The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORING MONDAY, MAY 22, 1911.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3224, 22 May 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORING MONDAY, MAY 22, 1911.

No doubt a good many people through-

“Willing to Tal Risks.”

out the world opened ike w’ide their eyes w’hen they learned of the de-

fence scheme which, is proposed in regard to Australia. It is, indeed, most likely the case that even now the magnitude of the programme outlined by Admiral Henderson has not yet been fully realised by the people of the Commonwealth themselves. “Expenditure in 22 years, £88,500,000!” This; in brief, is wliat this scheme would cost the Commonwealth if it should, happen to be carried into effect in its entirety. With such an extensive coastline it is easy to see hozv Australia can be properly guarded without a very large expenditure upon defence. . Still it does not seem to be thoroughly grasped that no matter if the island continent should go in for such a big programme ships and guns alone will not afford adequate protection. Before Australia can feel safe she must—and without delay—do

more to fill the vast empty spaces which constitute such an attraction to the overcrowded peoples of the East. It was evidently with the object of encouraging emigration that Mr. Batchelor at the Australian Banquet in London painted, such a rosy picture of the prosperous times . which . that great country is at present enjoying. For our own part we sincerely trust that his appeal will not prove to have been made in vain. Reverting to the question of defence, it must be clear also

that with a comparatively small population the Commonwealth would find a big navy a very heavy burden. Bearing this aspect in mind> one might ask: Is -there not something in what the “Seattle Times” said when it pointed out that Australia was a naval policy which might set a record to the civilised World? “Some think,” the Federal Minister for Defence is reported from London to have remarked, “that Australia is attempting too much' respecting defence, but Australians are always willing to take risks.” As to the latter portion of the remark, much comment, we feel, is unnecessary. IJp till now paucity of population in itself has been foolhardiness from many points of view. If greater encouragement had been given in the matter of emigration it Would, of course, have meant that the Commonwealth would have been in a much better position to afford a big navy. Even if population were twice as great the expenditure involved under the Kitchener-Hender-son scheme would prove burdensome. If one examines the position closely one will find that defence cost Australia £1,575,000 in 1910. By 1918, however, under the scheme in question the annual defence expenditure of the Commonwealth would be £5,884,000.: That would probably mean not less than £1 per ‘head! As to what the figure would reach by 1933, who could forecast? For the purposes of comparison it may be mentioned that to-day Great Britain has the greatest expenditure on defence among the various nations, with £1 6s lOd per head. As regards other countries, the figure per capita is:—Germany 19s 2d, France £1 3s, Italy 9s 9d, Austria-Hungary 6s 6d, Switzerland 8s lid, Russia 8s Bd, Spain 8s 4d, Norway 8s lid, Sweden 13s 9d, Denmark 8s lid, Holland 13s 4d, Belgium 6s sd, United States 11s lOd, Canada 4s, Japan 6s Bd. Whilst her delegates are at Home we shall be told again and again what is perfectly true, viz., that Australia will not be found lagging behind in the matter of - defence. Britain, with the thousands of suitable emigrants which she can spare, can also help the Commonwealth by providing her with additional population. Now is the time for mutual assistance, and it is to be hoped that the opportunity will not be missed.