NAVAL DEFENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 August 1922, Page 5

NAVAL DEFENCE.

NEW ZEALAND'S POLICY. -WE MUST DO MORE.” LEAD TO OTHER DOMINIONS. STATEMENT BY THE PREMIER. (By Wire—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. *T have dealt with naval defence in the Financial Statement—not to any great length, but sufficient for the purpose,” said the Prime Minister in the House to-day. He had been asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) when the House was to learn the policy of the Government on this point. ££ l know the mind of Cabinet very well so far as naval defence is concerned,” continued the Prime Minister. “We have reached a stage now where I think those people who take an interest in naval defence and defence matters generally admit we must do something more than we have done by way of assisting the Imperial Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, to provide sufficient defence for the Empire. We are not doing enough.

“There is this to be remembered when we speak of the cost of the cruiser Chatham and the training ship; the cost is a contribution to the naval defence of the Empire. If w6 stopped that expenditure to-morrow—and I don’t suggest we should —we should still have to send the =ame amount of money to the Imperial Government. There would be no saving. Naval defence is dealt with at I sufficient length in the Financial Statement to open up the whole question. It is a matter that wants settling, and I think it will be left, as usual, to New Zealand to give the other States a lead. I think that is what it is coming to.” DISCUSSION IN HOUSE. THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. , POLICY NOT REVEALED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House went into committee today on the Naval Defence Amendment Biil. In clause 3 the Minister moved to strike out sub-clause A and substitute a new sub-section stating “that no prescribed period shall exceed a term of twelve years from the date of enlistment. or from the age of eighteen years, if enlistment takes place before that age.” Mr. Massey, in reply to Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition), said he hoped to bring down the Financial Statement this night week, and it would contain what he had to say on the subject of naval defence. Without going into details, he thought everyone'was agreed we must do our proper share towards the maintenance of proper naval defence for the Empire. Our maintenance of the Chatham and the Philomel was taken as a contribution to the Imperial Navy, and if we did away with these ships we would still have to pay money to the Imperial authorities, so that there would be no saving.

The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) asked if the Government could not give the House some idea what this Bill was going to cost the country. It was establishing the usual reserve and that was certainly going to cost something, and he wanted to know what that cost was going to be. Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) and Mr. H. Holland "(Leader of the Labor Party) condemned the principle of allowing any youth of 18 binding himself past the age of 21. When he reached maturity he should be allowed to review his contract and determine whether or not he would go on with a seafaring life. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said one

of the greatest merits of the British Navy in the past was that its Bien were enlisted for long service. He therefore approved of the twelve-year period and he hoped it would not be shortened. The amendment moved by the Minister was agreed to, and the Bill passed the committee stage without further amendment.