NEW ZEALAND AND THE NAVY

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1564, 7 October 1912, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND AND THE NAVY

One of to-day's cable messages records a very welcome statement by Senator Peauce in reply to Sir Joseph Ward's speech last Wednesday on naval dofence. The member for Awarua has never appeared to have thought about the matter deeply enough to have any very clear constructive ideas or to give any sound reasons for thp opinions which hc_ expresses from time to time on this vitally important Subject, but he generally manages to provoke discussion or comment. Last week he preached the gospel of the money subsidy. Senator Pearce complains that the member for Awarua "did not give any reasons why he had been unable to conceive the idea of an Australian squadron defending British interests in tho_ Pacific." The complaint is a very just one, for neither the member for Awarua nor the member for the Eastern Maori district, attempted to go beyond mere assertion. Some of these assertions wore incorrect on the face of them. For example, we were told by the member for Awarua that no population of less than 15 to 20 millions could establish a local navy that would be of any service whatever. As a matter of fact a country with a population of 10 millions, by paying as much per head for naval defence as the people of the United Kingdom pay, could be building at a rate greater than that of some of tho. Powers. The advocates of the subsidy policy have often enough professed that it is they, and not the advocates of local naval preparations, who keep an eye on the facts. But they are really most unpractical people, as this extract from Sir Joseph Ward's speech clearly shows:

''If a tost, of naval strength took place in the Pacific it would be with a great Power nearly equal k> Great.

Britain, in naval armaments. There was only one way in which this country could do its part— by giving a full but reasonable contribution to the British Navy." To have any reasonableness at all this line of argument must contemplate tho establishment of two invincible British navies, for Britain must have a controlling force in her own waters. The only alternative to the vast expenditure that would be involved in the creation of a new British Pacific Navy capable of meeting any conditions that might arise in these waters is the inauguration of local defence schemes.

Unless Australasia contributed very largely indeed to the upkeep of the British Navy—five or six millions a year, say—her aid would not be a material relief to the British taxpayers, and five or six millions earned and expended locally would bo a better investment than the same sum handed to the British Government. Not so much for what it would produce in the'way of a local navy, but because of the moral effect on the race. "What the friends of the subsidy persistently ignore is the moral effect of local naval action. Tho most we can do for ourselves no doubt cannot be much, but the most wo can do for ourselves in the way of military preparations also cannot be much. It is recognised, how-" ever, that our army will be of some use and that its creation and training will be good discipline for our people. This latter argument is one which supplies' the most powerful reason for some positive local action on the naval side. The case for the Australian Navy was well sumracdup by Senator Pearce when he eaid that "Australian policy does not hamper the A'drairalty, and leaves us free to develop the naval spirit of the Commonwealth." Nothing but good can come of any genuine policy of doing something tor ourselves. The time may not be opportune for any definite action so far as New Zealand is concerned, but there can be no doubt that the people of this Dominion will not for long be content to rest satisfied with the payment of an annual financial grant, as their share in tho naval defence of the Empire.