Beview of Revietcs, 1/12/13. 



THE DEFENCE ACT. 



965 



mated cost is not exceeded we will be 

 obliged to spend ^5,000,000 on giving 

 80,000 men in the citizen forces a train- 

 ing of 16 days a year and 90,000 senior 

 cadets 20 days per annum, whilst 

 Switzerland continues to give 140,000 

 men 1 1 days training a year, provides a 

 very extensive artillery, and uniforms 

 and rifles for 70,000 reservists for 

 ;^ 1, 800,000 ! 



THE AFRICAN SCHEME. 



The African scheme of defence, which 

 I outlined last month, offers the most 

 simple way out of the difficulty. If our 

 scheme were modified along these 

 lines, expenditure could at once be re- 

 duced to reasonable proportions, and 

 what is even more miportant, could be 

 kept there automatically. 



Up to a certain point, the plan 

 adopted in South Africa is a voluntary 

 one. It is only when the number volun- 

 teering is not considered large enough 

 that compulsion is resorted to. The 

 Boer W'ar demonstrated that a man who 

 could shoot straight was a splendid de- 

 fender of his country, so the scheme 

 compels South Africans to join rifle 

 clubs. It also follows the Swiss plan 

 of making everyone who does not bear 

 arms take his share by paying so much 

 a year for defence purposes. The Swiss 

 demand a contribution from every man 

 who does not serve, no matter if medi- 

 cally disqualified or not. 



£1 PER HEAD. 



The great advantage of the South 

 African scheme is its elasticity. Ours 

 is a cast iron one, which, unless greatly 

 modified, will break by its own weight. 

 It is quite right that Australia should 

 bear her share of the burden of Empire, 

 but she ought not to strive to shoulder 

 more than her share. The original es- 

 timates of the cost of army and navy 

 were ;6 1,884,000, and £'2,250,000 respec- 

 tively — i^4, 1 34,000 in all. We are spend- 

 ing almost ;£6,OO0,000 this year. It is 

 unreasonable to expect us to spend more 



per head on defence than does Ger- 

 many, but as things are, £1 per annum 

 would be a maximum we ought not to 

 exceed. This would allow us to spend 

 ;£'4,45o,ooo now, and £^5,000,000 in 1920. 



This sum should not be e.xceeded, and 

 need not be, if the land forces are kept 

 rigidly to estimate. In cutting our coat 

 to fit our cloth, we must never lose 

 sight of the fundamental fact, that the 

 control of the sea is vital for Austra- 

 lia. Compared to that the land forces 

 sink into insignificance. 



THE PITY OF IT ! 



Though admitting the need for this 

 vast expenditure of iJ^5,ooo,ooo, one can- 

 not but reflect upon the immense amount 

 of development work just one year's 

 defence budget could carry out. We 

 need population so badly ; closer settle- 

 ment is so imperative, that it would pay 

 Australia to see settlers through the first 

 year or two. For instance, a man really 

 needs a capital of about ;£200 to take up 

 land in the irrigated districts of Vic- 

 toria and New South Wales. Thirty 

 thousand families could be settled on 

 these lands, and fully equipped with 

 house, and everything necessary, for the 

 amount we are spending in defence this 

 year ! As every new resident in Aus- 

 tralia is worth £4 14s. a year to State 

 and Commonwealth, in taxes alone, that 

 i^5, 000,000 would be profitably invested 

 ■ — not lost forever. Whether Australia 

 twenty years hence would be better pre- 

 pared to defend herself, if she spends 

 i^ 1 00,000,000, as proposed, solely on 

 armaments and training, or whether by 

 the judicious expenditure of this sum 

 she adds at least 2,000,000 to her popu- 

 lation during that time, is a matter 

 rather for academic discussion, than for 

 practical politics. 



Defence we must see to, but we must 

 not cripple ourselves by indulging in 

 gorgeous schemes beyond the dreams of 

 even old and wealthy countries. Let us 

 cut our coat to fit our cloth. 



