NAVAL DEFENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15938, 4 December 1913, Page 8

NAVAL DEFENCE.

-DEBATe\iN PARLIAMENT. < BILL EXPLAINED BY ME ALLEN ,'MESENT POSITION UNSATISFAO- ,;..;, TOBY, • ,;,(Pra Dotted Press Association.) w WELLINGTON. December 3. "In tho Homo of Representatives this afternoon the Hem. Mr Allen, moved tho second reading of tho Nasal Dofenco BilL He, said the proposal in the Bill was to alter tho method. of the disposal of tho | £100,000 voted annually, and also to mako j other alterations in the method of tho do- | ■fence of tho country. He plaoed before ] members portions of the Admiralty's memo- j randum of the conferenco of naval and mili- j tary defence held in London in 1909. In j connection with tho proposal for a single ; navy, it was mentioned that there were j other considerations' besides strategy which I had to be counted. Tho Bill proposed to j set up New Zealand naval forces* Mr : Massey had already 6tated that the Govern- i roent might ask the House to vote a suffi- : oient sum for tho building of a Bristol - cruiser. At the 1911 Imperial Conference.! Mr Afiquith bad said that, just as oentrali- j sation had .been found absurd, so -would die- j ■ -ittregaiioti be found to bo inrpoasible. Each j of 'us was content to remain master of his own house both at Home and in tho : dominions. That was the lifo blood of thoir , policy. Whatever it was decided to do, tho Mother Country -would assist in every way : possible. The present proposals of tho Uo-; vernmeni did not- go in the direction of pro- i ■riding ■ large naval bases. Tho total Go- , ■vernment expenditure would bo a little over ; £250,000 per year, but the training ship expenditure Tvould not exceed £100,000. They proposed to oreate their own personnel ] under their own administration, so that New ' Zealand: would bo in touch with tho rest of tho British navy and the naval reserve. They proposed to carry, out the Admiralty's ] directions concerning tho enlargement of the ' dock at Auckland for tho accommodation of Imperial ships. Continuing, he said that in ; ISO 9 it was recognised that a .fighting fleet should be created in the Pacific., with , squadrons in tho China, East Indian, and : Australian Seas. It was, therefore, an error to suppose that tho only strategical position oohsidered at that time was a lighting fleet in. the North Sea. Speaking of Canada's position in relation to naval defence, ho said her undoubted duty was to mako a i handsome contribution to the Imperial navy, becauso sho -must, in her present 6tata, dc- ' pend for tho defence of her Atlantic coasts , upon a fleet in the North Sea. As far as her Pacific shores wero concerned, he hoped tho day would come when sho would join tho Imperial authorities in making adequate provision for the Eafcty of that coast. Australia had carried out her full share of tho.agreement of 1909, and so far as New Zealand was concerned, ho claimed that the present proposals were much tho same as those made at that time by Sir j J.'G. Ward with Mr M'Kcnna. Those proposals were sound strategically, but they had not been carried out, and he asked New Zealanders whether they were satisfied with things' as they were. If, for instance, wo ; ■wanted a coaling station between here and ; Panama wo could not get it if it was j going to create complications -with other ' countries. That and tho position of the : New Hebrides was not satisfactory It ; was, therefore, clear that the scheme agreed on in 1909 had been abandoned by the Admiralty, tho first actual step in the non-fulfilment of that ho did-not object to it—being the diversion of the- battleship Now Zealand to the North Sea. Ho had hoped, however, that - tha balance of the agreement might still hav« been carried out, but apparently tho Admir. alty had. not that intention, alleging that submarines and destroyers were not suitable to Now Zealand waters. Ho did not agree with that opinion, but that was why part of the 1909 agreement was not to be carried out. In our scheme of defence wo were not protected by our ships alone, but by alliances with otb/r countries, and he,, asa New Zealander, could not rest satisfied with an arrangement in which to a great extent we were dependent on other people. Our l first duty was to perfect onr la,cd dc-' fence./ The Admiralty was satisfied with our harbour batteries, but it required more modern 6;n guns:' No large docking accommodation was required in New Zealand, nor was the local defence flotilla necessary in New Zealand from the Admiralty point of view, but there was need for some protection for our commerce. These should be light cruisers, the heavy fighting ships not being advisable. The latest suggestion was that a fleet should bo located at Gibraltar for tho protection of the Pacific. He did not believe that a flying squadron would be acceptable to Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. Ho knew that if the Home Country met with disaster in the North Sea or the Mediterranean at would mean disaster all round, but England could not look after itself, and it remained fcr the dominions 'to help in other parts. If the battleship New Zealand were destroyed to-morrow she would have to be replaced by another. That fact pointed out that tho ship was not supplementary to the Homo Elect, but the Australian squadron was. We would continue our contributioii to tho sea fleet in the shape of paying for a battleship, so that New Zealand was to continue to support the Empire defence for 15 years at least. Dealing with the disadvantages of the subsidy policy, ho said members did not get au opportunity of discussing the disposal of money every year. Why should they not do eo? The Government proposed to give them that opportunity. In the past New Zealand had looked on and had seen agreements made, and she had looked on and seen them broken, and could say nothing. They had seen the 1909 agreement for an- Eastern fleet abandoned, and could say nothing. He could not understand men being satisfied w do'that sort of thing. They had had nothing to do with the navy or the naval reserve. Surely their brains were of .some assistance to the Empire. It was not sufficient that they should simply put their hands in their pockets ?nd pay. He perfectly agreed with Mr Asquith's proposal of unity , within a house. We wanted to do something to cultivate our own interests and our own sentiments, and to take more interest in Imperial affairs. Under the old system they could not do that, but under their new proposal the foundation would be laid for greater things. The career of our men would nol be limited, whereas in Australia it was. Our officers and men had the Imperial open to them, and their training might take place at Osborne or Dartmouth or in Australia. Tho officer commanding the training 6hip would be adviser to the Minister ir. ■ charge. It was essential that tho training should be equivalent to that now existing in Australia. We would pay our own men and the balance would be handed over to tbi Admiralty. It was proposed (hat a Roya New Zealand Naval itescrve be set up, com prised of men who had gone through oui own ships, together with the Imperial met ■ now here. Dealing with the Bill itself, hi drew attention to the provision for a truiiefe to tho British Government of the nava ■ forces. In times of hostilities, for all essen rial purposes, the men would be under 'the control of the Homo Government. It win our business to work in with Australia a far as possible although we were a separate entity. The pay would be the same hen iis in Australia. The training would be tin samo, and that would so far as possible b the same as given by tho Admiralty. Nov Zealand men might be transferred to Chin; or other stations for training for set vice. New Zealand should recognis the necessity for control by the Britis! Admiralty, which considered it necet eary to preserve one control. He fr, not think _ that New Zealand, Australia boutb Africa, and Canada should lcav everything in the future to tho sole contrc of the Admiralty. They should take fteii to formulate some controlling authorit • comprising representatives from tho d< minions. Tho future of this country was i the hands of future Parliaments. AUth country was committed to was £100*000 u " to September, 1913. Our imports wero 1 millions, and our exports wero 24 million litid it was time our trado was effective! protected. Sir J. G. Ward advocated tho taking c a more direct interest in tho affairs of Stat by both young and old Now Zealanders. Di tho Minister suggest that ono ship coul protect our ocean routes, or was that on which' had been proposed to bo asweiate with others? If so, where woro the other and where wero they to be? When 1] Allen was in Australia tho Australian Gi , vernment believed tka± New Zealand v.-; "-''going to co-operato in tho matter of a Ne Zealand fleet to bo associated with Au tralia. •''Mr.Allen: I have never gone away {joi New Zealand control."' ..Sir J. G. Ward said that somo of the pr posals were of a most dangerous characte If the Minister for Defence resided in country of 20,000,000 peqplo he could undo stand him making such proposals. Wo we in a country only 70 years of age, wil 1,000,000 people and a revenue of £11,000,0 or £12,000,000 annually. If Mr Allen's pr posals were, as he said, simply paying for v own training ship complement, why was necessary to adopt practically tho whole the Australian Naval Act? The matt Oiould bo looked at from an Empire poi of viow, and not morcly from a domini liriint of new. Ho thought the Minist should have given tho fullest information the House both with regard to the inti viowa ho had had with the Australian nai

authorities and the Admiralty. He regretted that that had not been done. After his interviews with the Australian authorities and the Admiralty .Mr Allen had expressed himself as being in favour of looal navies. Lord Twoedmouth, when First Lord of the Admiralty, had declared for one navy. If Mr Allen allowed the inferenco to go forth that the Admiralty pressed a separate navy on him, then the. First Lord of the Ad-

wii nun, tncn wu. ruai wiu «. — — rairalty must bo accused of having two pol cics on tho matter. He asked wJio was n sponsible for the complete rcvorGal of th agreement signed by hira and by tho Ac niiralty? .Ho knew thero was never a bus pioion of anything being done by tho Ad rniralty without the acquiescence of th | other side after an agreement had been ai rived at. The Dreadnought was given t ' tho Admiralty as a gilt unconditionally ! They had no right to follow that up am ! say what should be done with the ship, an< | because it was not done to say that th' J agreement was brokenl Mr Allen mU6 I know that changes were necessary every I where, in conformity with changes of othe ! countries. Mr Allen must have had 6om ! written or oral understanding with tho Ad | miralty. The whole agreement entered into I could not disappear and a much worse ar : rarigement be entered into without some ; thing being in writing about the matter ! What ho had done for Now Zealand whil ! at Homo had been endorsed by tho mei i on the Admiralty opposed to the policy o | Australia, though ho agreed that they hat their own destinies to work out. Prior U ' Mr Allen taking office this country was giv . ing £10D,000 annually as a contribution b tho navy, and it had presented a Dread ! nought. He had heard Mr Allen say h . London that there as no calculating wha : the moral effect of that gift woul< i be. but they should not 'keep 01 : harping on tho gift all throucl tho piece. Did Mr Allen expect hifn ti believe that they were to work as a separafe ! entity and yet pay the same rates as Aus ; tralia and adopt the same regulations ai Australia? Admiral Henderson had com puted that the Australian navy's-pereonne ; would cost £2,220,000 yearly, and the per ' eonnel and maintenance £3,452,600, plu: £1,000,000 annually for interest. A ship such as they proposed getting would cos £204,000 a year, i Mr Mas6ey: Oh, no ! Sir J. G. Ward contended that the Min ister did not know tho cost of maintenanci of a British cruiser costing £400.000. Ii would cost £150,000. Mr Allen: Oh» no! Sir J. G. Ward: Well, how many rnoi , are you going to put on her? What arc yoi training your men for? Mr Allen: The British Navy. ! Sir J. G. Ward: A Bristol cruiser coulc do that Mr Allen: They are not suitable. Sir J. G. Ward 6aid they were, under th( ; proposed system, committing themselves t< an unknown amount. It gave power tc whatever Government was in power (tmc tho present Government was urging whal it believed to bo true) to raise anv forces it thought fit, irrespective of the statement i that tho amount to be allocated (£100,00( yearly) would appear on tho Miniates even ; year. If thoy were going to bring out ar adviser from among the Admiralty officers. '. what was ho going to do? Mr Massey: Command the Philomel. ; Sir J. G. Ward deprecated any such move | as proposed, urging that it would not be ir the best interest of the country, but might : tend to a conservative state of affairs ant. ; stagnation. The estimated expenditure foi • \ the Australian Navy for last year was : £2,349,257, which was an increase of £900,000 !in three years. Senator Pearce had esti- ; mated that Australia's defence burden tci day was £3,089.107 for tie military anc '• £5,400.933 for naval defence, a total ol : £8,490,140. That included everything. Oui i annual expenditure, if we carried out a ! moderate inception of a local navy, wouk : ] be £480 000, making a total for defence witr. '.' the laud forces of £985,047. which would in. ; | crease annually. In five years it would cos) ' another £500,000. Panama had given c 1 I highway to some of tho greatest nations ol 1 : the world, and to talk of Australia or New ' ' Zealand being able to defend tho Pacific wae •'• like putting a bucket of water in tho ocean I and expecting it to make an appreciable dtf- ; forence. The only way was to have one • : rrrcat central naw, which would make it im- •' possible for any other Power td build ships : which could interfere with tjie British Navy. ; I In 1909 the Admiralty paid it was necessary - j to have two Bristols, three destroyers, and r : two submarines in New Zealand, and to-da-s i i the Minister for Defence said that one f I Bristol was sufficient. _ i | Mr Herrics: Thev would not send two. II Sir J G Ward said the Admiralty would ' I not have made the suggestion if it had not I' b"en approached from this end about local 3 i navies. He would sooner see the Govern- - ; mont come down with a fixed amount or - ; R iv c another Dreadnought than tho proi posals submitted. If, England went down , ; what would we be doing with our Br.sto I and training ship? Whero would wo be? 1 He preferred further assistance being given r to the Imperial fleet, and for that reason he must disagree -«} "" *** f rfe fence Thev should take the advice of the e wise men of the Admiralty and placo themt selves completely in their hands. ■ The Hon. Mr Massey traced .the 0 ! history of New Zealand's contribution since the t'mo when it was but £29.00 C ' , annually. Eecently the Australian squad™ • had boon withdrawn, so that at the moment there was no protection for New Zealanc 1 i Sept two light cruisers and the Australian - ! ships If Sir J. G- Ward had been mhx h u (MrMassey's) place would he have beer 2 ! satisfied with the two ships they had? Sir i G. Ward: Of course not. 0 Mr Massey said the Government wouk : not have been doing its duty if it had ox nrcss"d itself as satisfied with two ships (th< ls Psycho and the Pyramus) offered by the im '] : perial authorities. Ho challenged anv mem ber to look at the Bill and see if there was • n provision lor an expenditure of one pciuij :° outside £100,000. ' , Mr Witty: There will be next year. _ i ! ill- Massey: Oh.! next year. lam talking ■ of this Bill. The naval adviser won't cos '. e Is He will be in charge of the Philomel ,'": Mr Massey traversed Sir J. G. Ward's figure: i i with regard to the expense of tho Bristo y ' cruiser. The official figures were: Buildup '1 and armament, £377,000; maintenance ' s £19 500; interest, £25,300; wages, £26,800; 11 ' annual outlay, £72,000. Early this year thej Q ", had offered tho Imperial Government ; !y ! iurther £50,000 per year if two Bristols wen °' ; seut out here as originally arranged. He i quoted a speech by Lord Twecdmouth whew he' advocated exactly what New Zealanc s ' proposed to undertake. The First Lord o! '■ v ' the Admiralty had given expression to simi ce lar sentiments, holding that when tho de 3 " . cisive point came tho dominions should pro V tcct the outside stations and trade centre: m beyond the theatre of war. Mr Mackenzit 13 also had supported local navies. It had nol 'S been decided what Canuda would do, bul , ri ' there wag no parallel between Now Zealanc °9 and Canada.,'as tho latter country, especiallj al ■ the eastern side, was really right under tin 11 '' ! wing of England. There was no grount ur lor "the statement that the Government wa; P" '■ contemplating a partnership with Australia " Q Neither had approached the other, but he er believed .they would always work well to ' a ' ■ L'other. Regarding the proposals in general , n " ■he said they were making a start on a Nev ' 10 ! Zealand Navy, and to-day's proposals wouk 118 :be something to count on. Hu considerec as : that there should bo Imperial Conference: t0 : every two years at the outside, and tha' ' ro ' tiiov should not bo confined to England. I 10 ' the"Empire was to be held together—and hi " a thought it would be held togetlicr—hi - w ; thought it would be by sentiment, tics o na i kinship, pride of raw, and the conlidcnci ?''• jof the' people in tho Umpire' itse.lf. Tha lso I was a tiling to look forward to. |S '' Mr Russell said he had no desire to lowe *" the tone of the debate by introducing tin '."' party element, but he had to recognise tha, ' a > we were on the eve of an alteration of tin ve historic naval policy of New Zealand. Then ro ' was nothing in the Bill lo show that Englam '} m would for the future retain the same rela ','-T tions with New Zealand as in the past. Hi . thought it would have been more in tin l n Lutcnks of harmony of policy if the Govern nient had taken the OplKKitwn into its con 'iS lidep.ee through the Committee of Advice He protested against the Bill because then pP* was no limit to the number of men to b raised, nor was Parliament to be consulted r Everything was to be done by regulation ~?' Tho Minister had said the Bill was iimitei ):i to establisli a training ship, but it wen j)d further than that, and implied tin Ile existence of a local navy, from whicl thero -woukl be no going back when onci it was started. He also objected to the, Bil vj,! because it made Now Zealand a recrmtin; < Q . ground for the British navy, wltile wo wer< v M " Siort of boy labour, and were actually im ' ew porting boys under the Sedgwick sohemi ue . to do the country's work. In proof of th impossibility of keeping down the cxpendi 0111 turo on pt'Oiccts suon tia'this, he quoted thi growing cost of the territorial system, oi iro . which wo had spent £295,000 in the first si: £ r " months of tho year, and which had becom' n iis a ravenous wolf in connection with ou | P1 ! finances. Where was the enemy of whon eve we wert< afraid that justified the cxpendi ,|th turo of thifi enormous 6iim? No German in POO vaaion was nossiblo til! tho British navi , ro . was knocked out of the water, i in our v;usion from Janan whb quite as impossible, s it in support of which view ho quotedi the io[ opinion of a New Zcalander who recently iter visited Japan. Ho believed tliat, as eiriljjnt drcn of the Empire, wo were entitled to linn protection from tlio British navy until we ster were in a position to establish u navy of i to our own. That time was not yet, for with ter- our heavy taxes and our development, wo ival could not carry the burden of a local navy,.

Tho estimate given to Canada for a local navy was £5,159,400, and one could not face any liability of that magnitude. He was firmly convinced that for tlio present we must be content with the protection of the iSntish navy, which was scattered over the waters of the globe. The Hon. Mr Hemes said he could not understand the consternation of the Opposition over a small Bill which simply provided for a continuance of tho existing subsidy. If the Admiralty had carried out the agreement there would have boon no need for tho BilL There had been a diange in the policy of tho British Admiralty, as often ■ occurred when the personnel was changed. If the Admiralty sent two Bristols out there would bo no need to build ono. Everything depended on the policy of the Admiralty. The right hon. gentleman pinned his faith to the British navy, but was there anything more unstable than British politics? The original arrangement was for the New Zealand Dreadnought and two Bristols to go to tho China station. 'Die Admiralty asked that the Now Zealand be transferred to the Home station. That was agreed to, but the English authorities had broken the agreement. He dad not believe in building up a navy of Dreadnoughts to compete with Japan, becauso neither Australia nor New Zealand could stand tho expense, but they should bo able to provide protection for the trade routes, so that commerce could bo convoyed to, say, tho Cape, and .England could then take charge. He was pleased to note that merchantmen were being armed' for protection purposes. Tho United States had been lost to England because of tho weakness of the navy and faults of strategy, and they should) see to it that those occurrences were not repeated.

Mr Wilford contended that the conditions governing' Australia-and New Zealand were totally dissimilar Australia's population lived on the seaboard, and therefore their first line of defence must be thq, navy. He was totally against a. local nayy, but he admitted that there was no evident desire on the part of the Minister to separate the local navy to be formed from the British Navy. The danger of the Bill was not what it said, but what it implied, and he would prefer to vote £140,000 per year to allow Great Britain to expend : t upon the Imperial Navy rather than attempt the formation of a local navy. The Hon. Mr .Fisher said the clause which provided that, our ships should automatically pass under the control of the British authorities in time of war contained a germ which he hoped to.see adopted by Canada and Australia.- The value of the Australian Navy was not to be regarded by its tonnage, but its value was that any invader would have to leavo homo with a forco three times as large as the Australian unit, which would mean the reduction of his homo defenco to such an extent that it would be unsafe to come. The policy of the Admiralty was that the dominions wero to look after the outposts of the Empire while tho Old ■ Country looked after tho heart of things at Home, and that was the policy of this Bill.

The debate was continued by Messrs G. M. Thomson, Hanan. and Buddo.

The Minister replied at 1 o'clock. He again stated that there was no provision for extra payment for naval purposes. Next year there might be other proposals, but ho was not dealing with that Members of the Opposition had ignored th e Bill in their criticism. If they voted against the Bill they would vote against New Zealand training her own personnel. Ho claimed the votes of the other side on the ground that New Zealand people should have a fsv'in the disposal of the money and ihe making of their own naval reserve. He could ii..„ disclose tho contents of the documents received from tho Admiralty, as they had fvj word " secret" on them. He made no definite arrangements with the Admiralty. All that had been done was tentative, and subject to the approval of Parliament. They hoped to get 80 men for tho Philomel during th? next year. They could not engage an unlimited number 'of men because they could not pay them. No one should raise any objection to New Zealand being made a recruiting ground for the defence of tho Empire. The Psycho and Pyramus served the purpose of protecting the trade routes, but one Bristol cruiser could do as much as two-together. i The 1 House divided on the second reading, the voting being 31 to 21. Ayes (Al).—Allen, Anderson, Bell, R. F. Bollard, Campbell, Coates, Dickson, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Hemes, Hino, Hunter, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Nosworthy, Okey, Pearce, Pomare, Reed, Rhodes (2), Scott, F. H. Smith, Statham, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Wilkinson, Young.

Pairs.—J. Bollard, Buick, Buchanan, Fscott, Herdman, Newman, Lee, Wilson.

Noes (21).—Atmorey Brown, Buddo, Buxton, Oraigic, Ell, Forbes, Glover, MacDonald, Ngata, Parata, Robertson, Russell, Seddon, SMey, J. C. Thomson, Veitch, Ward, Webb, Wilford, Witty. Pairs.—Colvin, Dickie, Isitt, Carroll, R. W. Smith, Clark, Davey. The House then went'into committee on the Bill. Sir J. G. Ward moved as an amendment, to test the feeling of' the Houso as to whether members were. wdling to support a proposal for a separate navy or whether a referendum should be taken before a severance from the Imporial Navy was completed. The amendment was lost by 31 votes to 18.