Naval Defence.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 80, 4 December 1913, Page 5

Naval Defence.

bill passes the house.

new policy outlined.

[Per Press Association.! Wellington, December 3

In the House of Representatives today, the Hon. J. Allen, Minister for Defence, moved the second reacig of the Naval Defence Bill. The proposal in the Bill, he said, was to alter the method of disposal of the £IOO,OOO voted annually, and also to make other alterations in the method of the defence of the counti }. The Bill proposed to set up New Zealand naval forces —that was, the provision of our own personnel under our own administration. At the 1911 imperial Conference, Mr Asquith had said that, just as centralisation had been found absurd, so would disintegration be found to be impossible. All of us are content to remain masters of our own house, both at Home and in the Dominions. That was the life-blood of our policy. Whatever it was decided to do, the Mother Country would assist in every way possible. The present proposals, of the Government did not go in the direction of providing large naval bases. The total Government expenditure would be a little over £250,000 a year, but the training-ship expenditure would not exceed £IOO,000. They also proposed to carry out the Admiralty’s directions concerning the enlargements of the Calliope dock at Auckland, for the accommodation of Imperial ships. FIGHTING FLEET IN PACIFIC.

Continuing, Mr Allen said that in 1909 it was recognised that a fighting fleet should be created in the Pacific

Ocean, with squadrons in the China, East Indian and Australian seas. It was therefore an error to suppose that only the strategical question was considered at that time. There was a- fighting fleet in the North Sea. Spaking of Canada’s position in relation to naval defence, he said that her undoubted duty was to make a handsome contribution to the Imperial Navy,' because in her present state she must depend for the defence of her Atlantic coasts upon the fleet in the North Sea. So far as her Pacific shores are concerned, he hoped that the day would come when she would join with the Imperial authorities in making adequate provision for the safety of that coast. Australia had carried out her full share of the 1909 agreement. So far as New Zealand is concerned he claimed, that the present proposals were much the same as those made by Sir Joseph Ward in 1909, with Mr R. McKenna, who. was then First Lord of the Admiralty. Those proposals were sound strategically, but they had not been carried out, and he asked New Zealanders whether they were satisfied with things as they are. If, for instance, we wanted a coaling station between here and Panama, we could not get it, if it were going to create complications with other countries. That, and the position of the

New Hebrides, wore not satisfactory; It,was, therefore, clear that the scheme agreed upon in 1909 had been abandoned by the Admiralty, the first actual slip in the non-fulfilment of the agreement being the diversion of the battleship New Zealand to the North Sea. He hoped that the balance of the agreement might still have been carried out, but, apparently, the Admiralty had not that intention, the Admiralty alleging that submarines and destroyers were not suitable to New Zealand waters. He did not agree with that opinion, that was only a part of the 1909 agreement that, was not carried out. He deprecated our dependence on alliances with other counOUR FIRST DUTY.

Proceeding, Mr Allen said that our first duty was to perfect our land defences. The Admiralty were satisfied with our harbor batteries, but' they required more modern six-inch guns. No large docking accommodation was required in New Zealand, nor was the locaf defence flotilla necessary from the Admiraltys point of view. There was need for some protection for our commerce. This should he given by light cruisers, heavy fighting ships not being advisable. Dealing pith the disadvantages of a subsidy policy, he said that members did not get an opportunity of discuss ing the disposal of the money every year. The Government proposed to uc so. Dealing with the Bill itself, he drew attention to the provision for the transfer to the British Government of the naval forces in times of hostilities ; for all essential purposes the men were under the control of the Hone Government. It was our business to work in with Australia as fas as possible, although we were a separate entity. The pay would be the same here as in \u.i- alia The training woo'd he the same, and that would, as far as was passible, be the same as the Admiralty’s. The New Zealand men may ho transferred to China .or other station for training or service. ONE CONTROL NEEDED. wealand should recognise the. necessity for control by the British Adwnralty, as it was necessary for the present that there should be only one control. He did not think Unit New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada should leave ovevvthhig'in the future to the sole control of the Admiralty. They should take Mops to formulate some controlling authority, comprising representatives from the Dominions. The future of this o untry was in the hands of future Parliaments. All the country was committed to was £IOO,OOO. Up to September

1913, our imports were £23,000 000. and our exports £24,000,000., it was time our trade was efficiently protected. He advocated the taking of a more direct interest in the affairs of the State by. both young and (del New Zealanders. • • SIR JOSEPH WARD. Sir Joseph Ward said that yome of the proposals wore of a most dangerous character. If the Minister resided in a country of 20 millions of people lie could understand his making his proposals.- We were hut a country of one million people, with a revenue of only £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 annually’.' If Mr Allen’s proposals were, as he said, simply the paying of our own training-ship complement, why did he suggest that one ship could protect our ocean routes? When Mr Allen was in Australia, the Australian Government believed that New Zealand was going to co-operate* in the matter of i New Zealand fleet with Australia.

~Mr Allen: I have never gone away from New Zealand control.

Sir Joseph Ward, continuing, said that the matter should be looked a(. from the Empire’s point of view, and not merely from the Dominion’s paint of view'. He thought that the Minisetr should have given his fullest confidence to the House, both with regard to the interviews he had had with the Australian naval authorities and with the Admiralty. He regretted that that had not been done. The only way was to have one great central navy. He would sooner see the Government come down with a fixed amount, or give another Dreadnought, than the proposals submitted. If England went down, what would we be doing with a Bristol type of cruiser and a trainingship? He preferred further assistance being given to the Imperial fleet, and for that reason he must disagree with the Minister for Defence.

" In replying to criticism, the Hon. J. Allen said he onuld not disclose the contents of documents received from the Admiralty, as they had the word “secret” them. He made no definite arrangements with the Admiralty.

SECOND READING PASSED. ,The House divided on the second reading, the voting being 31 for and 21 against. THE THIRD READING. , "Wellington, December 1. After the Telegunph Office closed, the Bill was put through all its stages. The division on the third reading resulted in 32 to IS.

The House rose at 3,10 a.in. till 4 p.m.