DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA.

Evening Star, Issue 19327, 13 August 1926, Page 6

DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA.

It,must bo obvious that the defence of these southern dominions is a matter which presents the most serious problems. The chief handicap is in the fact that the populations of Australia and New Zealand are so small. To provide defence measures that the experts would consider adequate would mean a financial burden that would he too heavy to carry. Having this in mind, the aim of the Governments concerned is, or should he, to spend the money available in the most effective way. When this comes under discussion divergence in views at once appears. In the Federal House of Representatives last month the Inspector-General (Sir Harry Chauvol) submitted his annual report. He was quite outspoken. He stated that with the funds now available it would not' be possible to place the Australian Army in a state of preparedness. and ho emphasised the dan-

gerous condition of the defences of the country. General Chauvel declared that the aims of the Military Board were designed to retain an organisation which would permit the Army to be mobilised, to provide for its equipment, and to ensure that in a crisis there should be available sufficient experienced loaders to complete the training of the Army. Criticism that has some force in it was that the number of officers with war records was decreasing every year, and that soon the Army would be officered almost entirely by the younger leaders who wore now coming forward. Another point made was that the armaments of the Australian forts wore out of date, and would bo useless in the face of naval guns with much increased ranges. It was admitted that the general proposals would involve a great outlay, but the inference to bo taken from General Cliauvel’s report is that they are necessary if any considerable degree of efficiency is to bo obtained. These criticisms are not new. They are to all intents and purposes an endorsement of a report made in 1923 by Sir John Monash. Both men are distinguished soldiers, but it has to be remembered that they are experts onthe military side only, and it is this aspect of the defence question that naturally arouses their apprehensions. Sir John Monash complained that Australia was not merely destroying its defence, but destroying the means of restoring it—“ a grievous and important thing.” It cannot be supposed that the Nationalist Government lightly-are-gards the emphatic views of these two soldiers. Mr Bruce himself served in the Great War with distinction, and few people will be found to doubt his sincerity on this question. It is plain that there is a conflict of opinion as to the form of defence to be employed, but the policy of a country must bo framed in the light of modern developments. In reply to the criticisms of the military experts, the Federal Minister of Defence (Sir Neville Howse), in pointing out that cost of defence in Australia was greater per head than that of any other dominion, declared that the Naval and Air Forces formed the first line of defence, and in both these branches progress had been made in advance of the programme laid down for five years in 1923. ' This was the time when Sir John Monash made his protest. In the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of Parliament in January it was declared that the Government realised the vital importance of providing the greatest measure of defence compatible with the man power and finances of the nation, and was accordingly proceeding with its programme of naval, militax-y, and air defence. It is apparent, in the light of what has transpired since, that the maintenance of the naval forces and the development of the air am are to be kept in the forefront of the Government’s defence activities. *