The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1922. THE COST OF DEFENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 January 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1922. THE COST OF DEFENCE.

The debate in the House on Friday on the naval and military estimates cannot be regarded either as illuminating or of any practical service. Without a full detail of all the items connected with both services it is not possible for any comment to be made except on general principles, and even then the need for economy overshadows all other considerations except the prudent policy of reasonable provision for a certain measure of security that can be extended or restricted according to how the general prip'eiple is regarded by those directly interested in the maintenance of a pretentious service, or by those who recognise that the utmost the Dominion can do in the event of an emergency is to make the best use of the fighting power <ST the country until help from overseas can be obtained. There were two statements made by Mr. Massey during the debate that cannot pass unnoticed. Speaking of the value of the cruiser Chatham as a means for protecting this country, he said: “If we had had a vessel like the Chatham during the war, an enemy raider would not have been able to work the destruction round our coasts that was done.”

Obviously such a remark cannot be taken in its literal sense, and the only possible way in which it can be construed is that the mere presence of such a warship in New Zealand waters would have deterred a raider from operating. The question is certainly open to grave doubt, for no single warship could ever hope to effectively guard the whole of our waters from the perils of a minedistributing enemy raider of high speed and daring. A far more effective defence would be half a dozen chasers or submarines that, could patrol the whole of our waters, for a single warship might be blown to atoms by the first mine it struck, and then pur plight would be pitiable. There are services which a. warship like the Chatham can and does perform, but to depend on a single vessel for immunity from raiders would be as vain as it would be foolish. The other statement made by the Minister was that we could not neglect Imperial duties. In this

assertion there is an incontestable truth. Apart from the actual partnership of \the Dominions in the Empire, there is a direct obligation on the part of each Dominion tp bear a share of the cost of the Imperial Navy, which exists essentially for the protection of the Empire as a whole, both as regards territory and keeping the highways of the seas open for a safe transport of produce and'the, interchange of commodities. Britain has plainly intimated that she cannot continue to bear the expence of maintaining this great Navy, and that the Dominions must share the burden. No request could be more reasonable, and in one way or another the Dominions must bear their share, for the safety of the Empire and its wealth of produce rests upon an adequate naval force. Hence the force of the argument used by Mr. Massey when he asserted that if the Chatham were sent away to-morrow the Dominion would not save anything, as we should then have to pay a. subsidy to the Imperial Navy, which we were not required to pay while maintaining that warship. The only question is to what extent is New Zealand going as regards her total expenditure for naval protection. It would seem that, under existing icircumstanees, a quarter' of a million would be a fair sum, wher/as the Estimates provide for £335,782, while the military vote asked for amounts £467.043. though the Finance

Committee has insisted that the latter amount should be reduced by one hundred thousand pounds: The total cost for defence thus approaches the million mark, and. there appears to be a feeling that at a time when it has become necessary to make a cut in the wages of Government employees, the extent of that retrench•nert might be mitigated by an appreciable reduction in the amount to be expended on defence. The only reply to this view was a statement by the Premier that the proposal to cut the military vote down to £150,000 ‘‘would result in putting the country in a position that would simply invite a raider to step ashore and take possession.” It is not necessary to comment on such an assertion, other than to say that the country need not fear to take such an imaginary risk, though it is a pity that the common-sense claim for reducing military cost should be met with such a fantasy.