THE PACIFIC UNITS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 618, 22 September 1909, Page 7

THE PACIFIC UNITS.

AUSTRALIAN SCHEME. CO-OPERATION WITH NEW ZEALAND. DETAILS OF COST.: IB* Tcleßrapli.-l'rcsa iiinoclalfan.-OoDjrlsliU (Rec. September 22, 0.50 a.m.) Melbourne, September 21. In the House of Representatives, Minister for Defence, Mr. Joseph Cook; introduced tho Defence Bill, to give effoot to tho-new naval arrangements. arrived. at by tho Imperial Defence Conference. The Bill was read a first time. •''..• :.The Opposition (Labour) objected to taking the second reading.. The clositre was applied, and .tho second reading debate was proceeded with, several members of the Opposition leaving the Chamber. \ : Mr. Cook, in explaining the Bill, said, that Australia had grown to manhood, and it was time- that she looked the question of defence fairiy in the face, \\'e had to' keep up 1 the ideal of a White Australia, and he. questioned if the country'ought to. depend on Britain to enforce an ideal which did not appeal much to the pcoplo in Britain. • Then, regarding the forces guarding the Pacific, we were absolutely depending on the treaty with Japan for the preservation of the peace and of our Pacific Islands: On our preparations"for the future wo must keep tho safety of the Empire in view. The Government- accopted the view that a fuller 1 Imperial partnership, was an . indispensable condition of Empire defence; . Ho'explained that the new naval scheme provided a- cruiser of tho.lndefatigable (improved Indomitable) type, three armoured cruisers.of tho Bristol class,, six destroyers of tho improved Itiver class, and three submarines. The. total cost was estimated'at £3,750,000, and the annual cost of upkeep at £750,000.. The Imperial Government for somo time would pay .quarter, of the annual upkeep. .:"■ ,;■ ..'■'; -■ V ■■' ;'■■ .• - '.. ; , ■■' The controlling of the Western Pacific would be undertaken by the Australian unit .in conjunction.with the New, Zealand section of the.China unit. •■' - . ' TONNAGES/AND COST: A COMPARISON. [ Jir. Copk-receutly made an interosting.com parisori between the present naval.scheme and the. Australian :flotilla project, of- the, late Fisher 'Government. 1 ., Ho sarcastically -remarked:— Y. ■ . . : . ... ■ "There is no more difference between the two schemes than . between an' infant and an adult.. To compare a ship of 17,250 tons with ono'of 860 tons,is ridiculous.. The cables show that this is to bo our navy,—l armoured cruiser (improved Indomitable), 17,250 tons; 3 cruisers (Bqstol c1a55),,4600 tons each, 14,000 tons;'G destroyers (River class), 700 tons, 4200 'tonsj;3 submarines (C,class),'3l3 tons; 939 tons, total tonnage, 86,789. ■• . .'•■■■ . : •'. "The Fisher 6chome, ns outlined at Gympie and by Sonatbr Pearce, ocean destroy •ers,-860 tons each, 34-10 tons; . .19- destroyers !(River-class). 700.tons each, 13,800 tons;' J armed vessel, 2000 tons; total tonnage, , lß,74o .. ' '- -"The capital cost compares,, rongliljy as >fol>.| :lowsi—Our sohemo, say, £3,750,000;: the .Fisher •scheme, .£2,264,000. .'■ '-~-• : -'.:.>': '. ""Numbers l of oiEcers'and moni—Onr scheme, 2271; Fisher scheme, ,1072; '■■■' ■■/■■'-..:.■■ -. -| ' "Cost of maintenance:—Our-scheme begins at • ab0ut..£750,000, and probably eventuallyreachcy ,£1,000,000;■ Fisher scheme, .£328,000. ■•• V ; ~ "If to build a ship of 17,250 tons is the samV as one of 800 tons, our scfiemeis the saniß as jthoirs.,- .Perhaps your, readers will perceive the difference, although apparently these gentlu ;nien do not. , - '■•:. : ■■■■:■■■ .-•■ : .■..■••'., I "Another important'difference'is the idifforenco of aim and/purp'ose. ' Thoir boats 'were to boused solely for. the. defence of.the coasts ,of i Australia. -Ours ■.are,- in -conjunction with' two 'other.unUs,'.to.constitute tho Pacifio Fleet. The only point of similarity is' the six destroyers." '