SIR JOSEPH WARD'S VIEWS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 57, 12 March 1910, Page 3

SIR JOSEPH WARD'S VIEWS.

COST OF THE SCHEME,

NO EXTRA TAXATION

Interviewed on Lord Kitchener's memorandum, taken in conjunction with the Australian report, the Prime Minister first went into the matter of cost entailed upon the Dominion by adopting the Field-Mar-shal's proposals. "Speaking generally," he said, "the figures contained in the Australian report require to be divided by four to arive at the cost to New Zealand. In other words we may calculate it at one-fourth of the areas, one-fourth of the men, one-fourth of the expense, one-fourth of the brigades and regiments, field and howitzer batteries, and one-fourth of the total number of guns recommended for Australia. That gives, as nearly as possible, what the general results of the system would be in its application to the internal defence of New Zealand.

"The approximate cost to the Dominion of Lord Kitchener's scheme would amount in the seventh year after it has been in operation to £470,000 per annum. This would Include for New Zealand a margin of safety of £25,000 as its proportion under miscellaneous, Lord Kitchener having allowed £100,000 under this heading in the Australian propos?^. The annual cost of the military college, £15,000, is also included in the Australian report, but I am not making the deduction of that sum, so that gives an additional £15,000 by way of a safety margin. 1 THIS YEAR'S ESTIMATES.

"The total amount provided on this year's estimates* for defenec in New Zealand amounts to £202,618, and in addition to that I intimated in the financial statement that a further sum .for the' permanent additional cost of internal defence, amounting to £150,000 per annum, would be required, this additional sum to extend over three years at the rate of £50,000 per year. So that to provide a full margin of safety in the figures as supplied by Lord Kitchener in the seventh year of the operation of the new scheme of defence, we would require at that period (assuming that the whole details of the scheme are carried out) the sum of £470,000 per year. "But I may further state that in these figures the item "material only for fixed defences in Australia," is stated at £40,000 for the seventh year. In the case of New Zealand it would not at that period amount to anything like that sum. Approximately £10,000 would be more than adequate in our case. ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE INVOLVED. Speaking after a close examination

into the details as suggested by Lord Kitchener for Australia, and on a comparison with these proposed in the War Office scheme (which is already provided for in our legislation for the internal defence of New Zealand) I arrive at the conclusion that the additional amount necessary in New Zealand to carry out this scheme of Lord Kitchener would commence at about £25^,000 per year, and in seven years would run up to about £125,000 beyond what is proposed to be paid under the system of internal defence now in operation. This covers both the land forces and the permanent harbour defences. The whole of the £125,000 would not be an annual cost, but it is difficult to say at present how much less it would be. I think, however, it would be safe to estimate it at £100,000 a year.

DETAILS BEING WORKED OUT,

The Prime Minister said he was having the whole of the~details of Lord Kitchener's scheme worked out under their respective headings, so that by the time Parliament meets the fullest information will be available, giving the actual cost to the Dominion of the scheme fully applied. ' Meantime he thought the figures he had given might be accepted as the probable cost to New Zealand. These figures were on the safe side, because, as would be found on examination of part I. of the Australian report, some of the detailed expenditure required in the Commonwealth (and for which no deduction had been made by him in estimating the cost to New Zealand) would not be necessary here even to the extent of one-fourth.

KITCHENER'S ADVICE MUST BE

ACCEPTED

"However," said Sir Joseph, "one thing is quite certain, and I think the people of New Zealand generally will endorse what I say—that if we are to have an effective system of defence ■ for New Zealand the life experience and sound judgment of the distinguished soldier who has furnished so valuable a report should be authoritatively accepted as the lines upon which we should go. It would be but an idle delusion to expect that we can attain, to an efficient working scheme without paying for the cost of it. With the ordinary expansion going on in New Zealand and the natural increase in our revenue I do not think there is likely to. be any necessity for increased taxation to bear the cost of the scheme. In any case the bringing into force of the full proposals would be gradual. It cannot be done right ofl the bat, so to speak.

IMPORTANCE OF UNIFORMITY

"I think there will be a general consensus of opinion as to the desirability of New Zealand arid Australia adopting the homogenous military system so far as the land forces are concerned, as it is of the first consequence that the system in both countries should be on the same lines. It all makes for efficiency and uniformity, and, therefore, for effectiveness in time of peace or war, and the opinion expressed by Lord Kitchener as to the importance of the land forces of New Zealand and Australia having uniformity of training and the establishment of units will, I feel sure, be generally endorsed. MILITARY EDUCATION. "So also will the view expressed regarding New Zealand availing itself of the proposed West Point Military College to be established in the Commonwealth, for the sending of ten cadets annually to that college, from whom five are to be selected for commissions in the staff.' <&>rps. This, of course, would not prevent New ■Zealand adopting the system of military training at its universities, as that would „be a most valuable education for those from whom selections for commissions in the staff corps could be made. It is, I think, self-evident that to fully equip a military college in New Zealand for the military education of only ten cadets annually is out of the question at present. Sir Joseph said he was having prepared a statement showing the material points of difference, if any, between the views of the War Office and the recommendations of Lord Kitchener on the land forces of New Zealand. When the whole details were set out side by side it would then be possible to consider the Field-Marshal's proposals seriatim. QUESTION ABOVE PARTY POLITICS. With the views expressed by Lord Kitchener as to keeping the defence question completly outside party politics Sir Joseph thoroughly agreed. He could only hope that the country would be able to do what was required in the matter of defence without the importation of any political feeling upon so important a question. It should be above all party politics, affecting as it did so seriously every class of citizen in the Dominion. HARBOUR DEFENCES. Questioned as to the details of Lord Kitchener's report on harbour defences, the Prime Minister intimated that these were of a confidential nature and could not be disclosed.

"I will only say," he remarked, "that Lord Kitchener's recommendations under this heading are yaluable. Obviously, however, they must be regarded as secret, as to publish them would mean handing information over to those outside the country who ought not to get possession of it. For that reason the confidential nature of the report must be respected. I may add that what Lord Kitchener recommends in connection with the harbour defences, besides* being valuable, is cjuite within the means of the Dominion to adopt. I have included in my estimate of cost the anticipated expense of harbour, as well as internal, defences."