"REFORM” AND LABOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8339, 28 January 1913, Page 6

"REFORM” AND LABOUR

In their frantic attempts to cajole tho worker and capture his vote at tho last elections, exponents of that weird quality of “ reform ” which is identified witli Masseyism never tired of declaring how closely, how very naturally, their interests and those of Labour dove-tailed. In one historic instance Mr Massey even went so far as to withdraw his official candidate from a contest in order to give a clear run to the Labourite, so affected was the Apostle of tho Square Deal by the evidences of a cordial understanding ’twixt the Tories and tho workers. Why this ostentatious display of magnanimity was confined to a single electorate is one of tiie unsolved UtUe riddles of the past. We do not suppose any of the prominent Masseyites would care to give an explanation. As the dodge was an unqualified failure, no doubt they would prefer the incident to be buried in the oblivion of things forgotten. At ail events, very few people will expect ever to see it repeated. Probably tho profuse friendship professed by the shining lights of self-styled Reform for tho aspirations of Labour gained the former a number of votes. Many workers were, we believe, so deceived. They have since been disillusioned over and over again by contrasting tho prodigality of promise with the absolute bankruptcy of performance. One of tho latest instances is that the Tory Minister finds it inconvenient to meet a Labour deputation having several matters to submit for the serious consideration of the Government. Tho conference which desired to send representatives to interview Mr Massey has sat in Wellington for the better part of a week. It discussed various phases of industrial questions, and suggested a number of material amendments to tho Arbitration Act. These points are not only worthy of close consideration by all who hope to eventually establish the fairest possible relations between employer and employed, and thus to promote industrial peace and progress, but they certainly demand the serious application of whatever attributes of statesmanship Mr Massey and his colleagues may possess.

Clearly, it won Id hare been altogether jn the public interest, and some concession to the so-called “ square deal ” policy, if Mr Massey, as head of the Government and Minister of Labour, could hare found time to meet the Labour deputation in mutual discussion. Possibly ho would have done so if the issues were confined to the

points we have mentioned. But there is a much wider significance in this conference. The fact of first-class importance emerging from that gathering is the step that was made towards consolidating the hitherto somewhat disunited forces of organised Labour, ft tho cordial understanding between workers and Tories of which Mr -Massoy boasted just prior to the election had been anything but a myth, an ignoble political pretence, he would have hurriedly met tho deputation. He would have stayed in Wellington, instead of scurrying off to a squatters’ banquet, to-day. Tho fact is that tho indications of unity among tho workers fill our Conservative friends with feelings of uncharitableness, of which the official organ of the great land monopolists affords daily evidence. In its comment yesterday on the principal results of the conference the squatters’ mouthpiece is obviously hard pressed to put its views in sufficiently abusive terms, references to “ labour bosses,” ‘’socialism and violence,” “agitators,” and “ atrocities ” being presented in a string of sentences roundly denouncing tho whole official representation of organised labour in New Zealand. It is true there is a clumsy attempt to argue that ninety-nino out of every hundred people are admirers of Mr Massey almost to tho verge of hypnotism, hut there is a total failure to conceal alarm at tho desire shown by the conference for tho destruction of tho Massey Government. All of which prompts us to ask two questions. How is it that the “ friendship ” between Labour and selfstyled Reform has so quickly vanished into nothingness? And why is the squatters’ organ so agitated over the doings of what it professes to regard as merely 1 per cent, of the population?