NAVALDEFENCE.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 October 1919, Page 1

NAVALDEFENCE.

LORD JELLICOE’S REPORT

5 [PEIt PJREBB ASSOCIATION. —COPYIIIGHT.) WELLINGTON, Oct. *l6. " Lord Jellicoe’s report was tabled in tho House i to-day. In a covering letter he deals with the 1909 naval crisis, and the gift of the cruiser New Zealand, and states that in 1913, Sir J. Allen, 1 when in England had arrangements prepared for training a New Zealand naval force, the officers , and men whereof were to he available for ships maintained in future by the New Zealand Government, or in any ship of the Royal Navy in New Zealand waters or Pacific, or belonging to the China or East Indies squadrons. The manning of ships was the primary object of the Now Zealand naval force. Tho war prevented recruiting officers and men for the New Zealand naval force. Lord Jellicoe says that ex'perience shows that responsibilities as to naval defence are more clearly recognised and more cheerfully' shouldered if the result of the effort made is r apparent to those making it—in other 1 words if the ships provided are seen by tho people who pay for them, and I are manned as far as possible by their I ‘ own kith and kin. I 1 NO INDEPENDENT FLEET. C

There is, nevertheless, he says no reason why tho vessels should not form part and parcel of the Royal Navy. His, proposals have ,thi.s object in view. Their general principle is that New

_ Zealand should co-operate in naval de- . fence of the Empire, and assist in paying for the manning and mainten--3 ancc of a certain proportion of the far eastern fleet and of all vessels required for harbour defence in New Zealand, as well as .by providing such portion of personnel as practicable. It is suggested that vessels maintained by the people of New Zealand should be' termed, “New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy.” Is it not recommended that steps be taken to build war vessels in New Zealand or any naval dockyards be contemplated for the present. Repairs and refits should be carried out in private yards in New Zealand or Australia. Repairs are not beyond tlie capacity of commercial yards in New Zealand though they might be carried out under some disadvantages. ■lt is proposed that the administraj.tion of the New Zealand division be j carried out by a board consisting of the Minister of Defence and a naval officer with the rank of Commodore. The provisions of the New Zealand i Naval Defence Act for ships to' be placed under control of the Admiralty during war when hostilities were imminent, should it is urged, continue. Lord Jellicoe concludes that the Paci- , fic sea communications should be enentrusted to one fleet composed of c units from the parts of the Empire di- , rectiy concerned.

While definite proposals arc put for ward it is recognised that the decisions may he affected by the. formation of the (League of Nations. In the work of mine sweeping, the report says that the simplest and j cheapest method of obtaining in war, services of efficient mine sweeping vessels is by the encouragement of trawler fishing services during peace. The largest ships of the Australian navy at present are fitted to burn coal with oil. as an auxiliary, and the fact that for many weeks coal .burning ships in,the.P.acifis had been unable to obtain suitable coal, emphasised a dangerous position that would have existed for active service during the .interval. The danger of the situation had been pointed out to the Commonwealth Government Jbut as the war vessels in the jPacific are entirely dependant on coal from-Westport the matter is obviously one in, which. the Jiejp of New Zealand is necessary.

,It is., urged that the .whole matter should be dealt with between the Governments of JSTew Zealand and Austin-, lia.

Considerable reserves,pf coal are said to .ho the. vital necessity, of the far .East ern Fleet, .which .will comprise coal burning vessels for at any rate .fifteen years. .Attention is directed to the Imperial importance of the Westport Coal Coy’s mines at-.Westpgrt and.Qranity. •At. present the only coal ,in Nea Zealand andyVustralia.suitable, far the Ear Eastern .Fleet is that ( provided by. the mixing. of,the. products of these, mines.

TJIE COST. The ,cost per centage of financial .contributions. to ; ,the upkeep of .the. British nayy, ly>;sed pn. the .mean of, populations and values of oversea trade. It is set down as , follows: •. United Kingdom, 74.1.2. Australia, 7.74. New .Zealand 2.4. Canada 12,3. ..South 3.82. .Since ..New .and Australia, would have ,no part in the, expense , of the' Atlantic defence their share in the Pacific it is urged should lie, more. The proportions of , the cost of ; the provisions and maintenance. of the far Eastern ,Fleet are. therefore suggested as approximately as follows: Great Britain 75. per cent.. Zealand 5 per cent. Australia 20 per; cent. On this basis the contributions would amount to £19,637,700, yoniry, distributed as follows: Britain £14,728,274. Australia £3,927,540. New .Zealand ,£981,889. LOCAL DEFENCE. New Zealand’s requirements in vessels for Harbour defence purposes are stated to ho : Eight old destroyers or “P” boats whereof four would be in full, commission and the remainder in reserve. Eighteen mine sweepers of the trawler type, whereof two would ho used for instructional purposes, and the re-

mairider bo assumed to bo fishing trawlers.

Four boom defence vessels, to be in reserve.

It recommended that the old destroyers should, bo acquired iby 1923. Britain could probably supply them. New Zealand’s purposes would be best served by vessels of the light cruiser type destroyers, submarine, cruiser type, destroyers, submarines and a small air craft force unit. N.Z DIVISION STRENGTH. Under tlio conditions New Zealand Division, should comprise: One light cruiser, two destroyers, two. submarines. The first necessity is the provision of three light cruisers, six submarines and a submarine parent ship, to complete three units.

The next provision therefore should be six destroyers. These ‘units” are fit for service in a striking force, or alternately may bo used for direct defence of trade. It is suggested that the ships and personnel for tile New Zealand Division should be lent by the United Kingdom to the New Zealand Government, eomI mencing in the year 1920, with a coal J burning light cruser, carrying a Gin. gun armament, other vessels being added gradually till the Division reaches j its complete strength, about the middle \ of 1926. V As the vessels become obsolete, they should be replaced. This would be at the cost of the New Zealand Govern-

ment. Meanwhile New Zealand should start to train officers and men for service. - The administration of the New Zealand Division should be controlled by an officer to be known as the Chief of the Naval Staff of the New Zealand Board who should be appointed as soon as the first light cruiser is detailed. ANNUAL COST. The total annual cost till 1926 is esmatcd at:—l92o-21 £357,199; 1921-22 £590,050; 1922-23, £694,000; 1923-24 £979,300; 1924-25, £1,072,800; 1925-26 £1,166,000. The Government have received an additional report which is confidential■