The N. Z. Times MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1908. MR DEAKIN’S RESIGNATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6493, 13 April 1908, Page 4

The N. Z. Times

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1908. MR DEAKIN’S RESIGNATION

vni wiiflH is noowoutu nil “imnimw manmn." muumt istf.

It was no great question of principle which decided Mr Deakin to resign tihe position of Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. He had been defeated on a matter of detail. He had moved for a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into certain allegations respecting members of both Chambers of the Legislature, and the majority decided that the inquiry must bo by a Royal Commission. Inasmuch as the latter is the better authority, the change implies a slight censure on the Government for its proposal of the weaker course. But the censure is not really important enough to bring about a change of Cabinet. Consequently it is pretty plain that Mr Deakin seized upon a convenient pretext for getting out of a situation that had become intolerable. A resignation is one of those strong punctuation points which emphasise a political situation. Out of the confusion of Commonwealth politics the one thing standing out dear is the uuworkableooss of the threeparty system. That system has been tried for years, with the result that there is chaos where there ought to be results. Between the Government party and the Opposition there is a clear enough line of demarcation. Between the Labour party and the rest of the world there is none, unless it be the line representing the wishes of labour, to be pressed without any thought of compromise. That may be a natural consequence of past neglect. But the business of politics is practical, mot sentimental. Solid work in fair measure is the political ideal, not brooding on revenges and suspicions. Labour, refusing to trust any side in politics, plays a kmo hand, to the disorganisation of all Parliamentary work. When given the command quite frankly, it was only able, i in spite of considerable ability, the display of which astonished the world considerably, to drag on a wretched existence, and was glad to be rid of the responsibility of governing. Since then, undeterred by that salutary lesson, it has practised the old tactics of insisting upon domination without responsibility. It gives us the spectacle of an obstinate minority, determined to rule the State at all cost. It has found that it may keep Governments uneasy, but that it can on that road do nothing for itself. At present the Australian labour ideal of Parliamentary work appears to be a perpetual procession of political puppets marching in and out of office. It ik high time for Labour in the Dominion to read the lesson of the Commonwealth. For the most part, Labonr among us has realised the difference of its Parliamentary history. But there is a large and apparently growing section which seems determined, in fact declares its determination, to start a separate propaganda, taking the Australian three-corner model for its imitation. Specious arguments are not wanting to its platform. But there are two great facts

which cannot be gainsaid. On© is the superior achievement of the New Zealand Labour party in alliance with its natural friends, the Liberals. The other is the utter futility of the Australian policy which has sent Labour into politics with a lone hand too weak for aught but mischief. If these facts are not apprehended* at their true value before the general election there will be serious disaster to the Labour cause.