AUSTRALIA'S DEFENCES.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19156, 12 November 1927, Page 7

AUSTRALIA'S DEFENCES.

♦ — STARVED MILITARY FORCES GENERAL CHAUVEL'S WARNINGS. (FROM OUTS OW» CORRESPOKDEKT.) SYDNEY, October 20. For several years, Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Chauvcl, Inspector-General of Australian Military Forces, has issued warnings in his annual reports of the inadequate state of the Commonwealth's military forces. At the risk of becoming monotonous, he repeats his warning in his 1927 report, which was published this week. In this he directs attention to the fact that not enough financial provision is made for even a restricted programme of military defence. He sums up the position thus: "The activities of the army are now restricted to less than the bare essentials of maintenance and training. The time has passed when expenditure can be cut in one direction to permit of progress in another. The lack of provision for the increasing costs of our existing organisation and the consistent reduction in the annual vote render it impossible to carry out the approved programme." Local Security. Sir Harry Chauvel points out that the naval defence and economic life of Australia are dependent on the strength, disposition, and mobility of the Empire naval forces, but the latter do not exist •for the defence of Australia alone, and circumstances may arise to prevent those forces being used in a critical period for Australia. Therefore, he says, it is incumbent upon Australia to provide for its own local security. Under these conditions the principal instruments of the local security of Australia must be the Army and Air Force. The maintenance of the military organisation of fiv» divisions and two cavalry divisions, the adequate provision of all their requirements in equipment and material, and the training of that organisation are vital elements in Australia's defence. But, he emphasises, this organisation is in nucleus form only, and this nucleus does not possess the equipment or receive the training essential to effective performance of its functions. Urging that this nucleus should be increased, Sir Harry Chauvel mentions that although the population of Australia is 6,122,000, the number under training in the citizen forces is only 42,000. This number is trained for only three years of each individual's life, and for only 12 days in each year. He predicts that the nucleus organisation may fail in its object of producing its own leaders. Non-com-missioned officers and junior officers, who can be produced only by their voluntary efforts in addition to their compulsory period, are not forthcoming in sufficient numbers, and the In-spector-General declares that conditions of service for these ranks must be improved to induce good men to volunteer. Sir Harry Chauvel lays down the following essentials for future development: —(1) Expansion of the nucleus organisation to the minimum required for the training of leaders in sufficient numbers to meet the initial requirements of the army on mobilisation; (2) additional provision for the training of senior officers and staffs; (3) development of a munitions programme on a definite basis; and (4) re-arming of coast defences. ======