NAVAL DEFENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16549, 13 May 1914, Page 10

NAVAL DEFENCE.

MR FISHER’S OAMAItU SPEECH. REPLY BY SIR JOSEPH WARD. THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE. “A DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION.” [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 12. Interviewed upon the statement made by the Minister of Marino at Oamaru regarding the question of naval defence, Sir Joseph Ward said that he had read the Press Association report and ho could only express . his profound astonishment that a responsible Minister of the Crown should have indulged in such a statement, one that could only bo regarded by impartial persons as a deliberate misrepresentation upon a great and. important question, “ First I would like to say,” said Sir Joseph, “that I have always stood straight out for New Zealand being associated with and attached to an Imperial Navy, as it has been from tho timo it took a direct interest in the matter by contributing a subsidy to tho Imperial Government for naval defence purposes. Secondly, the Reform Government stood for a local navy. They repealed last session tho Aot by which the dominion gave a direct contribution of £IOO,OOO per annum to the British Government. They introduced legislation, and passed through Parlianient with the unanimous support of the Reform Party a Naval Defence Act providing for a local navy, tho nucleus of which was announced by the Prime Minister (and'supported by the Defence Minister) to be one Bristol cruiser. The deliberate attempt by the Minister of Marine at Oamaru to mislead tho public was apparent when he quoted from the speech delivered by me at the Imperial Conference in 1911 with a view to making the public believe that I was favourable to a heavier expenditure for naval "defence than the Reform Government is. That such is absolutely incorrect I will proceed to show. “The speech from which Mr Fisher quoted extracts,” Sir Joseph continued, ‘ ‘ was in support of the following resolution moved by me at tho Imperial Conference on May 23, 1911: ‘ That the Empire has now reached a. stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State with representatives from all the self-governing parts of the Empire, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of his Majesty’s dominions, oversea.’ The reference to naval matters which lias been, quoted was only one of a number of arguments I used in support of tho resolution. The fact remains, and I wish to make it clear, that I never at any timo either at the Imperial Conference or elsewhere suggested a severance of New Zealand from' the British Navy or the establishment directly or indirectly of a local navy. “ The cost of a local navy to New Zealand as suggested by the Massey Government would in my opinion bo enormous compared with what I was outlining at the' Imperial Conference, an Empire not a local navy. I will quote the extract from the speech Mr Fisher was quoting from. It makes tho object I had in view quite clear: “‘I indicated in my opening remarks on Tuesday that I would ask the Conference to deal with Imperial unity, organised Imperial defence, equitable distribution of tho burdens of defence throughout the Empire, representation of self-governing oversea dominions in an Imperial Parliament of defence for the purpose of determining peace or war, contributions to Imperial defence, foreign policy so far as it affects the Empire, intenational treaties so far as they affect the Empire, and such other Imperial matters as may bv agreement be transferred to such Parliament. I suggested, that the principles of such scheme should be: (1) That Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland elect to an Imperial House of Representatives for naval defence one representative for each 200,000 of ther: respective populations, that is (approximately) Canada 37, Australia '-5, South Africa 7, New Zealand 6. Newfoundland 2. This is a total of > <. “I then went on to show that the representation for England would be 220 as again six for New Zealand. Mr Fisher is reported to have said that my proposal was that New Zealand, with a contribution of £IOO,OOO, and Great Britain with a naval expenditure of eighty millions, should have the s. mo partnership rights and the same say as to whether Great Britain should goto war or not. This, Mr Fisher said, was wrong, and the proper thing to do was to rally round Great Britain in time of war and then decide afterwards whether she should have gone to war or not. ' . . , ~ “ This statement of Air Fisher s, said Sir Joseph, “put in the mildest language possible, is deliberately contrary to fact and is so misleading as to make it unworthy as the utterance of any responsible Minister of the Crown. It is quite clear from the extract I have quoted that the New Zealand membership was to be six and England s 220. Let Mr Fisher explain, if he can, how lie can impute to mo a statement that New Zealand should have the same partnership rights and the same say on the important question of whether Great Britain should go, to war or not. The statement of tlio Minister of Marine is absolutely incorrect. My statement can be verified by any person who chooses to look up the official report of the Conference. It is contained on page 160 of tho report. ~ ' . “ Now as to the attempt to mix my remarks on the Empire scheme with the direct attachment of New Zealand to the British Navy with a local navy scheme advocated by the present Government. Mr Fisher said I had proposed a scheme whereby 10s per head of population should ho given towards naval defence. This again is contrary to fact. The following is an exact statement of what I proposed: —‘ Tlio amount to be contributed by tho oversea dominions, estimated per capita of population, not to exceed 50 per cent of the amount estimated petcapita of tlio population contributed by the United Kingdom for-these purposes, but for all other purposes the contributions shall be on an equal per capita basis.’ Then again Mr Fisher was absolutely iuaccurato when ho said that I had proposed a schemo to contribute 10s per head of the population towards naval defence. I will quote exactly wliat I did say. It was in amplification of an outline which I was giving of wliat I believed to be a concrete and direct method of bringing all parts of the Empire into a general scheme of naval defence: ‘I believe we ought, as far as the white people in our countries are concerned, to have a uniform system of contribution—and I want to make that clear—for naval defence upon the basis of thirteen millions of white people. Taking Canada. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland in the British dominions, if we were to give for naval defence 10s per capita we would provide £6,500,000 per year, and if our annual amount of £6,500.000 was put into the purchase of battleships (I call them Dreadnoughts for tho purposes of my argument) at £2,000,000 each, there could be provided out of tlio annual contribution three Dreadnoughts per annum.’ It will be seen that my contention about tho three Dreadnoughts per annum referred to a joint contribution

from Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland, and not, as is implied by the Minister of Marine, three Dreadnoughts from New Zealand alone.

“ Tho attempt of Mr Fisher to associate my speech at the Imperial Conference—which was upon a broad basis of an impregnable and powerful Empire Navy, tho Admiralty having the right to send ships to each portion of tho oversea dominions—was a wretched endeavour to make a comparison in regard to tho cost of the local navy schemo of the Reform Government as against the Empire schemo suggested by me. I wish to make the point clear that under my proposals this country would not at any time be called upon to pay more than IDs per head for Imperial naval defence purposes. We. would not sever our connection in any way with the British Navy, and such a scheme, if given effect to, would mean tho peace of tlio world in all probability for centuries to come. Tho Reform. Government’s proposals for a local navy mean a contribution of far more than 10s per head if it is to ho an effective local navy. And then the. Massey Government scheme to my mind possesses a vital disability. It means that New Zealand, loses its direct attachment to the British Navy. To have a local navy at a much greater cost than I suggested in tho outline for an Empire scheme of naval defence is clearly against, the. host interests of the people of this country, as it is in my judgment against the best interests of Britishers in all parts of the Empire. Tho Minister of Marine comments upon the fact that tho resolution I moved at tho Conference was what ho termed ‘turned down.’ From my viewpoint tho matter is of no consequence whatever. Before submitting mv proposals and outlining them I felt quite satisfied in my own mind that they would not receive the support of the Conference. That did not in the least deter me. ' Since then tho Canadian Government, after their return from the polls, offered three Dreadnoughts at the cost of Canada to the British Navy. Although strong opposition was ‘shown in the Canadian Parliament by those opposed to tho proposal, the fact remains that the Government had a majority at its back. This shows that in the opinion of a majority of the representatives of tho Canadian people in the Lower House there should bo a concrete British Navy and not a sectional one. I affirm her© that there is not one in tin’s country who can point to any declaration of the present Prime Minister when he was leader of the Opposition of the intention of his party if they got into office to alter tho direct attachment of New Zealand to the British Navy and substitute a local navy. “ I have no hesitation in again referring 'to Hie position taken up by the British Admiralty upon this allimportant question. The following is an extract from a speech delivered !iv Mr Winston Churchill, the political head of the British Navy, in the House of Commons on the IStli of March last:—‘No European State would or could invade or conquer New Zealand or Australia unless the British Xayv had been destroyed. If tho British fleet were defeated in tlio North Sea all the dangers which it now wards off from the Australasian dominions would be let loose. If tho power of Great Britain were shattered on the sea, ; the only course open to tho-.fivo millions of white men in the Pacific would he to seek the protection of the United States. From this point of view the profound wisdom of the policy hitherto adopted by New Zealand will be appreciated.’ This shows in most unmistakable language that Mr Churchill, like his two predecessors in office, is against local navies,- and nothing can make that clearer than the statement quoted. It accentuates what I have frequently pointed out, that battleships out in these waters would be of no servico whatever,; after a great.'naval battle in the North Sea. For instance, if the British Navy wero defeated, a local navy worthy of the name would moan heavy additional taxation. One great Imperial Navy, under one control, is not only the safest and strongest, but the only scheme, in my opinion, that our limited population can afford. An attempt has clearly been made to deludo the public by throwing dust in their eyes.” “It must bo apparent,” concluded Sir Joseph, “ that I am not on my defence for new navy proposals l . It is tho Massey Government who are called upon to defend their local navy policy., I niado it clear at the Imperial Conference that no resolution agreed to by the Conference would bo binding oil New. Zealand until it was ratified by Parliament. The schemo I outlined at tho Conference is not before the country at the present time. Wliat is before the country is a local navy policy, inaugurated by the Massey Government, and put through the House by the Reform Party, although it had never been before the country.” IMPERIAL DEFENCE CONFERENCE. STATEMENT BY HON JAMES ALLEN. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, May 12. In referring to the naval question this evening, ,tho Minister of Defence (the Hon James Allen) stated to a reporter that nothing further,,.had transpired lately regarding the suggested Imperial Defence Conference. No date had been named, but the question, lie said, “is one that must he settled shortly in view of the breakdown of the 1909 agreement. Wo must know where wo are in regard to the future defence of the Pacific, and Australia more particularly must know where she is. Australia has done more than she was required to do under the 1909 agreement, and the position from her point of view, as well as that of New Zealand, is most unsatisfactory.”