NAVAL DEFENCE VOTE

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 17 November 1932, Page 4

NAVAL DEFENCE VOTE

NEW ZEALAND CONTRIBUTION LOW COMPARATIVE COST REPLY TO' LABOUR PROTEST CROSS FIRE IN HOUSE! (By Tfilegiv-rb—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 16. The naval defence vote in the Estimates provoked an exchange on the subject of disarmament in the House of Representatives to-day. The Rev. .O. L. Carr (Lab., Timaru) pointed out that the estimate was £400,800, compared with £394,045 last year. He asked whether this 1 was in accordance with the declaration on the subject of disarmament. He moved that tlie vote be reduced to an amount equal to that of last year. He regretted that public opinion was not yet educated to the extent that it wa-s possible to wipe out the naval defence vote altogether.. . -

The R,t. Hon. J. G. Coates said...Mr Carr’s motion was utterly unjust,' and he hoped it would, be withdrawn. When it was realised that the British 'taxpayer had. to contribute something; approximating 30s per head for naval defence while the New Zealand taxpayer contributed only seven .or eight shillings it would be seen that the Dominion was doing little enough towards the protection of its trade routes. No nation had done more than Britain to carry out the declaration that it was necessary to reduce expenditure on naval defence.

Mr Coates pointed out that the increase in the vote this year was purely lor the purpose of maintaining the existing vessels.. He felt sure there were many members of the Labour Party who wished to carry out the undertaking with Britain with respect to the maintenance of naval equipment.

PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION

The Hon. J. G. Cobbe declared there had been a progressive reduction in New Zealand’s naval vote since 1929. He explained that there was an in-crease-of only £6OOO this year compared with last year’s vote, whereas credits in aid totalling £51,000 had been deducted from last year’s estimate while only £17,000 had been available this year. The sale of a large quantity of' oil to Australia last year had enabled the credits in aid to reach the sum of £51,000. Mr W. A. Veitch (00., Wanganui) said that if Mr Carr’s wish that the vote be wiped out altogether were carried into effect New Zealand would reach. a, position where it would he possible for half a dozen Chinese in a canoe to sail up the YVellington harbour and take possession of the city. He had no doubt they would be met at the wharf by the member for Timaru with a typewriter. The member for Timaru would then call upon some of his friends to pass a. resolution, whereupon the enemy would retire and the country would again be safe. Mr J. Ha.rgest (Co., Invercargill) drew attention ‘to the expenditure .of £32,000 on the Philomel. He considered this vessel must be obsolete, and lie suggested she might well be scrapped and the recruits could receive their training- on the Dunedin and Diomede. I- Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) asked why it was not possible for New Zealand to reduce the expenditure on naval defence. Britain had substantially reduced her naval expenditure and so had every other Dominion. Furthermore, tlie National Expenditure Commission had recommended a- reduction. .Mr Hargest had pointed out- that money was being spent on an obsolete ship; why should money be spent on something which would not be a means of defence at all? He favoured an increased subsidy to the British Nla-vy in preference to the “cornic opera, stuff we are engaging in.” MOTION NOT PRESSED.

Mr Carr said he had not. advocated total elimination o,f the naval vote under present conditions. He had regretted that world conditions were not such as to enable this course to be adopted. He would be. prepared to withdraw his motion if he had the Minister’s assurance that the votes were being progressively reduced. The Leader of the Opposition, Air H. E, Holland, said lie felt that all members of the House would welcome the time when world conditions would render it possible to regard the army and navy as things of the past. He criticised the expenditure on cruisers when it -must be recognised that the only effective means of defence rested with aeroplanes. Mr Carr did not press his motion, which was lost on the voices.

Replying to Mr H. M. Rush worth, Mr Cobbe said the navy did not specialise in aerial training, but it had the help of one Fairey ’plane at Auckland, which was associated with the warships in the manoeuvres, and it was intended to purchase, iv second Fairey machine. Mr Holland asked "the- Minister whether his attention had been drawn to a. recent speech by a. naval officer on political subjects. He said he did not desire to take away any right a naval officer might have an this respect, but he desired tot know whether naval ratings had the same right. Mr Cbbbe. said he had not read the speech. He had never heard of naval ratings being mixed up in political gatherings, and he did not think they were greatly interested. Mr Holland: But have they the same rights as the officers. Mr Cobbe: The general rule of the services is to avoid "politics. -