Revicir 'Of R-cciiirs, Ij 1-2113. 



963 



THE DEFENCE ACT- III. 



By Henry Stead. 



AUSTRALIA WAKES UP AT LAST. 



We are indulging in an orgie of 

 tingency more remote than the millenn 



M}' article last month, dealing with 

 the finance of the Defence Act, point- 

 ing out that the land forces alone would 

 be costing Australia at least ^^^4,500,000 

 seven years hence, instead of the esti- 

 mated iJ^i, 884,000, has met with a re- 

 markable reception. Taking it as a 

 text, the " Age," in a series of articles, 

 insisted that this " wild orgie of frenzied 

 expenditure for an unthinkable contin- 

 gency " must stop at once. 



" It is a pity at this early stage of our 

 military career, to talk about curtail- 

 ing either cadet training, or the opera- 

 tion of the citizen army. Yet, if we are 

 to avoid a military budget of £1 per 

 head of the population, and naval ex- 

 penditure of another ;^i, we must econo- 

 mise with a firm hand." 



I argued last month that if we once 

 lost control of the sea, the whole man- 

 hood of Australia could never hope to 

 hold this great continent against a for- 

 midable foe. The " Age " agrees with 

 this point of view. It says: — 



"If we hid Germany's 4,000,000 sol- 

 diers, they would be insufficient to de- 

 fend our vast littoral from mvasion. 

 The only object of our citizen force is 

 to drive out an invader, if he once got 

 into the country — an extremely vague 

 and shadowy contingency. Such a body 

 ■of citizen defenders does not need to 

 be trained by the drill-ground and bar- 

 rack-roo-m methods of an offensive mili- 

 tary system, nor need it involve the 

 waste of millions of treasure." 



Although the " Age " is now advocat- 

 ing a serious modification of the Hen- 

 derson programme, its arguments 

 against the reckless creation of a 

 huge and costly land force could well 

 be used to defend the imperative need 

 of holding the sea. 



We in Australia, completely surrounded by 

 sea, with a barren and inhospitable coast, 

 and several weeks sail from any potential 



frenzied military preparation for a coji- 

 unn. — The ''Age'' Melbourne. 



enemy erect more fortifications against as- 

 sault than if we were in the' very lurnace of 

 Kuropean conflagTation. . . . 



Would the most hysterical scaremonger 

 support such a mad idea as that the Com- 

 monwealth should spend the equivalent of 

 ^i per head of our present population on 

 the military department alone. 



The military establishment cannot be al- 

 lowed to tax the Treasury to the extent of 

 millions a year. It must be brought within 

 moderate limits. We have a national duty to 

 discharge in a readiness to defend our birth- 

 right. We need not provide ourselves with 

 armament so costly as to constitute a grave 

 peril to national progress. 



HOW TO MODIFY. 

 Until recently it was difficult to get 

 anyone even to discuss the need for 

 modifying the defence scheme. The 

 attitude taken up was that, having set 

 our hand to the plough, we could not 

 turn back. The scheme might cost us 

 more than we anticipated, but it was so 

 vital that we must go through with it, 

 no matter what sacrifices were demanded 

 from us. That is still the feeling, un- 

 doubtedl}-, throughout Australia. But 

 that is because, as a whole, our people 

 are not yet seized with the situation. 

 The moment they do realise it, their 

 good sense asserts itself, and the mili- 

 tary fever subsides. As this leaven of 

 imderstanding spreads throughout the 

 whole continent, the urgent question is, 

 How can the scheme be modified with- 

 out entailing any abandonment of the 

 principle of defence, or Australia's de- 

 termination to take up her share of the 

 burden of Empire? 



BEGINNING WRONG. 

 Fortunately, the heavy cost, coming 

 so quickly after the inception of the 

 scheme, has demonstrated the need for 

 modifying it before such modification 

 had become impossible. Clearly, the 

 whole scheme of defence started at the 

 wrong end. Instead of finding out in a 

 business-like way, what the Common- 

 wealth was prepared and able to spend 



