THE NAVAL POLICY.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 59, 16 April 1914, Page 7

THE NAVAL POLICY.

[MR ALLEN AT MILTON. REPLY TO SIR JOSEPH WARD. j A TELLING? EXPOSURE. I ' Press Association. MILTON, April . 15. > Speaking on the cost of naval.defence. * the Hon. J. Allen said-.that nothing could. . be gained in a discussion of such vast- ; importance to. the Mother Country- antfc." the Dominions by . inaccurate or mispleading statements on the part of pro- . minent publie men opposed to the Government scheme. They had not; : -only • drawn on. their imaginations, but' had .*- also, made most palpable blunders in •- " their statements as to the cost of the • Commonwealth* scheme, and where ac-'-tual blunders had not been perpetrated they, had made misleading statements - which, unless corrected, might preju- '■ dice the minds of the public. A FEW INACCURACIES. The debate on the Naval Defence/ Bill took place in Parliament on Dc- I cember 3 last, and- Sir Joseph Ward, k criticising the proposals of the Govern-' : ment, drew attention to Admiral Hen.- \ •'■ (person's report and to "a reportr by. 1 * Senator Pearee ;6n the cost" of the Com- " monwealth-scheme, and" made" the most* - inaccurate .and misleading' statements, , Nor was there,any excuse for him, ba- ', cause his- speech .was reported, in .the* - official, journaL "Hansard,''' a speech; *■ , which he , had. the„i)pp6rtunity to cor--reet and f6i* which he was responsible I to the public. He .(Mr Allen) . had never read in the. speech' of a public man anywhere so many errors as appeared in that speech. On nearly every \ ' page from page '. 477 to. 487 , occurred -"" blunders and' misrepresentations. .He * ; had time, to. allude:to only a few of "-' them. On page■'. 477 Sir Joseph Ward'' said: "He (Admiral Henderson) esti-." , mates that the ordinary cost to Australia would be £25,290,000." These " figures overstated Admiral Henderson *sestimate by £2,000,000, the actual ■ amount being £23,290,000, as shown ■iii Admiral Henderson's- report at page ' 66. ' * ' -- " COST OP MAINTENANCE. -"' : There was also- a- misleading reference to the ordinary ' It difficult to realise what the general;,-' publie would have in their mind when ■. f reading the ordinary' cost, but he felt . ,'t sure they would-not know that Ad-* £ miral Henderson referred to the estimated initial c6st of the whole fleet, ! '.% extended over, a period ]o£. 22 years. On 'j page 478 of "Hansard" (December. ".% Sir Joseph Ward said: "The annual /'. cost for maintenance alone of a cruiser

of the Melbourne class; runs into * £IOO,OOO per annum without the cost ~\ of the personnel.'' This was entirely 's? wrong. Sir Joseph, Ward had not un-

derstood the.difference" between a Mel- : bourne, cruiser' and an armoured cruiser: '. like the battle-eniiser Australia, and'; £ had quoted the. maintenance of the iai- ' ter. Henderson gave the"; -*'; maintenance of, a protected cruiser as - £25,000 per annum, and not £100,000,.. - -' as stated by Sir Joseph Ward. The .-,. Melbourne cruisers were of this type^

but somewhat improved. ".,.•_. A SERIOUS BLUNDER. The most 1 serious blunder occurred on page 481 in" what pur-.-ported to be a . quotation from - Senator Peareo's .memoranda.- In. his remarks' Sir Joseph Ward overstated the amount by £3,051,676, and.. tj the. blunder he had made was that he - had taken three years' expenditure and counted it as one year. Anyone refer- y, ring to page 4 of Senator Pearce'a --\ memoranda would see that the navaF expenditure for 1912-13 was £2,349,257,. . and the figures Sir Joseph Ward gave as one year's expenditure included this amount, and the expenditure of two other years as well. But even if Sir -' Joseph Ward had used the correct figures his remarks would have been misleading without the explanation that the Commonwealth did not borrow money to construct its ships of war. but built them out .of revenue, and the estimate for 1912-13, namely £2,349,257,/ included not only .maintenance and; general expenditure, but the construction of ships as well. Indeed he had. - been informed by Senator Pearce himself that included; in the £2,349,257" were sums of £1,196,809 for construction, £208,050 for works, and £17,500' for the naval agreement, leaving only £657,378 for maintenance, personnel,, administration, naval compulsory training (they had over 3000 naval trainees), and aIL other changes. He had by no means exhausted the misstatements made by Sir Joseph Ward in his; % " speech, but he could not afford to waste= niore time over them that evening.

THE PEE CAPITA SCHEME. At the Imperial Conference, in 1911,, Sir Joseph Ward advocated a levy of 10/- per capita for naval defence aloneThat was to say New Zealand wouldprovide over £500,000 for naval defence under his. scheme. Further on in theconference he urged that the British .. Dominions would provide £6,500,000 a. year to buy three battleships each yoaiv 1 Then on second thoughts he hesitated about building thr<*e each year out of revenue, and proposed to borrow fiftymillions to construct 25 Dreadnoughts, within five years from 1911, and haproposed that three of these should be '- provided for Australia, six for Canada,, -j three for South Africa, two for New J Zealand, one for Newfoundland, and ten. for the British Navy. That was in, j--1911, but in the debate in the House " v in 1913 he again modified his proposals.. * Speaking on the Naval Defence Bill "j on December 3 ("Hansard,'/* page- 1 485), he said he would like to see theGovernment come down with a fixed. ~ amount and say to the Old Country: r* "We will give you another Dread l <*"? nought at a cost tp us of £140,000 a - ';? year, including interest and sinking 1 fund, or give you still another at a ; f-.irther cost of another £.140,000 with * interest and sinking fund, and thus the* .-, colony would be aware of its .financial ' responsibilities. '■" Calculating this later proposal of Sir Joseph Ward'sthe expenditure would be found to be: The present subsidy £IOO,OOO, cost of the present Dreadnought £140,000, cost of two more. Dreadnoughts£2Bo,ooo, or £520,000 per annum. lu.

"the wildest dreams of the present Government it had never suggested and -did not suggest such an expenditure as Ws under its proposals. -NEW ZEALAND'S POSITION.

'New Zealand was now face to face ■with this, problem: Was it to go on paying to the Mother Country £IOO,OOO <>r some other sum every year and have no voice whatever in the expenditure of the money, no representation in questions of peace or war, and no say In diplomatic relations or other matters? No self-respecting people could go on under such a condition of affairs, and it must come to them to have some direct interest in the expenditure of their own means. In these parts there were responsibilities and there was trade to be looked after. In New Zealand there was private wealth, the valub of which was estimated at £258*000,000, and the public wealth of £78,000,000, or a total. of £336,000,000. further, there was a value of $48,000,000 of imports and exports. All that was worth looking after. TVould anyone be satisfied to have all that protected by a portion of a fleet in the North Sea or by an alliance Tvdth Japan? Or were they to depend iar the protection of their trade and the protection of their homes on a treaty with Japan? The thing was not reasonable for a people who had now grown to manhood, and the Co--vernment conceived it to be its duty to be. this: Instead of handing over £IOO,OOO a year to the Admiralty, it rwould utilise that money in training jkow Zealanders on a training ship, so that in time they would be in a position, not only to serve New Zealand but the Mother Country as well. (Applause.) ' Mr Allen also referred to the gross

impropriety of a public man making such basely incorrect appeals to the people as Sir Joseph Ward did at Grcymouth on January 14 last, as reported in the "New Zealand Tinges, n -vyken he said "they had carried a law to change the existing law, and tho men and women of New Zealand were no longer directly protected by the British Government.'' The Defence expenditure for 1913-14 ' Tvas £483,000 as against £505,267 for - the previous year, showing a decrease of £22,267, so that it. was evident a .. tight hand was being kept on the expenditure, and no one could say the « system was running away with the authorities. Mr Allen announced that Captain Hall Thomson, of the Imperial Navy, lad been appointed to command the Philomel and to act as naval adviser ib the New Zealand Government.