DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Evening Star, Issue 18048, 16 August 1922, Page 5

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

NAVAL CONTRIBUTION ASSESSED.

HALF-MILLION FORECASTED

In the course of his Budget address to the House last evening Mr Massey touched on Defence thus: The expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund for defence, including ordnance services and the maintenance and training of Die Territorial Force, during the financial year ender March 51, 1922, amounted to £415,451, or £5,353 less than the amount appropriated. Tho estimated expenditure for the current year was £517,616, including an economy of £50,000 per annum effected by the execution of a new contract for the supply of small-arms airnnunition. The net expenditure fr6m vote War Expenses ” for the past year was £914,227. Tins included £526,000 for the medical treatment of returned soldiers for war disabilities, £170,000 for tvanspuk’t claims, £46,000 war gratuities, and £406,112 for post-war equipment to replace equipment taken from Now Zealand with the Expeditionary Force—that was, after allowing for a net credit of £48,756 on account of item “Repatriation.” The estimated not expenditure for the current year was £799,252, in which provision was made to meet liability to the Imperial Ministry of Shipping for transport charges, £475,000. At 3larch 31 last the cash and investments held by the War Expenses Account amounted to £5,710,439, representing unexpended loan balances and various recoveries on account of capital expenditure, including recoupment from the sale of surplus stores. Against this was the estimated liability referred to above, including the amount due to the Imperial Government. whoso final accounts had not yet been receive!. These accumulations properly belonged to capital account, and should be applied to the reduction of the war debt. It was proposed, therefore, to transfer £3,000,000 to Loans Redemption Account, the ultimate result of which would be to effect a clear annual saving of £30,000 for sinking fund payments alone, giving tho power to remit subsequently as much taxation as was represented by that amount. The expenditure on naval defence for the financial year amounted to £418,665, under tho following headings :—Permanent charges: Naval Defence Act, 1909 (H.M.S. New Zealand), £115,148; annual appropriation, £503,517. The capital sum owing on account of H.M.S. New Zealand was £1,795,166, against which accrued sinking funds amounting to £951,406 were held by the Public Trustee, to whom 4 per cent, per annum on the capital sum was paid for this purpose. Mr Massey continued: “The time has arrived when the contributions of the dominions, whatever form they may take, should be placed on a more satisfactory and business-like basis. If it was certain that contributions would be forthcoming from Germany on account of the enormous expenditure incurred by British countries during tho war, I would suggest that the cost of new warships should be a first charge on such payments; but, in any case, the dominions cannot allow such a very large proportion of the total cost of the naval defence of the Empire to bo carried by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. To do so w r ould be grossly unfair and unpatriotic. The countries of tho Empire should contribute to the defence of the Empire, naval defence particularly, in proportion to their financial ability. The cost of the Chatham, with the training ship, will be approximately £500,000 per annum. This sum counts as a contribution. The payments wo are now making on account of H.M.S. New Zealand amount to about £IOO,OOO per annum, and if our finances will permit in the next financial year wo should make our contribution for naval defence, including the items I "have mentioned, up to £500,000 per annum. This may seem small, but it will, if agreed to, be a move in the right direction and an improvement on the present position; and it can he improved upon as time goes on and as our financial conditions permit.”