NAVAL DEFENCE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2125, 17 April 1914, Page 6

NAVAL DEFENCE.

..It is a refreshing change aftei thewordy and obscure utterances of Sib Joseph Ward on finance, and defence to read tho report of the speech of tiie Hon. James Ali.es at Miikm on Wednesday Inst. Despite tho fact that the financial portion of the address was obviously muddled in certain parts in the hurry of transmission) there was a directness and straightforwardness in the manner of presenting the facts of the position before the _ public, in, marked contrast to tlio involved and evasive methods to which the country had grown accustomed under Sih/Joseph Ward. And in the references to the important, question of naval defence Mr. Ah.es was even more emphatic and outspoken. It- is a most unfortunate fact that even oil this question 'of national defence, which should be above all party considerations, the- present Opposition lias been, unable- to rise superior to its practice of misrepresenting the Government to serve party ends. Whether the decision of the "Government to depart .from the old method of contributing an annual payment to the British Navy and instead to make our contribution to the naval defence of_the Empire one of men and ships is right- or wrong may bo open to argument. For ourselves wo have little doubt that the policy of the Ksfora .Government is far more worthy of our national spirit and in the end will prove far more beneficial to the Empire than the old policy of handing over a- sum of money annually' to pay the Mother Country to provide the ships and men for our defence. But conceding that there is room for argument on this point, there is no excuse for the deliberate misrepresentations of the Government proposals which have been persistently made by members of the Opposition. The Jtlhiister of Defence at Milton scathingly exposed Sir. Joseph: Warp's inaccuracies, and we might say incch.erencies, on the subject. _ It is in its way laughable to read the Leader of the Opposition's extraordinary pronouncements on the subject of naval defence, although.it is hardly a laughing matter, His amazing shuffling at the Imperial Conference of 1911, when under the shrewd questioning of Mr, concerning his proposed Imperial Parliament of Defence he twisted ; and wriggled himself into a state of hopeless muddlement and confusion j seems to bo characteristic of him. 'His habit is to seize hold of [a _ fine-sounding phrase and talk wildly and indefinitely and inaccurately around it, trusting to the, public being as ignorant of i the practical side.' of the ques- [ tioa as he so plainly shows himself 'to be, When lie comes down to con-1 j erete facts his weakness is at once l apparent to ail, and as Me. Asquwb exposed it at the Imperial ence so also Me._ At-msr tore hie ; figures and assertions to pieces on Wednesday evening, It is regrettable , that the discussion of the question of naval defence should have been taken by the Opposition into the region of party politics, but since they 'haw chosen to* do this it is as well that' their misrepresentations should, be. thoroughly exposed. The idea which they are attempting to inculcate in tho minds of tlio public by describ-. ing tho Government's proposal as a "toy navy.policy" is a particularly moan and petty endeavour to eonfuse, tho position. No one for a moment pretends that New Zealand with its present population can hope to establish a fleet of its own of any. size. All that is proposed, of course, is that wc should make a_ beginning in the direction of providing ships and men for tbc naval defence of.the Empire, instead of -merely providing a small annual payment. In course of time, as the country grows, the fleet will grow, and in conjunction with Australia and, Canada will ultimately relieve tlio Mother Country of the burden of defence in the Pacific. Those who seek to deride the modest beginning which the Government have decided on, ignore the fact that New Zealand's financial contribution to the British Navy was equally modest. The Government to-day can at least claim that it is doing as much financially for the naval defence of the Empire as its predecessors did, while in addition it has afforded evidence of a broader and higher and more inspiring sense of the obligations which rest upon the people of the .Dominion in the- way of national defence, by laying the foundations of a scheme which involves personal as well as financial service. Perhaps it is unnecessary to again refer to the matter, but it is difficult to find any ground of excuse lor tlio dishonest suggestion which has been sot in cireujatign to tho effect that tho action of.'tho Government in some way weakens the ties which bind us to tho Mother Country, and will deprive us of the protection of the British Navy. Anything more unfounded and unwarranted Would be- difficult to conceive. It has been made abundantly clear throughout that the policy of .the GovcrMient meets,with the approval of tho Home authorities, and, moreover, that in time of war our vessels would bo placed unreservedly at.the disposal of the British Admiralty to be used for tho defence of the Empire. Equally we should havoaji the advantages which tlic British Navy could ensure in the way of protecting our interests. Tho_ only tlijFfereiice in -our relations is that' we are demonstrating our readiness to t-iko a more serious view of our obligations and to institute a policy which must ultimately nrovo of immeasurably greater Ivmefit to ourselves, to the Mother Country, and to the whole- Empire. That policy has the endorsement of expert naval opinion and should appeal on sentimental as well as on oraetical grounds to every New £»alandor who takes a pride in bis country and who has any regard its future development and ils HaUis in the Kinphv and amongst the nut-ions of (he world.