DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20991, 2 April 1930, Page 6

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

TO THE EDITOR. • Sib, —Your Saturday morning's leader on military defence appears to me to be a most unsound criticism of the operations of our Defence Department and its activities. It is not generally known, and was not explained in your leader, that the defence vote for 1928-29 included all expenditure on the present air service, which amounted to £44,136. Therefore, tho total amount spent on the existing land defence forces during the year 1928-29 was £420,055—n0t £404,191 as is generally believed. In the year 1927-28 the expenditure on land and air forces was £481,759. In the year 1928-29, in compliance with request for strict economy, this amount was reduced by £17,508 notwithstanding increased, expenditure on air services, the cost of which was £44,136. It would appear that the inclusion of air service expenditure in the annual vote for the deience forces ia most unfair. Undoubtedly the expenditure on air services should be the subject of a separate vote, ou the same lines as the naval vote. Since 1927-28, the actual additional expenditure this year on laud and uir services amounts to £9908 —that is, if the expenditure on these services reaches the estimated amount of £491,007. This ifl commented on in your article as an appreciable'increase. Probably you were unaware that the cost of air services during last year increased over and above the previous year by £16,261 to £60,397 Riving an expenditure for land forces of £431,270 during the year ended to-day—-not £491,067. Turning now to your comments on naval defence expenditure, the increased expenditure of £41,571 for the year ended March 31, 1930, apparently meets with your full approval, despite the fact that up to the present no one has heard of an increased naval force being maintained m Dominion waters. One is therefore compelled to ask in what manner was this increase expended, and was such expenditure justified? ]STo comment has been made on the fact that tho naval vote haa increased from approximately £300,000 in 1923 to nearly £600,000 in 1930. Turning now to the relative merits ot sea, land, and air defence, it must be admitted that the protection of our trade routes is a vital necessity. On the other hand, the fact must not be lost sight of that should the British Empire be forced into another war, laud forces must most certainly be required, and probably on the same scale as for the Great War 1914-18. Although conferences have been and are being held which may ensure peace in the future, so far the conclusions arrived at are unfortunately not sufficiently reassuring to lead us to believe that a reduction in our military obligations in the scheme of Empire defence ia yet justified. Any reduction in the expenditure on land forces in favour of air services is to be deprecated. There seems to be a decided impression in the minds of the general public, which also appears to be supported by the view of the present Government, that the air service is to form a very important part in the defence system of the future. Admittedly, the air service should be developed, l>ut only in such a manner as will allow it to keep pace with the organisation and development of land forces. It is quite erroneous to think that there will ever be a,possibility of the air service fulfilling a really protective role in this community. Even air authorities admit that the success of their operations wi]] depend on the security of their air bases ■and aerodromes. This protection cannot be carried out by air services, and the task must therefore be undertaken by land forces. The air service is a service whoso function in tho time of war is co-operation with land and naval forces, and not as the main means of attack or defence. This country with its small and scattered population cannot. for economic reasons, support a much increased development in cither civil or military aviation. Even Great Britain with its smaller area and larger population is finding difficulty in running civil air sorvices, without heavy Government subsidies. It is doubtful whether the Government has any conception of the actual cost of maintaining a strong and efficient air force and still less haa any idea of the profit-making or loss-making capacity of companies engaged in commercial flying. lu my opinion, ally change in the existing system of defence should be considered more than farefully before being put into execution, and I would recommend that before the Government takes any steps towards a reduction of laud forces or of their training, a commission which should include experts fiom E miland should be set up to investigate >oc! report and recommend a future policy In conclusion, I maintain that tht existing system has fully justified its existence. It must be remembered that it was devised in 1909 when our copulation was approximately 950,000. To day the population exceeds 1,400,000 —a 50 per cent, increase, and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that the t-ysteni now requirieri revision, but this should not entail any drastic change, and certainly not along the line? proposed.

During the Great AVar tlio present system of compulsory training enabled this country to organise, train and equip, and maintain overseas, at full strength, a complete infantry division plus a mounted brigade. It is doubtful if any other system could liave fulfilled such a task. New Zealand in fulfilment of her moral obligations as part of the British Km pire may bo called upon again to undertake a similar task.—l am, etc.. J. G. Jeffery. Dunctlin, March 31.