NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 5 December 1913, Page 3

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.

THE SECOND READING. PROPOSALS OUTLINED BY MINISTER. CRITICISM BY SIR JOSEPH WARD. (2?y —l?Tt.n A iiociotion.) Wellington, Wednesday, j In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the Hon. James Allen moved the second reading of the Naval Defence Bill. On 6 of the proposals in tho Bill was, he said, to alter the method of disposal of the £IOO,OOO voted annually. It was also proposed to make other alterations in the method of the defence of the country. The Bill proposed to set up a New Zealand naval force that was the provision of our own personnel, under our own administration. At the 1911 Imperial Conference, Mr Asquvtn had said that just as centralisation had been found absurd, so would disintegration he found to be impossible. Each of us are content to remain masters of our own house, both at Home and in the dominions. That was the lifeblood of our policy. Whatever it was. decided to do, the Mother Country would assist in every way possible. The present proposal 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,OOO. They proposed to carry out the Admiralty's directions concerning the enlargement of the doclc at Auckland for the accommodation of Imperial ships. Continuing, Mr Allen said that in 1909 it was recognised that a fighting fleet should be created in the Pacific, with squadrons in the China, \ East Indian and Australian seas.. :4i. was, therefore, an error to-J suppose that the only . strategical question considered at that time was the fighting fleet in tlie North Sea. Speaking of Canada's position in relation to naval defence, he said her undoubted duty was.±omake 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 Seas. So far as her Pacific shores were concerned, he hoped 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 was concerned,; he claimed that the present proposals were much the same as those made by Sir • Joseph Wiard in 1909 with the Right Hon. Reginald MqKenna. Those proposals were sound strategically, but they had not been carried out, arid he asked New Zealanders whether they were satisfied with things a* they are. If, for instance, we wanted a coaling station between here and Panama, we could not get it if it was : goitlg to create complications with other countries. That, and the position of the New Hebrides, 'was not satisfactory. It was therefore clear that the scheme agreed upon in 1909 had been abandoned by the Admiralty, the first actual step in its nonfulfilment being the diversion of the battleship New Zealand to the North Sea. He had hoped the .balance of the agreement might still have been (carried outbut apparently the Admiralty had. not that intention, alleging'that submarines and destroyers were not suitable for New Zealand waters. He did not agree with that opinion; but that was only part of the 1909 agreement not carried out. He deprecated our dependence on alliances with other countries, and, proceeding, said our first duty "was to perfect our land defence The Admiralty were satisfied with our "harbour batteries, but they required more modern six-inch guns. No large docking accommodation was required in New Zealand, nor was a local defence flotilla necessary. .From an Admiralty jJoint of view. Therfo was need for some protection fqr our commerce. This' should be by. light cruisers, heavy fighting ships not being advisable. Dealing with the disadvantages of t&e subsidy policy, he said members did not get an opportunity of ■discussing, tho disposal of the money every year. The Government proposed that they should ,do so in dealing with the Bill itself. He drew attention to' the provision for the transfer to the British Government of naval forces in times of hostilities. For all essential purposes the men were under xHe control of the H6me Government. It wasi our business to work in with Australia as far as possible, although we ; were separated entirely. The pay -would be the same here as 'in. Australia. The training would be tlie same, ana tnat would, so far as possible, be the same as' under the Admiralty. New Zealand men may be transferred to China or oEfter stations for training or service. New. Zealand should" recognise the necessity for, control by the British Admiralty, as it.was necessary -to preserve one control. He did not think New Zealand, Australia, Africa and Canada should leave everything m future to the sole control of the Admiralty. They should take steps to formulate some controlling authority, comprisihf representatives from tho dominions. The future of this country was. in the" hands of future Parliament.*. All the country was committed_to was £IOO,OOO up to Se 1913. Their imports were £23,000,000 and IftSir exports £24,000,000. It was time that our trade was effecientiy protected. He advocated the taking of a more direct interest in the affairs of State by both young and old New Zealanders. | THE PROPOSALS CRITICISED. Sir Joseph Ward said some of the proposals were of a most dangerous 'i character. If the Minister resided in I a country of 20,000,000 people, he could understand him making such proposals. We were but a country of one million people, and with a revenue of eleven or twelve millions annually. If Mr Allen's proposals were, as he said, simply the paying for our own training-ship comple*.nent, why did he suggest that one ship could protect our ocean routes ? When Mr Allen was in Australia, the Australian Government believed Ise>\ Zealand was gping to co-operate in i the matter of a New Zealand fleet • with, Australia. i The Hon." J. Allen: 1 have never 1 gone away from New Zealand controll Sir Joseph Ward, continuing, said matters should be looked at from an ' Empire point' of view, and not mere- ) ly from a Dominion point of view. He thought the Minister should have

I given tho fullest coniidence to the House, both with regard to tho interview ho had ha-d with Australian naval authorities and tho Admiralty. Horegrotted that this had not been done. After his interviews with the Australian authorities and the Admiralty Mr Allen -ad expressed himself in favour of local navies. Lord ■Tweedmouth and the "First Lord of the Admiralty had declared for one navy. If Mr Allen allowed tho inference £o K° forth that tho Admiralty had pressed a separate navy on Km, then tho First Lord of'the Admiralty must be accused of having two policies. He asked who was responsible for the complete reversal of the agreement signed by him and by the Admiralty. He knew that there was never a suspicion of anything being done by the Admiralty without the acquiescence of the other party. After tho agreement was arrived at, tße Dreadnought was given fo the Admiralty unconditionally. They had no right ts follow that up and ■say what should be done with the ship. Because ft was not done, they said that an agreement was broken. Mr Allen must know that changes were necessary everywhere in conformity with the changes of other countries. Mr Allen must have | had some written or oral understand-' I irig with the Admiralty. The whole agreement entered into could not disappear aad a nuica worse arrangeW6nt J>e entered into without something being in writing about the matter. What he had done for New Zealand while'at Home had been endorsed by the highest men in the Admiralty, and wa<s diametrically opposed to the policy of Australia-, though he agreed that they had their, , own destiny fco work out. . Did Mr Allen expect him to believe that they were to work as a separate entity, and- yet pay the same rates as Australia and adopt the same regulations as Australia ? Admiral Henderson had computed that the Australian navy personnel would cost £2,226,000 yearly, an# the personnel and maitenance £3,452,600, plus one million annually for interest. Ships such as they proposed getting would cost £204,000 per year. Sir Massey: Oh, Nol 'Sir Joseph Ward contended that the Minister did not know the' cost of . the maintenance of a Bristol costing £400,000. It would post £150,000. i 'iSlr Allen: Oh, no!

' .Sir Joseph Ward: Well, how many men are you goiing to put on her? What are you training your men for? Mr Allen: The British Navy. Sir Joseph Ward: A Bristol coulddo that!

; Mr Allien: They're not suitable. > ; Sir Joseph Ward, continuing, said they " were committing themselves to fin unknown amount. The Bill gave power to whatever Government was in power to raise any forces it 1 thought fit. Irrespective of the statement tJiat the amount to be allocated. (£IOO,OOO yearly) would appear on the estimates every year, Australia's naval estimate last year was £2,430,257, an increase of £900,--000 in three years. Australia's defence burden to-day was £3,089;107 for military and £5,400,933 for naval defence, a total, of £8,490,140. Our local navy would be £480,000, making a total for-defence, with the land : forces, of £986,047, which would* increase annually. In' five years it would cost another £500,000. The Bariama Canal had given a highway to some of the greatest nations of the, " world-, find to l;;"'- of Ai'^'al»a or'Ne>v % Ze&land'being able to defend the Pacifio was like putting a ' bucket water in the* ocean and expecting it to make art, appreciable 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 or a training ship? Where would be be? He preferred further assistance being given to the Imperial fleet, and for that reason he must disagree with the Minister df Defence. -

' THE PREMIER REPLIES. The Hon. W. F. Massey traced the history of .New Zealand's contributions since tlie time when it was but £20,000 annually.' Recently the Australian Squadron had been withdrawn, so that at the moment there *ras no protection for New Zealand excepting two light cruisers. The Government w>uld not have been doling its duty if it had: expressed-it-self as satisfied with the two ships* (th« Psyche and the Pyrawais) offered by the Imperial authorities. ; He challenged ;irny member to look at the Bill and sjjo if there was provision of one penny outside the £120,00 Q. He traversed Sir Joseph Ward's figures with regard to the expense of a Bristol cruiser;. The official figures were: Building, £377,000; maintenance, £19,300; interest, £25,000; wages, £26,800; an annual outlay of £72/000. "Early this year they had offered the Imperial Gofemrnent a further £50,000 a year if two Bristols were sent out here, as originally ar- ; ranged. "Regarding the proposals in general, he said they were ir.aking a start ota a New Zealand N«tvy,' and to-day's proposals would be something to count on. If the Empire waa to be held together, and . "he thought it would be it would be by sentiment, ties of kinship, pride of rncx\ and tba confidence of the people in 'the "Empire itself. Tliat was tire thing to look forward to.

OTHER SPEAKERS. . Me Gr. W. R-ussel contended that the Dominion could not bear the enoapmjus, expenui of a local navy. The tendency of the Bill would be to throw ®s into the arms of Australia. The Hrtn. W. H. Herries argued that the 811 was necessary, because there had been a. change of policy on the■•.part of the Admiralty. "If the agreement of 1909 had been, carried out, tlio Government would have wel•comed it; but failing that, the Government had to do the best it could ti*. supply the want. Mr T. M. Wilford declared that- the danger of the Bill was not what it said, but what it imnlied. He would rather vote £1.40,001) iuii'7 'ilv wards the Imperial Navy than attempt the formation of u local navy. The Hon. F. M. B. Fi«her Contended that the policy df the Admiralty was that the Dominions should look after the outposts flf the Empire, while the Old Country looked after the heart of tliing,s at Htfine. That was the policy of the Bill, which contained the germ of the national policy. After further debate the.Bill w.'i.s lead'a. second time by 31 votes to 21 and .subsequently passed its final jstages.