NAVAL POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 259, 30 October 1913, Page 5

NAVAL POLICY.

NEW ZEALAND'S SCHEME. BRITISH PRESS VIEWS. ADMIRALTY BLAMED. SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE. COST Or SHALL NAVIES. (By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright.) LONDON, October 20. New Zealand's courage and enterprise in naval matters is praised by the "Daily Telegraph" to-day. The papers, however, deplore, on the highest ground, that the revenue and men which could be more profitably applied to internal development should be thus diverted. It blames the Imperial Government's laissez faire policy for New Zealand's plunge into the vortex of armaments.

"Neither Australia nor New Zealand can afford the luxuries of navies in view of their immense liabilities to meet the development of their territories.

"Both are under the shadow of a mighty fleet, giving security against any possible enemy. They may spend their uttermost, and yet do little to get relatively more security in the Pacific, and do nothing to cemcut the strength of the Empire or assist in the Motherland's burdens. Small navies are always costly, and usually inefficient."'

The "Morning Post" says Britain cannot quarrel with the Antipodes for launching themselves on Pacific defence, especially as we failed to keep our pledge to patrol their coasts. The new policy is the right one for the Antipodean Dominion, teaching the realities of life and giving strength and self-reliance.

The "Times' , says New Zealand's past record is an earnest of the spirit with which she addresses herself to her new work. While the creation of local flotillas cannot completely provide naval security, they must be an essential part of an adequate system of naval defence.

The "Times" welcomes a New Zealand navy as stimulating her people to give of their own brain and sinew in maintaining intact the supremacy of the Empire on the seas.

OVERSEAS BRITAIN.

VOICE IN EMPIRE AFFAIRS. (Received 9.15 ajn.) LONDON, October 29. Mr T. Mackenzie (High Commissioner for New Zealand), in an interview, said that New Zealand's policy would have the effect of impressing upon tbe Imperial authorities the necessity for meeting the widely-felt wishes by Britons overseas for a more effective voice in Imperial affairs. Representation on the Defence Committee was not tbe final solution, but was an important step forward.

ACCLAIMED IN CANADA

BT THE T.TBKRATi PRESS. SUBSIDY SYSTEM CONDEMNED. OTTAWA. October 29. The Liberal Press acclaim New Zealand's naval policy, declaring that an opportunity is now give.n Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to combine for the defence of the Pacific.

The Laurier policy of two Canadian fleets, one in the Atlantic and the other in the Pacific, will enable Canada to unite with the Mother Country to defend the Atlantic and also unite with Australia and New Zealand to defend the Pacific.

Mr Massey's abandonment of subsidies to the Royal Navy is taken as an indication that Canada ought never to begin such a system.

Sir W. T.aurier. in an election speech yesterday, declared that the Borden naval policy was conceived in iniquity and mendacity and had ended in discomfort. Canada was becoming a nat£m. and its people ought to be prepared to relieve Britain of the necessity of defending the Canadians.

A TENTATrVE PLAN,

AUSTRALIAN CO-OPERATION. (Received 9.40 a.m.) SYDNEY, this day. The "Daily Telegraph" says that the naval defence policy propounded by the New Zealand Government has a suggestion of tentativeness. A question that suggests itself is whether New Zealand can hope to maintain a separate navy of itfl own, instead of co-operating with Australia, The maintenance of two distinct fleets would involve unnecessary expense and effort, and it was doubtful whether New Zearand would find itself any better able, in the calculable future, to act alone than now. Besides the countries were so close together, as well as under one flag; New Zealand, in fact, being very mucli nearer Eastern Australia than Westralia is.

Regarding control. New Zealand opinion differs from that which officially prevailed here when the Australian policy was formulated, and differs very conimendably in the marked preference for one Imperial control, but Australia was not irrevocably pledged in that respect, and if a mutual arrangement were possible otherwise, no doubt it could be brought about p.nd the two could combine for Pacific defence.