NAVAL DEFENSE.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1922, Page 5

NAVAL DEFENSE.

DOMINION’S POLICY. ATTITUDE NOT MADE CLEAR. BILL IN THE HOUSE. / By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The second reading of the Naval Defence Amendment Bill was moved in the House to-night by the Minister of Defence (Sir R. H. Rhodes). He said that although the whole question of naval defence was open to the House to discu&s he did not propose to enter upon that, leaving it to the Premier to do so when speaking on tSie Financial Statement. The amendments proposed by the Bill were almost entirely of a machinery nature, and affected principally the status of officers and men. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said he thanked the Minister for suggesting that members might discuss the whole question of naval defence because the Government was anxious to get ideas as to what their policy should be. Personally his mind was made up, but he was not going to give his policy to the Government. It was for the Government to bring down its policy and for the Opposition to deal with it. There would be time enough for that when the Government had decided what they would do. in view of the Washington Conference and Sir John Salmond’s report thereon. As to the Bill itself, there was nothing to oppose in it, as there was nothing in it that was not law already.

Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) said our navy at present was something of a joke, but he was not so sure that there was nothing in the Bill that could bp objected to. He commented on s\ib-section C of clause 3, which he said would permit a boy of 18 or 19 to enlist fpr a lengthy period. A boy of that age was not of mature mind, .and might be induced to do something he would afterwards regret. No boy should be allowed to enlist for longer than will bring him to the age of manhood, when he could then do as he pleased. This principle of lengthy service was not observed in tlie case of officers, who could resign in time of peace, if they wanted to leave the navy, which exposed the class distinction made between officers and men. This Bill ought to have embodied the whole naval policy of the Government, if the Government had such a policy. There was no justification for the Government incurring further expenditure in connection with its naval policy at a time when the Treasurer was telling them there was a shortage of money for more necessary things. Sir R. H. Rhodes, in reply, said the Labor Partv was opposed to all expenditure on defence, and Mr. Holland’s criticism was only in line with his party’s policy. He admitted there was a defect in the wording of sub-section C of clause 3, and ho would have an amendment prepared which would provide against boys enlisting for more than twelve years. The Bill was read a second time.