Evening Post TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1909. THE DREADNOUGHT DEBATE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 140, 15 June 1909, Page 6

Evening Post TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1909. THE DREADNOUGHT DEBATE.

The debate on the Dreadnought offer in the House of Eepresentatives yesterday v. as disappointing, because it was hardly a debate at all. Knowing that there would be no appreciable opposition, the .premier found it difficult to get steam up in his opening speech, and saved himself from the necessity of speaking at any length by producing the official report of what he had said at the informal conference of members a week before. This report, being laid on the table, was taken as read, and served as a substitute for any strenuous eloquence yesterday. The result was economical of time, bjit otherwise unfortunate. When the Premier delivered his defence of the action of the Government in the matter last week, its-effect was marred by its irrelevance to the questions with which the caucus had to deal. Though our Government's offer of a Dreadnought ( to the Admiralty was one of the causes which led to the summoning of the Defence Conference, the policy of that offer was an entirely different issue from the question whether the Premier should represent us al the conference or whether Parliament should be prorogued in order to allow him to do so. At the caucus Sir Joseph Ward found it easier to talk about the Dreadnought than to justify his deplorable decision to suspend the business of Parliament while he is away for the conference ; yesterday, when the Dreadnought was the sole issue, h& craved leave to refer to what, at the time of their delivery, were the irrelevancies of his previous speech. It cannot, however, be said that the loss to yesterday's debate was a very serious one. The Houso did not consider that any defence of the offer was needed, and the Premier's motion, "That this House confirms the offer of assistance to tho Imperial Navy in the terms conveyed to his Majesty's Homo Government in the despatch of 22nd March last," was carried unanimously. Had Mr. T. E. Taylor been present, there would at least have been one fiery f-peech against the motion and one voice to call for a division. The constitutional aspect of the Government's action caused mot'o dwelling* pf ho^t, nnd it wan on this account that the Premier's reeolu.

ga— — p— - -'—come——— *ion, which originally expressed approval of "the action of the Government in its offer of assistance to the Imperial Navy," .was amended to the form above quoted. It is highly satisfactory that on the main point the House of Representatives has shown an absolutely solid front, but we cannot see that those members who strongly resented the manner in which the anthority of Parliament was ignored in the matter were justified in making nothing more than verbal protests against it. The amendment of the Premier's resolution certainly saved these critics from a direct affirmation of what they justly regarded as an unconstitutional proceeding on the part of the Government, but this phase of the matter was surely of sufficient importance to demand the recording of their protest by means of a separate motion. The only amendment of which Mr. Massey spoke was one declaring that as the volunteer system had proved inefficient it should be superseded by some system of national training. The coun-* try should be thankful to Mr. Massey for his persistent advocacy of this sorely needed reform, but it is just as well that he did not endeavour to tack it on to a motion which laised a quite distinct issue. The honours of the debate certainly rested with the Opposition. Mr. Massey's earnest plea for the improvement of local defences, Mr. Herries's suggestion of an Imperial Council of Defence and his insistence on the need for " policing our own seas," and Air. James Allen's argument for an Australasian squadron under local control, showed a broader outlook than anything that was contributed from the other side of the House. If .the Premier was justified in thinking it unnecessary to elaborate his opening speech, he might at> least have touched as high a level as these speakers in his reply, but he proved unequal to the task. He scouted the idea of policing our own seas with a local navy on the score of cost, and was apparently unable to conceive a time when the southern Pacific may need other defenders than British ironclads in the North Sea. The military training of all our young men would also cost money, and therefore Sir Joseph Ward will have none of it. To spend £200,000 a year on a defence system that is practically useless is, in his estimation, soundei economy than to spend fifty or a hundred per cent, more on a system that would give us all the security that is needed to supplement the first line of defence — the Navy. Mr. Herdman's request for information as to the line which the Premier proposes to take at the Naval Defence Conference was also ignored by the Premier. It is utterly impossible that the present system, under which we contribute an inadequate £100,000 a year by way of naval subsidy and an occasional Dreadnought, shall continue indefinitely. The principal object of the conference is to put the whole business on a really businesslike basis ; yet the Premier has not given us the faintost idea of what attitude he intends to adopt. When he goes Home, he will, he says, " gain from the authorities in the Old Country the information that was necessary on defence questions." The need seems to exist and even the best-informed of men would profit greatly by the chances that will be afforded him at the conference. But, seeing that he goes not merely as a student and a pupil but as the responsible leader of a self-governing State, which has recently distinguished itself by its patriotism, he should surely tell its Parliament a little more of what his intentions are. Last night he missed his chance of so doing, but he can easily make another before he goes.