NAVAL DEFENCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 97, 28 August 1913, Page 5

NAVAL DEFENCE.

NEW ZEALAND’S FOLSCY. <; OVEIIXMEN T XOX-COMMITTAL. [Peb Pbebs Association.] Wellington, August 27. In the House this evening, when Supply came up lor consideration. Sir Joseph Ward demanded that the Government should declare its policy, file question of naval defence had been sufficiently loud to make that declaration necessary. The Minister said in June last that he had prepared a scheme, but the House had not been Cold what the, scheme was. If there was a difference in the Cabinet, then the Minister’s views should lie submitted to the arbitrament of the House, which would determine what die policy of the Dominion should be. The Admiralty had declared repeatedly in favor of one navy. Was this the scheme advocated by the Minister? Was he in sympathy with or opposed to that principle? Xew Zealand was not justified in burdening itself with the maintenance of a separate navy. I'Tflat course meant ruination,, not alone because of the enormous expenditure entailed, but because we would be ranging ourselves as competitors in the race for armaments with stronger countries.

The Hon. Jus. Allen said that while desiring to keep tile defence question a hove party, there was room for a difference of opinion' upon the scheme of naval defence. He had interviewed the Admiralty in London, and had come to an agreement with them, i here were still some details of that agreement to ho confirmed. The letter containing that information left England on August 8, and should he acre next month. ( util he received that reply he could not disclose the policy of the Government to the House. On the great principle of one control for Imperial purposes he was in entire accord Sir Joseph Ward, 6 but for tlio purposes of local defence ho was not able to follow him. He claimed that the agreement made ay the British Admiralty in 1909, to establish units lor the China, Pacific, md East India seas, liad been broken. The units had not been established. The battleship New Zealand nad been diverted from the China seas. It was, therefore, clear that die Admiralty was departing from the programme of 1909. The Admiralty and undoubtedly declared in favor of ano navy, but was prepared to allow tho Dominions to adopt their own aourse as to how they would provide dieir ‘ share 'or contribution... Ho thoubht that “battleships” was not he last, word in naval defence resolution. Ingenuity would yet devise some new machine, and ho was not prepared to involve the Dominion in great expense upon the construction of rarships. Before the session closed the House would learn to what responsibilities it had been committed, and what it would he asked to hear.

Mr G. W. Russell said that on J une 18 Mr Allen had said tliat he had pro-

red a scheme of naval defence for

.jrtb’mission to the Cabinet. Since then ne had not vouchsafed one word to the House as to what that scheme was. jhe Budget stated that a scheme ,vodd be submitted wjiich would cast more direct responsibility on the Dominion. What did that mean? Since .he Minister came into office he had become obsessed with what Australia was doing in Australia. His speeches ■vent much further than ever they had rone in New Zealand, which seemed o indicate that lie was anxious to emulate Australia’s example. Mr Allen bad said that ho had not committed ho country beyond the expenditure of £IOO,OOO, hut ho might have committed the country to a scheme which yould ultimately cost us far beyond that sum. Ho ventured to predict that when the Government’s proposals were brought down it would he found that they were going to do more thaw continue the payment of an annual subsidy.

Mr Massey said that the debate .vould serve the purpose of clearing away misapprehensions on the subject of the naval policy of the Government. The Government had repeatedly stated that the House would have m opportunity of discussing it before, '/lie end of the session. He denied that the country had been committed ;o extraordinary expenditure by the Minister for Defence' when in England. Sir Joseph Ward had suggested that it was an idea in view of the

Government to form a .partnership with Australia in naval defence. Xo such idea ever existed, nor was it their to loose their hold between this country and the British Xavy. Ho hoped that the comnnieaI ion now on its way from England would he. final and conclusive, and then the proposals of the Government would he laid fully before the House. He maintained that the arrangement entered into in 190!) had not been carried out by the Admiralty. Now Zealand had carried out her "part, and it was because we had been left without

our proper shore protection that the new negotiations had been entered into with the Admiralty by the Government. New Zealand was not going in for a programme <d' shipbuilding, but he would never ho satisfied until he saw in the Pacific a British fleet strong enough to protect our coasts and trade routes against any possible combination that might arise. After the supper adjournment the debate was continued by Messrs Myers. IV- no. Wittv. and Webb