IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3804, 8 February 1927, Page 10

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

A CLEARER PERSPECTIVE. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW, ' ZEALAND INTERESTS. AUCKLAND. January 31. The important question of Empire defence was one of the principal subjects dealt with by Mr S. M. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, in the course of an interview on the Niagara to-day. Mr Bruce, who has been attending the Imperial Conference in London was a through passenger by the Niagara having visited the United States and Canada on his way home to Australia. “For many years insistent demands have been made by the dominions for a recognition of their status,” said Mr Bruce. “Australians have not worried very much as they have not in the past suffered from an inferiority complex, having already realised that they possess virtual nationhood. The dominions now possess all the privileges they have been demanding, and now have to recognise that they will have to shoulder Empire burdens as well. The delegates to two successive Imperial Conferences have agreed upon this, yet, as the figures show there are still countries which are not bearing their fair share of the burden. No independent people can ask that their defence be provided for thm, and I am certain that every dominion will expend as much as it can to ease Britain’s huge burden. “The Conference has done a great deal to present defence problems in a different light, and I am confident that increasing recognition will be accorded their own respon§ibilitis by the dominions.” Mr Bruce pointed.out that events happening in the Pacific in close proximity to Australia and New Zealand made it imperative that we should realise that we lived in a world of realities, and not one of abstract theories. To deceive ourselves was to live in a paradise of fools. Our actions should be as candid as our utterances Our circumstances placed us above suspicion, and the world realised we had no ancient grudge, no bitter animosities, no predatory designs. We were enlightened democracies faced with the tremendous task of developing virgin countries. We could, therefore, approach the question of defence freely, openly, and unashamedly. While sincerely desiring peace and subscribing to every organisation which promoted it, it was incumbent upon us in our own interests, and in the larger interests of civilisation, to protect ourselves against possible aggression. If all the nations were in the same stage of development as ourselves we would be justified in leaving this issue to the moral influence of the world, but, unfortunately, that''was not so. To preserve peace it was necessary to prevent war.

Mr Bruce said he thought he was right in saying that Australia and New Zealand were the only two of the dominions which had taken the question of defence seriously, the other dominions having apparently failed to appreciate that their interests were so closely allied with those of the Empire that it was vital they should see that no portion was left unguarded in this respect. Mr Bruce showed that in the matter of expenditure on naval defence Great Britain spent 51s Id per head,- Canada 5s lOd, Australia 27s 2d, New Zealand 12s lid, and South Africa 2s 6d. “Destiny points inevitably to a closer co : opera,tion between Australia and New Zealand on the question of defence,” added Mr Bruce. “Our ideals are the same and our interests common. There should be a regular interchange of ideas between the two dominions, and the closest possible contact between the various branches of defence. Neither country can afford to see the other molested. My Government is prepared at any time to meet representatives of the New Zealand Government to deal with the formulation of a defence programme suitable to our national and. economic circumstances. So long as our motives remain unquestionable we can play an important part in promoting peace in the Pacific, but without adequate defence we will invite war, endanger our countries, and lose our status and dignity as free peoples.”