NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 625, 6 December 1913, Page 5

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.

IMPORTANT DEBATE. THIRD READING CARRIED. The important question of na/al defence was debated in Parliament on Wednesday evening, when the second reading of the Bill was moved by the Minister for Defence, the Hon. J. Allen. CHANGE OF POLICY. The Hon. J as. Allen stated that the Bill considerably altered the policy of New Zealand in regard to naval matters. Hitherto New Zealand had no voice in the disposal of its annual subsidy oE £IOO,OOO, but this was now altered. Perhaps it was right to begin by letting the House know what was the attitude of the various Dominions in regard to this question. It was not necessary to go further back than 1909, when representatives from the various Dominions were invited to London to discuss the question of naval and military defence. He would quote some of the expressions of the Admiralty on those questions, and he wished members to make up their own minds as to what was the interpretation of "a single navy," because,there would be a good deal of confusion when members came to work it out. THE SINGLE NAVY IDEA. "I fam afraid," continued the Minister/ "that the minds of the Admiralty have drifted into this position, that they can only see a single navy as represented by a navy in the North Sea and the Mediterranean. In 1909 they thought a portion of that single navy should be located in Pacific waters. Paragraph 3 of the Admiralty's memorandum of 1909 declared that it had long been recognised that other conditions than those of strategy must be onsidered, and he—the Minister—called particular attention to this reference to the self-governing Dominions. Their history and political environment have given rise to findiviiluai national sentiment for the expression of which room must be found.' " CENTRALISATION AND DISINTEGRATION. The Minister, proceeding to refer to the proposed naval force, the staffing and training of our own personnel, said that whether we should go in for maintaining our own ships would be a matter for consideration later on. The Premier had indicated that if the Admiralty. would not do more than have intimated be would nest year l<ring down a proposal for the building of a cruiser ourselves. At present, however, the wished to confine himself to the question of training officers and men. In 1909 the British Prime Minister Mr Asquith discussing the question of centralisation is seen to be increasingly absurd, so is disintegration increasingly impossible." He also remarked at the same time, "We each of us are quite content to remain masters in our own households. This is, both at Home and throughout the Dominions, the life blood of our policy." DIFFERENCES IN DETAIL. Discussing the details of the Bill, the Minister pointed to the clause placing our naval forces automatically under the control of the British Government in time of war. That, he said, was materially different to the Australian scheme. Nothing in the Bill placed any of the ships at the disposal of Australia, although it was proposd to work in with Australia as far as possible, to which end the pay, training, and general conditions would be the asme as obtained in the Australian navy. The transfer of men from our own ship to the British Navy for experience ;and training was also provided for. As to the future, he did not believe, when the Dominions became stronger,they would rest contant without some representation respecting the control of naval policy and defence. He hoped it would be possible to make some small step in the Pacific towards the evolution cf some more satisfactory controlling authority. Australia New Zealand, and possibly Canada, might be represented perhap; on some Board to meet from time to time to determine what each required and when our various ships should be mobilised together for peaceful manoeuvres. The Bill contained modest proposals,, and the future was left in the hand? of future Parliaments. He urged the House to treat the matte? as he had done, absolutely from a non-party viewpoint. The time was ripe to take a more direct interedt in naval concerns. If anyone was impregnated with English ideas by association and education he was, but he felt strongly as a New Zealander that we could not neglcet cur own sentiment It was right that we should assume certain responsibility for spending the money-voted for naval defence, and right that we should regain our ov?n personnel, be in touch with it, and know its value. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S SPEECH. SOME DANGEROUS PROPOSALS. Sir Joseph Ward, Leader of the Opposition, said he proposed to avoid heat, but to put clearly on record his viwes in regard to some suggestions which, he asid with great regret, were of a dangerous character. The Minister, if he had been speaking- as the representative of an old country, with a population of 20 millions, would have been justified in sketching such a change of poliey. The country was seventy years old, with a million of people and 11 or 12 millions of revenue, while 80 millions had been borrowed. The country was permeated from end to end with responsibilities for the future. Why wss it necessary to have almost a copy of the Australian Defence Act? Twenty-four out of twenty-five clauses were almost word for word. The only thing left out was power to build ships. The subject had to be considered from an Empire rather than a Dominion point of view.

"I say it with continued Sir Joseph, "that w~ >, va not had th« confidence (if tli *- Governn;ofit on the subject of intervi 'Bs wi;h t'.ie Commonwealth of Australia " lie made that-statement because the Minister of Defence, in an interview with the Commonwealth authorities, said he was in favor of co-operating with the Commonwealth, NO PARTY QUESTION. "There is nothing I would mure dearly have liked than to have got up and said I was prapared to cooperate with the hon. genteman in a matter of such vital importance to every section of the community. I make no party question of it." NEW ZEALAND'S LIABILITY. Taking into account the experience of the Commonwealth, he calculated the cost of the new cruiser, and its maintenance alluwing for interest and depreciation —at £204,000 per annum. The Prime Minister: Good gracious, where did you get the figures? Sir Joseph Ward: I have taken the figures by comparison with what ha - bean paid cut in Australia, adding the cost o? the internal defence of the country, the naval subsidy, and the Dreadnought loan. He came to the conclusion that the annual total liability would be £985,047. Again, Saking Australian experience, it would be found that in five years the estimates would go up by £500,000, making a total of £1,485,047. THE PACIFIC PROBLEM. He was with the Minister in sentiment and heart in regard to the pro> tection of the Pacific, but one must look at the practical aspect. The Panama Canal, he pointed out. would enable the fleets of the great European Powei'3 to easily reach the Pacific. There must he a great central Imperial Navy, helped by quotas from the oversea Dominions, so powerful and so irresistible as to make it absolutely impossible for any combination to pre- i vail against it. i BRITISH ADMIRALTY'S OPPINION. "Does it not look absolutely futile," added Sir Joseph Ward, "for us to attempt the building of our own navy when we are already attached to the greatest navy the world has ever known? The British Admiralty say they believe in one navy, yet we are to say that we believe in sectional navies. Although in 1909 the Admiralty said that two submarine? were needed for naval defence in our waters, the Minister of Defence now says that one Bristol cruiser is sufficient." Mr Herries - We don't. The Admiralty would not give us two. Sir Joseph argued that the British Admiralty would not have made the change if the suggestion had not first come from this end. Our future depended upon the ability of the Old Country to resist aggression. If England went down in the North Sea, what would be our position with our one little cruiser? We should ba in the mere position of being a pawn to be bargained for by the victors. "I realise," said Sir Joseph, "that it is, after all, to the wise statesment. in the weld's politics to whom We have to louk, as well as to the opinions of every dominion which aspires to paddle its own canoe." What we wanted, he urged, was to so to help by co operation in contributions as to enable the people of the Old Country to establish an Imperial Navy so great and formidable as to ensure our freedom from aggressiveness from other nations. ' After further debate the second reading of the Bill was carried by 31 to 21. When the r ßill reached committee Sir Joseph Ward moved an amendment "That a referendum be taken on the question whether direct . contribution and attachment to the British navy be continued or severance effected." The amendment was lost by 31 to 12. The third reading was carried by 32 to 15.