NAVAL DEFENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 19 November 1932, Page 6

NAVAL DEFENCE

VOTE -DISCUSSED

LABOUR MEMBER CRITICISED

WTELLING TON, November. 16

The Naval Defence vote provoked an exchange of opinions on the subject of disarmament in the House to-night. Mr C. Carr (Lab., Timaru) pointed out that the estimate was £4OO,BCu, compared with £594,045 last year. He asked whether this was in accordance with the declaration on the .euhe.t, cl disarmament. He moved that the vote be reduced to an amount equal to that of last year. He regretted that public opinion had not yet been educated to the extent that it was possible to* wipe out t'he naval defence vote altogether.

“UTTERLY UNJUST.

The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said Mr Carr’s motion was utterly unjust and he hoped it would be withdrawn. (Then it was realised that the Brjti -h taxpayer had to contribute something approximating 30s a head for naval defence while the New Zealand taxpayer contributed only 7s or B s , it would be gcen that this Dominion was doing little enough towards -the protection qi its trade routes. No nation had done more than Great Britain to carry put the declaration, t-bat it was necessary reduce expenditure..on naval defence. Continuing, Mr Coates pointed out that the increase in the vote this year was purely for the purpose of maintaining the existing )vessels. He f e R fi ui’e that there were many .members of the Labour Party who washed to. carry out the. undertaking with Great Britain with respect to the maintenance of naval equipment. PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION.. . The Hon. J. G. Cobbe declared that there had been a progressive reduction in New Zealand’s naval vote since 1923 He explained that there was an increase, only of £6OOO thy, year compared wit! last, year’s vote, whereas credits .in aid totalling £51,000 have been deducted from last year's estimate, .whip only. £17,000 had been available thr year. The sale of a large quantity of oil to Australia last year had enabl ed credits in aid to reach the sum pi £51.000.

Mr W. A. Veitch (C., Wanganui’ said if, Mr Carr’s wish that the vo+ be wiped out altogether were carrier into effect we, would reach a pooitio: where it would be possible for half y dozen Chinese in a canoe to sail u[ Wellington harbour and take posses sion of the city. He had n° doub that they would be met at he whar. by the member for Timaru with « typewriter. Tb e member for Timan would then call upon some of hi friends to pass a resolution, whereupo l the enemy would retire and the couii try wou’.u -again be safe. expenditure on old ships. Mr J. Hargest (C., Invercargill) drev attention to the 'expenditure of £32,00. ou the Philomel. ,He considered tha ■ this vessel must be obsolete, and h suggested that she might well b scrapped and the recruits could re ceive their tram mg in the (Dunadii and Diomede. Mr-H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christ church East) asked why it was not pos sifele for New Zealand to , reduce he. expenditure on naval defence. I'm Mother Country had substantially re duced her naval expenditure, and had every other Dominion. Further more, the Rational Expenditure Cpm mission had recommended a reduction Mr Hargeist had pointed out, t.hai money was being spent o.u an obsolete ship. \M7y should money be spent o, something which would pot be ,a mean: of defence a fc all? He favoured an increased subsidy to the British Nav, in preference to the “comic oper; stuff we are engaging in..l Mr Carr s aid he had not advocate! the total elimination of the naval vot< under present conditions. H e had re getted that world conditions were no such as to enable this course ,to b adopted. He would be prepared to withdraw his motion if he had the Minister’s .assurance tlhat the votes were being progressively reduced. The Leader of the Opposition (Mi H. E. Holland) said he fe.lt sure tha all -members of the House would wel aom© the time wheu world conditions would render it possible to regard th Army and Navy as things of the past He criticised the expenditure on embers when it must be recognised th only effective means of defence restec with aeroplanes. Mr Carr did not press his motion which was lost qii the voices. Replying to Mr H. M. Rushwortl: (likl., Bay of Islands), Mr Cobbe sa’i the Navy did not specialise in aeria training, but it had the help of ow Fairey aeroplane at Auckland which was associated with the varrlvns v manoeuvres, and it was intended to purchase a second Fairey machine. OFFICERS AND POLITICS. The Lender qf the Opposition askef tLd Minister whether his attention had been drawn ( to a recent speech by .r naval officer on political subjects. H< said he did not desire to take awa\ any right that a naval officer might have in this respect, but he desired L know whether naval ratings had the same right. Mr Cobbe said he.had not rend th' speech to which Mr Holland referred 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 icain© rights as officers? Mr Cobbe : The general rule of the services is to avoid politics.