The Sun TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1920. NEW DEFENCE SCHEME.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2126, 7 December 1920, Page 6

The Sun TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1920. NEW DEFENCE SCHEME.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding as to who was responsible for the new scheme of defence. Our Wellington correspondent clears up the matter to-day. The Government's policy is Headquarters' policy pure and simple. That policy was approved by the Minister of Defence and referred to the Defence Committee of the House. The committee endorsed the proposals and placed them before Parliament without making any recommendation. The report, which came down on the last day of last Session, was not discussed. And now the Minister says that he doesn't think any new legislation will be required to put the scheme into operation, as compulsory military training is still the law of the land. We regard the scheme as an honest attempt to meet possible land defence contingencies, but we regret that it is intended to make it operative without Parliament having expressed an opinion on it. As it stands, the scheme is incomplete. It ignores the sea altogether and makes no provision for an air wing. The Government surely cannot intend to regard Chatham as our last word on local naval defence! The failure to promulgate an air policy is an eloquent commentary on the Government's lack of interest in that indispensable arm. Private enterprise is doing in the way of commercial aviation, but the Government has done practically nothing, though we recall that a Minister made some reference to the strategic value of the site of a northern aerodrome. It appears to us unarguable that this country—an island nation—should have a naval as well as an air policy. We must be prepared to resist invasion. Not that invasion is likely in our time. But it may come in the next generation, and unless New Zealand has armed herself with the means of repelling raiders, she will offer an easy mark for attack. Mention has been made of strengthening the harbour defences. Sixteen-inch guns, the director system of naval battery, and bombing warplanes have demonstrated the comparative futility of shore defences. If the Anglo-French fleet had had no German submarines to deal with in its attack on the Dardanelles, the Turkish forts would not have given so much trouble. Submarines, destroyers, light cruisers and aircraft are the logical and most effective obstacles to place in the path of an invader. We are afraid that General Headquarters is too inclined to discount any form of defence which has little or nothing to do with military operations. We say this without meaning to reflect on General Sir Edward Chaytor in any way. So far as land defence is concerned, the country is fortunate in having such a proved soldier and administrator as the present G.O.C. There must be military training, of course. But we dare not put all our eggs in the military basket. We must, spare out of what we can afford in self-protection sufficient to establish firmly onr front-line defences—which are the sea and the air. As it is, the country has a military policy only, and Parliament has had no real opportunity of discussing it, let alone amending or extending it. It is not a business-like method of dealing with such a vitally important question, to put it no more strongly.