BULLETS TO SPARE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 41, 16 August 1930, Page 10

BULLETS TO SPARE

AMMUNITION CONTRACT

MINISTER GIVES DETAILS

FIFTEEN-YEAR TEEM

Details of an ammunition contract made by a previous Government W3re given to the House of Representative* by the Minister of Defence (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe), in moving the second reading of the Defence (Temporary) Amendment Bill yesterday.

He remarked that it was not the practice of the military authorities/ tn' make public the details of l military, equipment, but he could give some indication of the ammunition supplies;held by the Defence Department by telling members that if the 5000 or 6000urie.mployed in the country were each gives, a rifle and 100 rounds of ammuhitioa daily they would not be finished shooting until well on in the summer. . '

The Leader of the Opposition (th« Bight Hon. J.- G.. Coates): .''ls: that how you propose to deal with it?" -

Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier):'. "Will the Minister work out th» sum?" .

Mr. Cobbe said they had inherited a most extraordinary contract for a continuous supply of ammunition. It was to last for 15 years, of which five and a-half years had expired. . There was a clause under which the. Crown could take over the works, stock, etc., at valuation. The contract -provided for the supply of 3,250,000 cartridges per- year, with special provision for war emergencies. The first, contract was made in 1915, when 10,000,000 per year were stipulated. Owing' .t» breaches in the contract, the Government was able to get a reduction to 6,000,000 rounds per year-in 1922. It was found in 1924 that the quantity, was still far in excess of the requirements, and, the Government endeavoured to get the contract reduced. A; fresh agreement in December, 1924, reduced the annual supply to the present figure of 3J millions. The company had: asked, for the payment of £3000: for the,.term of the contract free of income • tax as compensation. It was decided, ■. however, to pay in addition to the price fixed in tlfe contract an extra £1 per thousand, and that in .the event -of the company not securing a renewal, of the, contract that the . Government should pay an additional- lumpsum of £15,000. In addition to the extra £1 per thousand the company got. an: addition of 7\ per cent, of the prices-fixed. This, was added to cover what the company claimed to be the increased cost of manufacturing the smaller .quantity. ■.."■•. "CANNOT BE DEPENDED." The Minister said that it •wajdiM-. cult to understand why opportunity had not been taken to cancel the 1915 contract. Instead the Government had entered into another eoni tract of 15 years to take amnranitios. enormously in excess of what-wai required. ' .

This unfortunate contract of . 1915 seemed to have forced the Government into the contract of 1924, and it /was of a nature that no man, whatever hii military nature, could defend. Mr. F. Waite (Beform/ Clutha): suggested that it would be very difficult to estimate -what quantity of : ammunition would be required in future years, just as it was difficult in 1915, but it seemed that whenever the contract" had been renewed, it had always been at.* lower rate. . '.'. ~. , REFORM MINISTERS PART. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Eeform, Dunedin West) said that the way; in which the Minister had placed the position in respect to the small arms pontract before the House had mad* it appear that the previous Government had committed a grave mistake. As a matter of fact each contract that had been made had been laid on the- table of the House, and had been open -to criticism from members of the, House, the Press, and the public. ; The member for Napier had asked why tenders had not been called, but the reason for this was that there was only one company; manufacturing small arms in either Australia or New Zealand. The origT inal contract had been made in 1915 and renewed in 1923. He first came into touch with the position: in 1924, when he was temporarily holding the portfolio of Defence, and had been perusing the expenditure of the Department. He had found that the Department was embarrassed by an oversupply of small ammunition, and-had asked whether it was not' possible to sell the surplus to foreign Powers. Thii course, however, had been found, impossible, as it was against international law or something of that nature.'-Ha then went to Auckland arid opened up negotiations with the company, as the contract had still 12 years to,run. He had ascertained what ammunition would be required, and had pointed out to the company that, as there was some', opposition to the defence system,: the fact that the Department was buying a great deal more ammunition than it required might lead to the cancellation of any future contract without compensation. He suggested that 'the supplybe cut down by half, as he recognised that if the Government succeeded in gaining this request, a great saving would be made to the Department,-even if compensation were paid. A BIG SAVING. As the result of his negotiations, after making allbwauce for, the. increased price, Mr. Stewart said he had saved between £18,000 and $20,000 per year. Furthermore, the Government got only as much ammunition as it required, and, thirdly, it had the.right to buy the works at any. time. "> The supplies from America were .subject .to test and a premium. Altogether the annual bill for small arms ammunition had been reduced in one year from £52,000 to £34,000, and last. year only, £27,000 was spent in this direction. When the original contract had been made it had been difficult to gauge the requirements of the Territorial force, and the increase in the force with tha growing of 'the population • had been taken into account. He had considered that since the company had cut down. the supply by half some compensation was due to it, but again it had to b» emphasised that the revision of th.«i contract had been very profitable ■'.*• the Government. • •