NAVAL DEFENCE

Grey River Argus, 11 September 1939, Page 10

NAVAL DEFENCE

AUSTRALIA’S PROBLEM. BATTLESHIP CONTROVERSY. SYDNEY, August 19. The latest controversy between the Prime Minister Mr. R. G. Menzies, and Sir Earle ’ Page, leader of the Country Party, and close collaborator with the late Mr. J. A. Lyons, Mr. Menzie’s predecessor, concerns battleships —whether Australia should acquire none, one or two. Sir Earle began the brush by saying in a Sydney speech that Australia should immediately purchase two battleships from the United States—one to be stationed at Singapore and the other at Sydney. The cost., ne estimated, would be £20,000,000. He made the suggestion, apparently, to clear the way for an attack on the Menzies Government for reversals of decisions on defence made by the Ly-ons-Page Government.

Mr. Menzies replied: “Taking into account that a battleship involves a convoy of attendant vessels, a dock and special stores for ammunition, the cost of one battleship would be £20,000,000, and of two battleships £30,000,000. We have been categorically informed that no battleship could be delivered to us before 1943. In these circumstances my Government is no more prepared to hypothecate these vast sums for a relatively remote form of defence than was the Lyons-Page Government, which was not prepared to decide to order a Battleship or battleships.

PREMIER ACCUSED OF EASY OPTIMISM. “The conception of my Government of the defence problem apparently is much more urgent and realistic than the one entertained by Sir Earle Page. What we are looking for is defence in 1939, 1940 and 1941, and particularly during the next 12 months to two years, when the period of danger will be most acute. I doubt whether the suggestion that we should buy two battleships from the United States would be seriously regarded by the United States, which is laying out vast sums in an urgent development of its own defence, and is scarcely likely to be prepared suddenly to weaken that. “I am at a loss to understand Sir Earle’s suggestion that one of the new battleships should be based on the ‘new naval dock in Sydney,’ since, on our advice, that new naval deck in Sydney could not be contemplated before 1943.” In a rejoinder urging that Australia should explore the possibility with Britain and America of acquiring two American battleships already in service, Sir Earle accused Mr. Menzies of an easy optimism about international affairs, and said that if the purchase of the battleships could be arranged it would not he necessarj’ to delay it .until a dock in Sydney was completed. He also revealed that the Chief of the Australian Naval Staff had advised the Lyons-Page Government nine months ago that two battleships would give Australia “100 per cent, insurance.”

SIR EARLE PAGE REBUKED. Mr. Menzies thereupon rebuked Sir Earle for “giving publicity to discussions between the Federal Cabinet and the Chief of the General Staff.” “Every member of the Government attaches ‘fighting and psychological value’ to a battleship,” Mr. Menzies said, “but it is one thing to want a battleship and anothei’ to get. “The fact is, as Sir Earle well knows, that a battleship could not be obtained before 1943, and even then could be obtained only by substracting one from the then British total. The Government will accept responsibility for its own decisions, which have been made with full knowledge of the facts and a keen sense of responsibility. “The constant sniping from the leader of the Country Party is not after all a helpful contribution to the security of the country.”