The Dominion's Defences.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19889, 28 March 1930, Page 12

The Dominion's Defences.

The Federal Labour Ministry in Australia was in office a little over a week when it abolished compulsory military training, suspended training camps, and substituted a volunteer militia. The country took the change very calmly and last month it was reported by the second in command o£ the General Staff that the new militia would have an approximate strength of 35,000, capable of expansion in a national emergency to 180,000. When announcing the intention of the Government to abolish compulsory , military training, Mr Scullin took especial care to repudiate any idea that Australia would be left without a proper defence system, and there is some reason to believe that the expenditure saved on the land was to be diverted to the air and sea defences of the Commonwealth. The statement issued by Sir Joseph Ward at Rotorua lends itself to the belief that the Government is considering similar changes in New Zealand. The'decision to cancel the rest of the programme of military camps and the reference to proposals to come before Parliament, for the reduction of expenditure on land defences, are significant. The Government may or may not have taken its cue from Australia; it is more important to . know whether the Government has moved and taken its decision independently of its military experts, or in consultation with them. The Minister says nothing from which' an inference can be drawn; but it is easier to suppose that the Government has sought the best advice, and not incredible that such advice would favour a changed in the disposition of defensive schemes and expenditure. For a considerable time few have believed and still fewer have confidently , asserted that the present expenditure on land defences—mainly on territorial training—produces the most useful results. If the system can be recast so as to produce better results at less cost, and it would be surprising if it could not, the country is ready to accept the reform; but the Prime Minister's statement tells us so little that the nature and extent of the proposals can only be surmised, and their value not even surmised. It can only be said that many developments have pointed to the necessity for a reform, -and that the Prime Minister's statement gives a hint of changes consistent with it. We are not told whether less money will be spent on the same kind of land defences and training, or on a different kiiid, on a volunteer force, for instance,' and the specialist corps of a modern mechanised, army; we are not told whether the money saved will be spent on improving the air and naval defences; but these are the sort of question that the Prime Minister's statement prompts, and the answers, when Parliament meets, will be heard with deep interest. '