The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1914. NAVAL DEFENCE.

Southland Times, Issue 17620, 7 April 1914, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1914. NAVAL DEFENCE.

It is rather a curious thing that ail the arguments which were advanced in Australia against the proposal to establish an Australian naval unit paid for with Australian money, as far as possible built in Australian yards, and manned by Australians, are now being advanced in New Zealand against the Massey Government’s naval proposals, although all these arguments have been proved fallacious by Australia’s experience. It is more curious still that whereas in Australia the proposal was made by a radical labour Government and the objections to it came from those who might justly be called conservative in their political views, in New Zealand the proposal emanates from a Government which is called by its opponents “Tory” and “reactionary,” and the strongest criticism of it is offered by those who style themselves radicals and “progressives.” The question is really not a complicated one. Our ultimate dependence upon the. supremacy of the British Navy is not in Question. At the present time neither Australia nor New Zealand separately, nor for that matter all the oversea do-

minions combined, can build a fleet which is capable of meeting all possible enemies on equal terms. Ultimately, our security rests upon the British Navy. But it is recognised that as an important part of the Empire with a large sea borne trade to defend we must bear our share of the cost of naval defence, and, furthermore, as a patriotic people we want to show a living interest in the Navy and to train a certain number of men for service at sea should necessity arise. Again, in the event of war the risk to which we would be exposed would not be an attack by the enemy’s 'main fleet but a destructive raid by a cruiser or a small squadron detached for the purpose. As a means of defence against this danger we have fortified our chief ports, and for greater security it is necessary that we should have a few ships of some fighting power upon our coasts. There are two ways in which we can stimulate interest in

the Navy, provide opportunities for men who wish to serve in the Navy, and discharge our obligations as Imperial taxpayers. Wc can either arrange with the British Government to station a squadron in New Zealand waters, and pay a reasonable subsidy for the favour, or we can use our money to buy a small fleet of our own and train our men for it. Hitherto we have followed the former course; now Mr Massey proposes to adopt the latter course, and for our part we think, as we have always thought, that the local navy principle is right. All kinds of jibes are being thrown at Mr Massey’s “toy fleet’’ just now, as they were thrown at the Australian “jam tin” fleet. But the Australian fleet now includes a first-class battleship and some cruisers equal to any in the world in their class, and there is no reason why New Zealand should not have at least one cruiser that Is efficient. Furthermore, all opposition to the Australian fleet has died away, the voice of ridicule is never heard, and on the other hand a national interest In regard to naval defence has been awakened which the mere payment of a subsidy would never have brought to life. In New Zealand there is no such national interest at the present time, for the very good reason that we feel ourselves detached from the problems of naval defence. We pay over our subsidy and there the matter ends. We need as a condition of enthusiasm ships which we know to be our own, and which excite our sense of pride. As to the “toy fleet,” New Zealand could scarcely get any ships to which the term is more applicable than to the Psyche and the Pyramus, the only British ships now in these waters. But the chief reason why the Massey policy should be adopted is that there is now no alternative. The Admiralty authorities have been compelled, despite the agreement entered into with Sir Joseph Ward in 1909, to withdrawal! ships from the Southern Pacific, and to concentrate practically the whole strength of the Navy round the shores of Great Britain. As the London Times points out: “Since 1909 the pressure of Naval competition in European waters has made it necessary to station ships where they might have ships of their own quality to fight.” The real question is whether we are to have any ships at all for our defence, and the Government’s solution of the difficulty is the only solution which offers itself. Admittedly the expense will be considerable, but we decline to believe that the taxpayers of New Zealand will estimate their liability for defence on land and sea at a less amount per head than that paid by the taxpayers of Britain.”