THE NAVAL QUESTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 28 August 1913, Page 5

THE NAVAL QUESTION.

RAISED IN THE HOUSE BY SIR ' lIOBEPH WARD. , GOVERNMENT'S DELAY CRM* v OISED. AN EXPLANATION GIVEN. (By TdeorapK—Press iuociotiofi.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. . The House of Representatives went ■ into Committee to-night to deal with the Imprest Supply Bill, which pro,rides for a rot© 1 of £829,300, Sir Joseph Ward contended that . the Government should declare its „ policy on the question of naval defence. It had been sufficiently long in office to make that declaration. The Minister hadi said in June last that he had prepared a scheme, but ■ the House had not been told what that scheme was. If there waa a difference in the Cabinet, then Ministers' views should be submitted to "the arbitrament of the House, Jt which would determine what the policy of the Dominion should be. The Admiralty had declared repeatedly ithat it was in favour of one navy. Sir Joseph Ward asked, was the ■ scheme advocated by the Minister in ■ sympathy with, or opposed to, that principleH New Zealand, he said, tfas not justified in burdening iteelf with the maintenance of a separate navy. *. ffhat" course meant ruination, not alone because of the enormous expenV diture entailed, but because we would be ranging; ourselves as competitors ;■ In the race for armaments with stron- ■ , • gef countries.. THE MINISTER REPLIES. - V The. Hon. James Allen said that V J : iwhile desiring to keep the defence question above party, there was room . for a difference of opinion Upon the scheme of naval tiefence. He had interviewed the Admiralty in London, and hadi come to an agreement with it. There .wero, however, still some details of that agreement to be con- ; firmed. The letter containing that information left England on. August Bth, and should be here next month. Until he received that reply, he could not disclose the policy of the Government to the House. On the great principle of ono control for Imperial purposes, he wag-'in entire accord with Sir Joseph Ward; but for the purposes of local defence he was not able to follow him. He'claimed >~that the agreement made by the / British Admiralty in 1909 to establish units in tihiiiav Pacific, and East India seas had ; been broken. These units hadi not , been establish? ed., The battleship New Zealand had been diverted from the China seas. Therefore, it was clear that the Admiralty was departing from its programme of 1909. The Admiralty had undoubtedly declared in favour 'of one navy; but it was prepared to allow the Dominiona to adopt , their own course as to how they would provide their share of the contribution. He thought that battleships were not j the last, word in the matter of naval defence. Tho revolution of *ingenuity would yet devise e tmo new machine, y. and he Was not prepared to involve j the Dominioa in great expense upon „■ the construction of warships. Before the session cloeecl, the House would learn to what;- responsibilities it had been committed, and what the country would be asked to bear. MR G. W, RUSSELL. ' Mr G. W^. said. , that,on, ' June Wtn-ihe Hon. Mr' Allen had said that he had i>repared a scheme of naval defence for submission, to. • the Cabinet. Sinco theii, he had not vonschafed one word to the House as to what that scheme was. - The Budget 'had stated that a scheme , . would be subfintcod which: would cast more direct responsibility , on the Dominion. What did that mean? Since the Minister came into office he had 1 become obsessed with what Australia iwae doing. In Australia his speeches went much further than they .had. - gone in New Zealand, which seemed to indicate that he was anxious to emulate Australia's example. Mr Allen had said he had not committed the country beyond the expenditure of £100,000; but he might have comanittedthe country to a scheme which would ultimately cost us fair beyond that. sum. He ventured to predict that when the Government's proposals were brought down, it would be found that they were going to do ? more than continue the payment of the annual subsidy. •

THE PRIME MINISTER; The Hon. W. F. Massey said the (debate would serve the : purpos/ of : clearing away misapprehensions on H the subject of the naval policy of the Government. The Government had repeatedly stated that- the House would have an opportunity of discussing it before the session. He denied that the country had been committed to an extraordinary expenditure by "the Minister of Defence - when in England. Sir Joseph Ward /liad suggested that there was an idea in view of the Government seeking a partnership with Australia in the matter of naval defence. No such idea had ever existed, nor was it their intention to loose "the hold between this country and the British Navy,. He hoped that the communication which was on its way from England would be full and conclusive, and then the proposals of the Government would be laid fully before the House. He claimed that the ar- / , rangement entered into in 1909 had v not been carried out by the Admiralty. New Zealand had carried out her part, and it was because we had •been left without, our proper share of protection that the new negotiations had been entered into with the 'Admiralty by the Government." 'New 'Zealand was not going in for a programme of sljip-bu'ilding; but he would never be satisfied until he saw in the Pacific a British fleet strong enough to protect our coasts ancf trade routes against any possible combination that might arise.