NAVAL DISCONTENT

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXI, Issue 4961, 27 February 1937, Page 3

NAVAL DISCONTENT

ORIGIN ON SHORE. AUSTRALIA'S SHIPS. Sydney, February 13. Rumours of smouldering discontent in the Royal Australian Navy have been prevalent for some time, but these have been continually denied by the highest authorities. Despite these denials, there is good evidence to believe that there is discontent of a minor nature, but nothing to indicate that there is mutinous intent by the ratings of the squadron, as alleged in some quarters. The chief cause of the ratings' complaint has been clearly defined. Every summer the ships pay several visits to Jervis Bay, about 120 miles south of Sydney, and extensive manoeuvres are carried out on its broad waters. Jervis Bay was formerly the site of the Naval College, but six or seven years ago, as a measure of economy during the depression, the college was closed down and the area, which is Federal territory, became a popular holiday resort. The cottages formerly used by officers and cadets are now rented to holi-day-makers, and the various other larger buildings have been converted into boarding-houses. The Naval College had been equipped with a fine swimming pool, a large number of tennis courts, and a nine-hole golf course. Until this summer, the naval ratings had the use of these, on an equal footing with holiday-makers, but this summer the Minister of the Interior, on the representations of the boarding-house proprietors, issued an edict that these facilities were not to be used by the ratings, for whom the one and only hotel was also placed out of bounds. High naval officials tried to have these bans removed, but were not successful. Some Disgruntled Men. The ratings' resentment against being denied sporting and hotel facilities during their liberty hours was the origin of the present discontent, which has been concentrated on the officer in command of the fleet, RearAdmiral Lane-Poole. T } he men themselves give emphatic denials to rumours that the Fleet will not sail for New Zealand at the end of March if Rear-Admiral Poole is still in command. No such definite act of protest has been contemplated except by a few disgruntled men who are described by their fellows as "lunatics." Several orders in the last few months have caused general discontent. Ratings allege that RearAdmiral Lane-Poole created a bad impression when he first joined the squadron a few months ago. Since then, it is alleged, leave arrangements have not been as liberal or as equitable as they might have been, and dress regulations have been enforced more rigidly than in the past. The idea that ratings should refuse duty because the rear-admiral commanding 'does not meet with their approval is scouted by the men, but obviously there is a number of disgruntled men in each ship. In the last few months there have been instances of minor sabotage which can be attributed to these few disgruntled men. Most of the men have no sympathy with this manner of expressing, discontent. As one rating

said: "The men who would do things like that should be in a lunatic asylum, not in the Navy." Rear-Admiral's Statement. Rear-Admiral Lane-Poole told the Press he was convinced that if the men had a just grievance he would be aware of it. "For three years I commanded the Royal Naval College at Jervis Bay," he said, "so that I have been associated with the Australian Navy for nearly four years. I should, therefore, be in a position to understand the personnel. I am very proud of the efficiency and loyalty of the Australian officers and men who serve under me, and am certain that I should be the first to know if they have a legitimate grievance. The service provides adequate means by which grievances can be represented, and these are well known to all rating. In recent months a number of men have made known their desire to leave the Navy, but this is ascribed to a greater number of opportunities in civilian life now that the depression has passed."

"Reports of dissatisfaction in the Navy have already been referred to the Naval Board," said the Minister of Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill). "They are inquiring into the rumoursthat are being circulated, but the information I have received from the board is to the effect that there is no foundation for ' the rumours and statements suggesting that dissatisfaction or trouble exists. The board's report states that statements alleging disaffection and discontent are based on flimsy and irresponsible authority. It is not claimed that every individual member of the Navy is free from complaint, but that cannot be expected in any large body of men."