems of capitalism is not Socialism.

The set-up in New Zealand is accurately described by R. S. Parker, a New Zealand political writer, in ” The Australian Quarterly ” (March, 1941, page 30) :— 

”The Labour Government has simply continued in the New Zealand tradition of state control and regulation, private ownership and operation. The central feature of the present set-up is the survival of the spirit and content of an essentially capitalistic economy, upon which the state has imposed a far reaching, but largely negative system of regulations, controls, prohibitions."

The Labour Party has been in office for over ten years, yet in many aspects conditions in New Zealand are worse than those of Britain.

The latest report of the Director-General of Health for the year 1944-1945 proves Public Health and Industrial Hygiene to be worse than in the “old country.” As comment on all points is impracticable for reasons of space, only the most significant will be given.

The general health of the Maoris, who were in 1840, a healthy race, is poor. Tuberculosis is rampant, and the infant mortality rate very high (102.26 per 1,000 live births). Much ill-health is due to the notoriously bad state of Maori housing and no great improvement in health is possible whilst they are living under such overcrowded and insanitary conditions.

The report on Industrial Hygiene is very enlightening. Many of the comments of its author, Dr. Davidson, would fit any industrialised country: —

“… many thousands are employed in work which is hot, dusty, laborious, dirty or merely monotonous and uninteresting, and they, too, may be exposed to environmental dangers, the effects of which although less immediately disabling are none the less real” (page 20).

Continuing, Dr. Davidson holds up British Factory Legislation a-s a shining example to New Zealand, and advises those capitalists who are reluctant to spend money on amenities for their workers to think again. Covering the bitter pill of expenditure on nurses and doctors in the jam of future profits, he shows what skilled treatment of accidents, etc., may save in absenteeism, accident compensation, etc.

Dr. Davidson recognises the reasons why necessary reforms in industry are not carried out when he points out: —

”It is partly a matter of finance; merely to, keep a factory clean costs money” . . .

“Good seating, too, is no mere philanthropy, its pays.”

To the ears of the capitalist class the words “it pays” are sweeter than the sweetest of music—perhaps they will be convinced!

We have seen how young children might be jailed for refusing to work, but Dr. Davidson was surprised to find them still working : —

“I have been surprised to find children under school leaving age working full time in various factories during school vacations and in isolated cases during school terms. Children of 13 and even 12 can be seen working whole time—and sometimes overtime—in factories which in many cases are very ill-kept and in some of which highly poisonous chemicals or dangerous machinery are in use ” (page 27).

After the above report was compiled the Statutes Amendment Act of 1944 prohibited the employment of children under 14 years. Such conditions had, however, prevailed for almost 10 years under the “Socialist” Government.

The workers of New Zealand have been taken in by the promises of their Labour Party as were the workers of Britain in 1945. Disillusionment must come when it is found that neither state control nor private ownership within the framework of capitalism will solve the ills thrown up by capitalism. Only when the workers of New Zealand, together with the workers of other lands, realise the reason for their exploitation and combine to overthrow it can Socialism be achieved.

W. P.

Editorial: No socialist theories in the Labour Party (1949)

Editorial from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nobody can read carefully the speeches of Labour Ministers about Socialism and Capitalism without soon discovering that their minds are in a muddle about what they mean. And it all traces back to the fact that the Party was “founded by non-Socialists and has perpetuated among succeeding generations of members a tradition of avoiding inquiry into Socialist theory. This is not merely an outside criticism but a statement accepted proudly by the Labour leaders themselves. Mr. Attlee has often referred to it without any realisation that it can be other than a matter for self-congratulation. In 1938 he contributed to John A. Lee’s “Socialism in New Zealand,"  a Preface from which the following passage is extracted:

“ He (John Lee) recognises frankly the work of the Radical Governments which held power from 1891-1912. He acknowledges the Socialistic legislation of the Conservative Governments which held sway after the war. Indeed, he makes the point that these Governments were, despite all their prepossessions, compelled to adopt Socialist expedients in order to meet practical problems. This is an eminently practical book. There is little or no abstract theory. Like the British Labour Party, the New Zealand Socialist Movement is not doctrinaire. It draws its inspiration from the same broad streams of thought and emotion as in the Old Country. Its Socialism is the result of a common-sense endeavour to bring society into conformity with social justice." (P. VI.)

The same disregard for Socialist theory comes out iu an appeal for subscriptions and donations just issued of the Fabian Society over the names of Attlee, Cripps, Dalton, Laski, Morrison and others in the New Statesmen (5.11.49).

"Our full members are, and always have been. Socialists; but beyond insisting that our Socialism is ‘democratic,’ we leave them to define the word for themselves.”

As the individual members of the Fabian and Labour Parties may, and do, define the word how they chose, they can never agree on what they mean.

For most of them nationalisation as in the Post Office is Socialism; but it was Mr. Attlee himself who in the New Statesmen (7.11.1931) called the Post Office “the outstanding example of collective capitalism.” This was one of the few occasions when a Labour Party leader happened to stumble on the truth.

It was said at a time when the Labour Party was switching over (for vote-catching reasons) from the "Government Department” form of State capitalism to the “Public Board” form, now embodied in the nationalised mines and railways. But here again their past admissions rise up to smite them for in 1923 (Daily Herald, 30.7.1923) Mr. Herbert Morrison had admitted that the Public Board (he had in mind the Port of London Authority) is a capitalist device, to enable the capitalists “to do for themselves collectively what they and a number of private companies had been unable to do with success individually.”

Another statement by Attlee on the Labour Party's lack of Socialist theory can be found in his “Labour Party in Perspective” (1937, Page 36): —

“ It is characteristic of the British Labour Movement that the origin of the Labour Party is to be found in fact rather than in theory. The Labour Party was originally the by-product of Trade Union activity. . . . The Movement which resulted in the return of the first Trade Union representatives to the House of Commons in 1874 was far from being revolutionary, and the men themselves were not Socialists. They entered Parliament, not to overthrow the Capitalist system, but to win for the workers certain definite reforms. Apart from their specific demands on Labour questions they formed part of the Liberal Party.”

This brings us to the root of the matter in a manner not perceived by Mr. Attlee. The Labour Party does not work without any theory, nobody does, but with theories that are not Socialist.

And when we look at the result we see the force of the remark attributed to Disraeli, that men who boast of being practical are usually to be found practising the errors of their forefathers.

Classic Reprint: New Zealand Election Message (1984)

A Classic Reprint from the Winter 1984 issue of the World Socialist

Classic Reprint: New Zealand Election Message

In July this year the Labour Party took power in New Zealand with a majority of 17 seats. We reprint below the election message which was published by the Socialist Party of New Zealand when it put up a candidate for the first time, in the Tamaki constituency of Auckland, in the November 1972 General Election — which was also the last election won by the Labour fakers who replaced the outgoing Prime Minister "Mr. Marshall and his cronies" of the National Party. Now as then our message to workers is the same: Don't rely upon leaders of left or right to solve your problems but use democratic political action for your own conscious emancipation.

To The Workers of Tamaki . . .

When a political candidate stands for a moneyless world in which people take what they need when they need it, in which there is no army, navy or airforce, no police, no banks and no national boundaries, you are expected to dismiss him as a crank. Without a full examination of the Socialist case it does sound crazy.

But the Socialist means exactly what he says and what is more he is prepared to argue logically and scientifically that, not only is this possible, it is the only solution to the problems of today's world.

As cranks we have been around a long time. Our first members got together in 1904 and formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and in 1930 the Socialist Party of New Zealand sprung into existence. Today there are thousands of Socialists in parties with identical objects and principles in USA, Great Britain, Ireland, Austria, Canada, Jamaica, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. More parties are in the process of starting in other countries.

Politics for us means something quite different. We maintain that the ever present problems of war, pollution, racial prejudice, crime, housing, industrial unrest and unemployment are not caused by governments or leaders, sincere or otherwise, but by the way society is organised throughout the world. This system, which we call capitalism, is a system whereby the means for producing wealth, the factories, the mines, the sources of raw material, the airlines, shipping and transport are all owned and controlled by a small minority (about 10%) of the world's population.

That society is organised on the basis of producing goods and services so that vast profits may be accrued by that small minority is the basic cause of 99% of the problems that face us.

When you grasp this rather basic fact that society is run in the interests of the profit-making machine you are very close to understanding our case. You will realise, of course, that despite what Mr. Marshall and his cronies would have us believe, profits are far more important than people in today's society. You will also realise that any political party that pays allegiance to the profit-making system can only ever run society on that basis.

The alternative, which we call socialism, does not exist anywhere in the world yet. Socialism calls for the co-operation of the peoples of the world to work together on a democratic basis to produce the needs of the people. We maintain that society today has reached that stage in production where, if we used the world's resources and our technical and scientific knowhow in a sane and sensible manner, we could produce an overwhelming amount of wealth to satisfy everyone's needs on a very minimal amount of time and effort.

Free access would be the order of the day with no need for money, buying and selling, wages and profits. This would eliminate all the problems that exist today because of the buying and selling of commodities. War, economic crises, slumps etc., on the international scene and strikes, lock-outs, unemployment and poverty on the home front. People would be engaged on a work basis of producing the best possible under the best conditions that man can create.

. . . Satisfaction and pride in our work could exist for every man and woman. WHAT ABOUT US?

The Socialist Party has no leaders. Leadership is a myth which still lingers in a so-called democratic society. We are democratic in the true sense of the word and do not regard democracy as a device for keeping people quiet while we bamboozle and rob them.

We do not seek power. Our purpose is to abolish it forever. We do not aim to benefit a working class, except by abolishing it along with all classes.

We are realists. We do not think that praying to a god and trusting a leader is going to do us any good.

We are not patriotic. As workers, we have been dispossessed of our countries and our allegiance is only to the 90% of the world's population who make up the international working class.

We do not compromise. As a working class party we are opposed to all other political parties and governments for all respect capitalism in its various stages of development. This is true of state-capitalist Russia and China as it is true of Britain or USA — National, Labour, Social Credit and so-called "Communist" or what have you.

We are workers. We sell our physical and mental energies just like 90% of the rest of the world. We know capitalism from the receiving end, not from the privileged, superior level which sees people as objects to be managed.

We are cranks because we are few against a world owned and controlled by non-cranks who murder, steal, lie, cheat and condone the possible destruction of man.

We know that as working men and women living under capitalism, leisure time is a scarce and precious commodity. But think for a minute — can you honestly say a night's television is more important than dying of cancer from adulterated food and polluted atmosphere?

Is a round of golf or an afternoon at Eden Park more important than the possibility of seeing your children die in a nuclear war? Do you value a night in the pub more than allowing your family to be subjected to the rat race that this society has to offer?

Listen to us, argue with us, doubt everything you hear from us, but remember, the onus is on you and each and every member of society. Parliamentary Committee SPNZ

IF THERE IS NO SPNZ CANDIDATE IN YOUR AREA, REGISTER YOUR PROTEST AGAINST CAPITALISM BY WRITING "SOCIALISM" ACROSS YOUR BALLOT PAPER.

Labour Government in New Zealand (1949)

From the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The case for an all round wage increase is unanswerable. During the war years much was said of the golden age for workers that would ensue with the defeat of Fascism and the birth of the "New Order." This "New Order" has faded as the morning mist before a summer sun. The workers’ primary and immediate need is for a substantial wage increase. Union advocates can present cases but in the final analysis results are obtained only by the strength of the rank and file. The quality of that strength will determine the success of the wage struggle." 

                                                                   "Jock" Barnes,

National President of the
 New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union. 

(Quoted in "Caught in the Act," a pamphlet issued by the National Executive of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union, November, 1948.)

Labouring in Vain (1995)

David Lange in 1984.

From the October 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

For the benefit of those who might not have experienced a Labour
 government, last month we published an article on the record of the 
various Labour governments that have been in office in Australia 
since 1984. This month we look at what the Labour government 
that ruled New Zealand between 1984 and 1990 put the workers
 there through.

The New Zealand Labour Party came to power in 1984 and stayed there until 1990. Labour shocked its supporters, party members and most of its voters by following a path of financial market deregulation, cutbacks in public services, sales tax, users pay, corporatization and privatisation of a large portion of the state, removing industrial and agricultural subsidies, removing trade barriers, import restrictions, import tax and duties. None of which was outlined in its pre-election campaigns. By the end of Labour's 6-year rule, unemployment was at catastrophic levels, record numbers of businesses had failed, the state had been turned upside down, and many of Labour’s traditional supporters and party members had left the party in droves. The only people happy were NZ Treasury, richer capitalists and the National Party (NZ Tories).

Prior to the Labour Party victory in the snap general election of 1984, Robert Muldoon had been both Prime Minister and Finance Minister for all of the nearly nine years of National Party government in New Zealand. Due to the screwed up concepts of socialism many people have, Muldoon has gone down in “history'” as having instituted or continued so-called “socialist” policies in his time as Prime Minister and the Labour Government of 1984—1990 has been labelled “right-wing free marketeers”.

The “socialist” label attached to Muldoon is of course nonsense but used by some to describe Muldoon’s policy of reenforcing the state’s role as provider of support through social welfare, subsidies to exporters, tariff walls to protect inefficient local industries, and the investment of huge amounts of state capital in ambitious energy projects named “Think Big”. “Think Big” was aimed at making NZ at least 60 percent self-sufficient in energy and was largely motivated by the oil shocks of the 70s. It is worth noting that NZ enjoyed a prosperous period post second world war with England guaranteeing a market for NZ produce (meat, butter, wool) and high wool prices generated by the likes of the Korean war. It was the entry of England into the EEC, and an international decline in agricultural produce prices that resulted in successive NZ governments giving subsidies to farmers and borrowing overseas in the hope of riding out the unfavourable market conditions.

When it came to the snap election in 1984, NZ was under a wage freeze (a price freeze had just been lifted), inflation ranged from 6.1 to 15 percent during the year, the economy was described as “one of the most regulated, protected and subsidised in the developed world” (Europa World Year Book), unemployment stood at 66,500, public debt stood at $21.88 billion. The fixed exchange rate was clearly overvalued while politically government unity was disintegrating as Muldoon’s autocratic style drew fire from within and without, and the economic position of the country worsened.

The 1984 election was more than anything focused on Muldoon, and the cry from the as usually confused “left” was “out with Muldoon”, never giving a thought to what was to replace Muldoon. Not only the “left” wanted rid of Muldoon, feminists, homosexuals, liberals, civil right activists to name a few wanted him out. None gave a moment’s thought as to what actually made capitalism tick—or were the least interested in how the system operated. A significant portion of the capitalist class wanted Muldoon out as well, having their eye on the international investment capital that would flow in once financial deregulation occurred.

Power for power’s sake

Labour came to power in July 1984 with a 17-seat majority and total share of the votes of 43 percent (NZ operated a First Past the Post electoral system until recently). Its election policies centred on health, housing, employment, education, the economy, overseas debt and an anti-nuclear stance (though Labour leader David I.ange had opposed the anti-nuclear position when it came up for formal endorsement at the Labour Party conference, he later championed it as Prime Minister as if it were his own brain-child). The Labour Party had a great deal of assistance in the 1984 election victory from the newly formed New Zealand Party who had one of New Zealand’s wealthiest capitalist’s as its leader: Robert Jones, property tycoon. By drawing the protest vote with its so-called “traditional National Party policies”—votes that would otherwise have remained with National— Robert Jones helped achieve his objective—a Labour government and promptly wrapped the New Zealand Party up to the immense chagrin of its officials, This if anything should have given an unsuspecting public a clue as to what the new Labour government would be all about.

Even before the fourth Labour government resumed office it was confronted with a major balance of payments crisis and had to agree to a 20 percent devaluation of the NZ dollar. This decision was made on the advice of the NZ Treasury and Reserve Bank economic advisers where the Chicago School of Economic thought already dominated. (The Chicago School advocated removing state intervention and instituting laissez faire type economics). This set the tone for the rest of the Labour government term and was quickly followed up with abolition of exchange controls, deregulation of finance, abolition of subsidies and incentives and the floating of the NZ dollar. Within days, Lange was announcing the "cupboard was bare” and everybody should look to "tightening their belts ”. It soon became clear who was to be doing the belt-tightening and who would be letting the belts out. As the international capital flowed in, the local pigs were gorging themselves at the trough in a speculative frenzy that was to end up with the largest share-market and property crash in the history of the country in October 1987. Inflation was to peak at close to 20 percent in 1987.

Before and during the run up to the election in 1984, there was no indication from Labour that it would adopt such policies and its official economic policy was not much different from the conventional Keynesian style economics that both National and Labour had been following for decades. The Labour government therefore deliberately deceived the electorate and its own party supporters. Mike Moore—a cabinet minister and later Prime Minister told the Auckland Press Club that “had we talked about some of the things we did in 1984, we would never have got there (elected )”. A post-election remit of the Labour Party opposed free market policies; this made no difference to the course pursued by the Labour cabinet. So much for Labour Party democracy. There is little doubt that the Labour Party wanted power for power’s sake, and the conservative nature of the election campaign they waged reflected that.

Rogernomics

The Labour government finance minister Roger Douglas along with associate finance ministers Caygill and Prebble took on board the advice of Treasury. The economic policy enacted by the Labour government quickly became known as “Rogernomics” in the same vein as “Reaganomics”. The cabinet argued as a justification for their actions that their economic reforms would allow the fulfilment of the Labour Party’s social goals, even though no one ever defined the nature of these social goals. A similar argument is contained in the Treasury document Economic Management. “Users Pay” was a term that suddenly started slipping from Labour Ministers’ mouths and was meant to signify a new approach to providing services by the state, where the user of the service would be charged for at least part of the cost of the service.

In 1986, the State-Owned Enterprises Bill was passed through parliament. Lange and Palmer (deputy prime minister) denied when challenged that corporatization of many government departments would involve job losses and was a prelude to privatisation—they already had an eye to the approaching 1987 general election. Corporatizing government departments had never been a Labour Party policy. At the head of the new SOEs, the government placed leading business figures, many of whom were friends of the finance ministers. The SOEs’ boards of directors were supposedly accountable to Ministers (in a directors-shareholders style of relationship) and although the SOE Bill contained a section which enabled the Crown to pay the SOEs for non-commercial services this rarely occurred. The result of the implementation of the SOE Act was the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. With Alan Gibbs (businessman well known for his cabinet connections and backer of the New Right think-tank—the Centre for Independent Studies ) as chairman, ForestCorp (formerly the Forest Service) sacked the forestry work force and took some back as independent contractors.

The previously state owned Bank of New Zealand which has the largest share of retail banking in New Zealand had been partly sold (33 percent) by the Labour government in June 1989 amid pathetic cries of “they’re selling the family silver” from the likes of Pat Kelly—a long time trade unionist and Labour Party member.

By October 1990, $NZ13.7 million had been paid out by the government to private sector advisers employed in connection with sales of crown businesses.

The Lange Labour government introduced a supertax on the elderly. Extra income earned from savings or investments meant the old age pension was severely eroded by a surcharge tax. Of course while ordinary workers were being sacked in their thousands, mortgage interest rates at more than 20 percent, and workers were being asked to tighten their belts, parliamentary Labour in collusion with their fellow gutters in the opposition voted themselves a nice fat golden retirement package.

Government debt grew from $NZ21 billion in 1984 to nearly SNZ44 billion in 1991 despite state asset sales. Debt servicing grew from 10.6 percent of Government spending in 1980 to 15 percent in 1991. So much for the miracles of Rogernomics.

Unemployment over Labour’s term of office grew from about 60,000 to over 160,000 registered as officially unemployed. This had a particularly marked affect on female workers, despite the election of the Labour government being supported by feminists and the setting up of a Women’s Ministry. Unemployment figures are misleading, particularly in periods of high unemployment, as many married women or women living in partnerships are forced out of the workforce to be dependent on their partner, and so don’t show up in the official figures.

Labour disintegrates

Despite a show of unity during the first term of office from 1984 to 1987, and subsequent re-election on the back of a very slick TV campaign funded by taxpayer money and their nuclear ship ban (National was still opposed to the ban), Labour began to slowly fall apart.

The prime minister’s office in New Zealand has quite extraordinary powers and past Prime Ministers have used these powers to manipulate cabinet, sack hostile ministers and appoint friendly ministers without any endorsement needed from either cabinet or caucus. Lange was pretty much driven by cabinet and Treasury during the first term, in the second term, he opposed aspects of Roger Douglas’s budget that led to a falling out and eventual sacking of Douglas by Lange using the dictatorial powers of his office. Lange replaced Douglas with Caygill. Prebble was to follow soon after when he publicly criticised Lange’s ability as a Prime Minister.

A concerted campaign by Lange’s opponents led by Douglas and Prebble and ill health eventually resulted in Lange’s resignation. The deputy prime minister, Palmer replaced Lange as Prime minister but only for a few months before resigning in favour of Mike Moore. Moore and Labour lost the 1990 general election to the National Party (National had by then decided being anti-nuclear was a good idea) in what was a landslide victory, ending 6 years of Labour reign, a reign that devastated the very workers that Labour purportedly represented. National turned around and followed exactly the same economic policies only with more vigour, breaking virtually every single promise made during the election run-up. What Labour started, National finished.

Why did all this happen? And under a Labour government? Very logically. Property institutions under capitalism ensure that democracy can only be a veil, while underneath the vested interests that arise inevitably from a system of society based on production for profit, minority ownership and control of the means of production and distribution ensure that the interests of the majority—the workers— come last. The undemocratic nature of political parties such as Labour, government, companies and corporations are a reflection of this system and its need to subjugate workers in order to carry on fleecing them. Labour when faced with running capitalism became the manipulated.

The incredible thing is that rather than having learnt their lesson, many former Labour supporters have deserted the Labour Party to a party called New Labour— part of the Alliance (a political alliance of New Labour, Manu Motuhake, Green, and other minor parties)—with the same old failed formula, the impossible task of trying to run capitalism in favour of the workers.

Having become totally disillusioned with politics and politicians in general after being lied to and deceived, voters when faced with the choice of continuing with the First Past the Post electoral system and a Mixed Member Proportional system similar to the electoral system in Germany, turned to MMP. MMP means larger and fewer electorates, and a party list vote and is said to favour coalition style of government. Many workers are hopeful that this will result in fairer government. There is no evidence to support this, and the capitalist class and overseas investors seem far from concerned. Capitalism will merely adjust to the situation and workers will continue to suffer insecurity, pollution, poverty, violence and a life of drudgery and uncertainty. 

Dave Tildesley

50 Years Ago: They all go the same way home (2000)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

After 14 years of Labour government in New Zealand and eight years in Australia, the general elections in November and December saw those Labour governments rejected by the voters who had earlier put them into power. Some of the political commentators in this country have been speculating about the effect those results may have on the forthcoming General Election.

They suggest that the British workers may be influenced to vote against the Labour Party because of what has happened in New Zealand and Australia. It is a fallacious view. If the Labour Government here had been able to make a success of its efforts to run capitalism in a manner pleasing to the workers they would not be influenced at all by what has happened on the other side of the globe. It may be that the British Labour Government will next year be returned to power for another five years, though the Labour Ministers are clearly resigned to suffering some loss of votes and seats. What we can say with complete confidence is that sometime or other, either at the 1950 elections or later on, the workers in Britain will turn out the Labour Government. The now lengthening history of Labour governments in many parts of the world shows that they are merely the alternative that the electors choose when they have become tired, sick or resentful of Liberal or Tory government. Just as 19th century Britain witnessed the game of political ins and outs, with never any fundamental change in the position of the working-class, so the 20th century gives us the same game but with the Labour Party in place of one of the older Parties.

(From front page article by ‘H’, Socialist Standard, January 1950)

Editorial: News from New Zealand (1941)

Editorial from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

How the workers fare under Labour Government.

Mr. W. Holmes, General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, former President of the Trades Union Congress, has paid a visit to New Zealand, and contributes to the “Landworker” (October, 1941) an article on his impressions. He calls it “New Zealand: A Workers’ State. A Triumph of Labour and Democracy.” He is, of course, chiefly concerned with the economic and social changes that have taken place since the Labour Party took over the government in 1935.

An earlier account of New Zealand’s Labour Government was published in this country by the Labour Party in 1937. It was called “New Zealand’s Progress under Socialism.”

Both the article and the Labour Party pamphlet contain a description of the achievements of the Labour Government, and an indication of what else it aims to achieve, but neither the things done nor the things promised give any warrant for the use of the terms “Workers’ State” and “Socialism.” New Zealand is not a country in which the able-bodied non-worker has no place. Property incomes from the ownership of land or industrial capital are still the rule. Goods are still produced by the working class but owned by the capitalist class. Inequality of wealth may possibly have decreased; it has certainly not been abolished. Nor is it the intention of the Labour Party to abolish capitalism and introduce a system based on common ownership.

There is therefore no justification for claiming that Socialism is in being. That is the first quarrel the Socialist has with the supporters of Labourism; and it is not merely a dispute about words. Progress towards Socialism is not helped but hindered by propaganda which represents as Socialism what is no more than Labour Party administration of Capitalism.

The Other Side of the Picture.

Mr. Holmes, though he says, “Long life and increasing success” to the Labour Government of New Zealand, has not been swept off his feet by what he saw. He praises—but he also makes comparisons between life under Labour Government and life under frankly Capitalist Government. Sometimes his praises contain comparisons that he does not appreciate, and here we will help him out. Now for a few of his illuminating remarks. “The New Zealand Workers’ Union organises the country workers, and has already secured excellent arbitration awards for shearers, musterers, packers, and drovers; while the dairy workers are also covered by awards; but the ordinary farm and station workers are difficult to organise, and their conditions are not much better than those of the British farm workers.”

So it is obvious that in this “Workers’ State” the workers are not in ownership and control. They must still organise and struggle for livelihood, and the ordinary farm workers are not much better off than their brothers in this country agitating in vain for a wage of £3 a week !

Mr. Holmes searched for the reason for this state of affairs, and quotes a New Zealand Trade Union official as follows: —

“The present economic position of New Zealand farming could not support the introduction of trade union awards and conditions throughout the whole industry.”

Mr. Holmes, when he heard this plea about depressed industry and “the employers can’t afford to pay,” must have felt that he had made his journey of thousands of miles only to find things remarkably like they are at home.

Many Labour Party supporters have an answer to all such pleas. “Let the State take over the industry,” they say, “and then it will be run efficiently and will be able to pay higher wages.” Mr. Holmes probably shares this view, for he remarks: “I visited many workshops connected with railways, which belong to the nation, and saw the great strides they are making in war production. I also visited the State timber works and the State flax mills which have recently been established. There are also State mines and State forests.”

Again we shall have to recall the wanderer from the Antipodes and ask him to notice that here in Britain we have our State capitalist Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services, and they, too, are steadfast to resist when higher wages are demanded. Quite a number of the Post Office employees would like to get the £3 minimum which Mr. Holmes’ Union is trying to obtain for land-workers.

Mr. Holmes inspected housing schemes in New Zealand, for one of the Labour Party’s promises was good houses “at low rentals.” But he finds that “the housing of the country people is not very good” and “the rents are rather heavier than in England.” He notices, too, that the New Zealand Government, when it goes into the business of building houses and renting them to the workers, ”expects to get about 5 per cent. on its outlay.” Mr. Holmes apparently did not ask why they required any interest at all.

As regards the cost of living in general, “food seems to be about the same price as in England, but clothes and boots are dearer.” These are factors to be allowed for when making comparison between the higher levels of wages in New Zealand.

He gives an imposing list of social reforms introduced by the Labour Government, including old-age pensions of 30s. a week, children’s allowances, and free hospital treatment, but rather knocks the gilt off when he adds: “Of course, all these things have to be paid for, and there is a direct tax of 10 per cent. on all wages.”

Still a Capitalist World.

Some defenders of the Labour Party, faced with the above criticisms of Labour Government at work, will readily abandon the claim that New Zealand is a “Workers’ State” or has achieved Socialism. They will retort, however, that, apart from this, the criticism is unfair since it does not allow for the fact that in a capitalist world New Zealand must remain capitalist, and that capitalism places limits to the improvement of the workers’ standard of life. Socialists do not dispute this. We do not argue that Labour Governments fail in their task of administering capitalism through want of will or bad faith. They may be well-intentioned but the road to capitalist crises and capitalist war is paved with the good intentions of social reformers.

News items about other Labour Governments (1947)

From the April 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

AUSTRALIA.

  “Australia’s industrial unrest has come to a head with the decision by 76 federal trade unions representing virtually all union members in the nation to hold a general strike on May 1st unless their claims are met. This will be a one-day affair as the opening shot in a "direct action” campaign to enforce demands for higher wages and better conditions.”

   "The conference also favoured complete abolition of wage-pegging regulations, an investigation of commodity prices and action against black marketing in essential commodities. It resolved that its decisions regarding wages should again be placed before the Government as the minimum demands of the trade unions.”

(“Sunday Times,” February 9th, 1947.)

NEW ZEALAND.

    “A strike on the waterfront, lasting a few days, was ended by agreement with the Government and the Federation of Labour, but the cause of the strike remains—a claim by waterside workers’ unions for a five-day week—and trouble may recur any time. If it does, and the threatened split in the Labour front comes to pass, Labour may well be thrown out of office at the next election. As it is, the Government has a bare majority—42 to 38 in a House of 80. . . . The poll was heavy and so evenly divided between the parties—half a million or so each—that Labour had only about 30,000 majority in the million."

("Manchester Guardian,” February 17th, 1947 )

FRANCE.

   The French Government is a coalition of several parties, including the Labourites and Communists, under a Labour Prime Minister.

   Recently a strike of civil servants, post office workers and the police took place. The sequel is related below by the "Daily Telegraph" (February 19th, 1947):—

  “Declaring that the assembly must enact laws to limit the right to strike, he (Prime Minister Ramadier) announced that the Cabinet would shortly present the draft of such a law to Parliament. 'The first French anti-strike law which will ever have been enacted must limit in a precise manner the right to strike of employees on which public security depends'."

The Labour Government in New Zealand—No Change (1937)

From the February 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New Zealand Labour Party reached the acme of its political aspirations on November 27th, 1935, when it gained control of the treasury benches, having won 53 out of 80 seats at the general election.

The result was the cause of a wide-spread atmosphere of expectancy and buoyancy among a large majority of the workers; their problems were solved; there was no need for further struggle; while some members of the master class, in their ignorance, expected a drastic change. However, after the smoke of the political battle had cleared away, the stark realities of capitalism still remained, and the Labour Party immediately commenced to administer capitalism in their own peculiar way.

Mr. Savage, the new Premier, hastened to assure the people that the sacred rights of property would be strictly observed.

The first act of the Labour Government was to issue a bonus or Christmas box to the unemployed and relief workers in the shape of an extra week’s pay and other small concessions, so that they might enjoy a good Christmas. The rest of the year, of course, does not count.

The inquisitive methods of the Unemployment Board and questions on relief application forms were to cease. While the Unemployment Board has ceased as such, the inquisition still persists, and the Labour Party still find it necessary to ask why a person seeks relief, while applying a means test for which they denounced the last Government.

The natural tendency of capitalism is centralisation, hence the legislation of the Labour Government is along those lines. The first Bill to be brought forward was the complete control of the Reserve Bank by the State and the buying up of the shares of the private shareholders at the highest market price.

The Hon. R. Semple’s policy for Public Works is an example of how the Labour Government can obtain a greater amount of surplus value from the hides of the wage-slaves in a more highly efficient manner—the co-operative system of work.

This system of work has been bitterly fought by the Miners' Federation for many years; for it demands only the very best and fittest of workers and totally eliminates some of the less fit; incidentally giving the master a good job at a low cost to the detriment of the worker, as the fast pace set soon wears him out and at an early age he finds himself on the human scrap-heap of industry.

However, the appeals of the Labour Government to the people to give them a chance have been successful in so far as there have been no major disturbances or disputes to date; the workers in general are suffering in silence until such times as the Labour Government relieve them of the effects of capitalism. This they cannot do. When the workers realise that the Labour Government differs little from other Governments administering capitalism there will be a rude awakening.

The childlike faith of the majority of the workers in the Labour Government is hard to understand, despite the fact that its leaders are continually appealing to everyone for their backing and co-operation. Their pre-election attitude was “We can and will!"

Is it that they find it impossible to administer capitalism in the interest of the majority of the people, which is the working class, or is it that they have now realised their ambition—the position of Minister of the Crown, with all its privileges and advantages?

According to their election manifesto, in which they promise "Higher Wages," “Guaranteed Prices," “Pensions for All," all they need is State control of credit and currency to enable their programme to be carried out. They now have control of the Reserve Bank but apparently that is not sufficient; for they find the co-operation of everyone is also necessary. The question is: Can the capitalist and the workers co-operate in common interest? An understanding of the position of these individuals in society proves the opposite.

If it were legislation that could bring about that state of society of which the Labour politicians dream and vaguely refer to, then they have all they need; an overwhelming majority of seats in the House.

However, they have no mandate for Socialism, while they do possess the mandate to administer capitalism. This can be done only in the interest of capital and the capitalist class.

The New Zealand Labour Party in power has proved itself little different from capitalist Parties; in fact it has simply advanced new methods of extracting more surplus value from the workers, and is attempting to put them into operation. Everything is being centralised and placed under State control where possible; legislation has been rushed through; in fact, records have been made in this direction, but none of it will in any way alter the fundamental position of the workers of New Zealand. They will still have to sell their labouring powers in order to live, the wages, or price of these, will be determined by the value of the necessities required to produce, develop, maintain and perpetuate the labouring power, or in the event of the inability of the labourer to sell his power he will be forced to throw himself upon the charity of the master, that is, eke out an existence on sustenance or other means of relief.

The Socialist Party of New Zealand holds that Socialism is the only cure for the effects of capitalism. While capitalism continues so the workers must suffer from its effects and their condition become worse, so we ask the workers of New Zealand to join us in the work of propagating Socialism and organising for the overthrow of capitalism. Socialism is the only solution to their problems.

Socialist Party of New Zealand.