The Daily News WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1933. DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 September 1933, Page 6

The Daily News

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1933. DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH, Currie Street. STRATFORD. Broadway. HAWERA. High Street.

The most pacifically-minded individual could scarcely complain that the new programme of defence equipment proposed by the Australian Government is in any way aggressive. The Federal Minister of Defence, Sir George Pearce, was a member of the Labour Government under the late Mr. Andrew Fisher’s leadership, an administration that was responsible for the inauguration of compulsory military training throughout the Commonwealth. Sir George left the extreme pacifists over the question of conscription during the war, and shared in the deliberations of the National Government which succeeded the first Hughes Labour Ministry. By political training and Ministerial experience Sir George Pearce should therefore be well qualified to judge the defence needs of the Commonwealth, and how far Australian public opinion will go to supply those needs. During the past three years economic reasons have made it necessary to reduce expenditure upon defence in Australia and in New Zealand to the absolute minimum. Moreover during that period there seemed reasonable hope that international agreement might be substituted for armed force and the need for immediate expenditure in the two Dominions appeared to be less pressing than the conservation of their financial resources. Though hope of general disarmament, is not entirely dead—indeed it has been revived by negotiations between Britain, France, the United States and Italy during the past few days—there are ugly facts that no responsible Dominion Ministry can neglect or ignore. The troubles in Northern China, Japan’s resignation from the League of Nations, the altered attitude of Germany and the turmoil in Austria are some of the factors that do not encourage any weakening of defence measures. The Australian authorities emphasise that their new proposals are for defence only. Australia has thousands of miles of seafront in the north, and there are many points at which entry to the Commonwealth could be made by an aggressor unless the Australian Navy is effective enough to patrol those waters. Vulnerability in North Australia has been increased by the development of air transport, and there are many areas in the more settled portions of the Commonwealth that for climatic reasons would be difficult to overcome by infantry or cavalry forces, but which could offer little resistance to mechanised transport. These are the factors which seem to underlie the new defence programme of the Commonwealth. At one time a section of the defence authorities there believed that the “empty north” was an effective line of defence. It provided, they said, a large barren buffer country, through which any invader would find it difficult to proceed and which would weaken his forces in the effort. The aeroplane and the tractor have removed the strength of that argument, and Australia knows now that the whole of her long seafront must have patrol and defence if she would make aggression impossible or undesirable from the point of view of a potential enemy. A stronger navy, a much increased and fully equipped air force, and the mechanisation of other defence equipment are to be the features of the programme to be placed

before the Federal Parliament. It is satisfactory to note that Australia is seeking the close cooperation of New Zealand in matters of defence. Though both Dominions have their individual problems there are many issues fn which their interests are identical and common action is desirable. They both, for instance, depend upon the adequate protection of seaborne trade routes, they are both closely concerned in the development of air forces, and they can share with mutual benefit establishments for the training of defence forces that are already in existence. It is regrettable that just as the clouds of economic depression are beginning to lift the need for greater expenditure upon defence should arise. Nevertheless to ignore conditions that may have appalling effects upon the future is neither statesmanship nor loyalty to the trust reposed in national leaders. Australia’s decision to increase her defence equipment must also cause some searching of heart in New Zealand.