Evening Post MONDAY, MAY 18, 1914. NAVAL CO-OPERATION WITH AUSTKALIA

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 116, 18 May 1914, Page 6

Evening Post MONDAY, MAY 18, 1914.

NAVAL CO-OPERATION WITH AUSTKALIA

Co-operation with — not control by — the Australian unit is the naval objective of the New Zealand Minister for Defence. Last session Mr. Allen's supposed attitude towards the Commonwealth met with some criticism. It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that, in effect, New Zealand would be the tail of the dog, and would not wag itself, but would be wagged. Referring to the relative positions of New Zealand and the Commonwealth in naval matters, Sir Joseph Ward said that "if the idea of the Minister 6f Defence as to their working together was to be put into effect, the New Zealand local navy would have to be subordinate to tho Australian section, beyond all question. The greater must control the lesser." On this point Mr. Allen interjected • "I have never got away from New Zealand control." In his last statement on the subject, published on Saturday, the Minister maintains this position. Going more into t detail, he states that he has never aim,ed at a joiirt unit to be provided by Australia and New Zealand. That has never been in his mind, nor, he believes, in Australia's. , "The idea in both countries" is to provide units that will go to form a fleet. There is, of course, a big difference between a joint unit (which may signify absorption, and control) and separate units co-operating in one fleet organisation. A unit is a distinct, transferable factor, with a homogeneity and individuality of its own, whereas individual ships in a unit become merged. To quote again from Mr. Allen : "The Dominions should provide and maintain their particular units of one great Imperial fleet." Though he does not suggest an Australasian board of control, he regards one con ti oiling authority, Imperial in scope, as being essential, and "in time to come the Dominions must all be granted representation upon the controlling authority." This objective of a single Imperial control, on a representative basis, raises the question: What is the position to-day? To what degree, or in what malmer, do the naval forces of Canada and Australia, and New Zealand come under the Imperial Government in war-time? By the Canadian, law, the Governor-in-Council (that is, generally speaking, the Government) "in case of an emergency . . . may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal Navy," the ' naval service of Canada. It .is further provided that, if Parliament is not sitting when the Gov-ernor-in-Counoil rso acte, Parliament must be summoned 1 within fifteen days; by which time the ships would probably be under- Vay, and Parliament, if disposed to take the opposite course, would have to reverse an accomplished fact, lv Australia also the power of placing the (ships at> the disposal of His Majesty i« in the discretion of the Governor-mr Council, but there is nothing in the Act about summoning Parliament. In New Zealand, in the event of war, the ship* at once go from the local to the Imperial command; they "paa» automatically." Thus it will be seen that this Dominion has come nearest to tho ideal of Admiralty control in war-time; not even the discretion of the Governor-in-Council stands in the way. Mr. Allen TemaTkft that "the Australian law is not specific on this point, as is the law in New Zealand, which makes the transfeT of control to the Admiralty, in the event of war, purely automatic, and not a matter for Ministers to decide. I still hope that the Commonwealth will bring their law into lino with us on this point." If the Australians do this, the offect, the Ministe? infers, will be to greatly facilitate co operation between the Mother Country, the Commonwealth, and New Zealand in lortnlng an Imperial fleet. Otherwise, the Imperial Government will feel that it is ihofc backed to the full ex> tent desirable to strengthen ite, hand, with regard not only to war but bo the diplomacy that wins more than war »nd that averts war. ' Behind Mr. Allen's speech is it suggestion of big things afoot. Co-opera-tion between the Commonwealth and the Dominion in naval and military affairs is cwftaialy desirable—* co>og«ia*io,axthat

will not undermi.no independence. If tho placing of tho Australian law on a level with ours is a necessary preliminary to such a. relationship, shared in by tho Mother Country, then it is to bo hoped that tho Federal Parliament will Bee its way to make the necessary amendment, Defence in the Commonwealth is not really a party question, and probably sentiment, in each and every State fay ours immediate transference of the ship* to the Imperial control in time of war. A strong point is the' absolute identity of Australian and New Zealand mterentft in the Pacific; there is no rivalry except a healthy competition in trade. "This country," says Mr. f Allen, "could not allow Australia to bo attacked without going to her assistance, any more than Australia could stand aloof if New Zealand were attacked." But ib is not only in wax-time that an obligation ariseb. The main purpose of warehipa is to prevent war; and so long as Australia maintains a strong unit in these watens— while we have only the Pyramus and the Psyche— she is protecting us as well as ourselves. That mto say, we ate under a' moral obligation to the Commonwealth, and this is a further argument for out ■effeotivie 'do-aperatiiyn in bearing the common burden in. the Pacific.