IS IT SAFE?

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1922, Page 5

IS IT SAFE?

DEFENCE FORCE CUT. POLICY IN AUSTRALIA. DRASTIC PROPOSALS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. Received May 1, 7.45 p.m. Sydney, May 1. Military critics are strongly adverse to that portion of the Commonwealth scheme of economy which involves the drastic pruning of the military estimates, and consequent reductions, which, it is understood, involve the closing of the Duntroon Military College, or its amalgamation with the Jervis Bay Naval College. The cut also involves the abolition of junior and senior cadet training, and a reduction of the citizens’ forces in training, with a curtailment of permanent officers. The commissioned units of the fleet will also be further reduced. General Brand warns the public that the proposed reductions threaten irreparable harm to the citizens’ forces. He is convinced that the people of Australia do not want such economy as will prejudice future defence and efficiency. Regarding the proposed naval reductions, it is stated that at least eleven vessels of various dimensions belonging to the fleet are officially regarded as out of date, and only two or three will remain in active commission.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

SIR JOHN SALMOND’S VIEWS. MEANING OF THE TREATIES. DEFENCE STILL NECESSARY. Received May 1, 10.15 p.m. Sydney, May 1. Sir John Salmond, who represented New Zealand at the Washington Conference, asked for his opinion on the proposed Australian defence economies, said the naval treaty signed at Washington might tend to create in the public mind a belief that expenditure on naval defence was no longer imperative. This was a great mistake. The mere fact that a ratio and limit had been imposed in no way affected the maintenance of the fleet permitted by the treaty, and it was the duty of Australia and other self-governing Dominions to bear a full share of the financial burden which the fleet imposed.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.