CAB9-1_PT2 — Page 205

Page 205

war establishment in the proportions suggested by the Colonial Defence Committee, the system initiated by the Defence Act will prove a success. If, however, men passing into the Reserve are not replaced by fresh men enrolled in the Active force, then whatever the merits of the Act in securing an efficient personnel it will have failed to produce an adequate one.

A contingency which should further be guarded against is the possibility of men being allowed to remain too long in the Reserve, thus increasing the strength of that body at the expense of the Active force. On the conditions recommended by the Colonial Defence Committee, i.e., 2,000 Active and 1,500 Reserve, four years' total service would be sufficient. As the law stands, the Reserve will, in normal circum- stances, automatically become greater than the Active force, by reason of the three years' term in the Reserve. The retention of men in the Reserve beyond their total five years' term would accentuate this. It would be well, therefore, to lay down a rule that there should be a minimum strength for the Active force as compared with the Reserve.

If the Act is worked so as to produce an Active and a Reserve force of 2,000 and 1,500 men respectively, it will undoubtedly be necessary for the Government of South Australia to provide for a somewhat larger military expenditure than that now incurred. The Colonial Defence Committee consider, however, that the expenditure would not be greater than the defence requirements of the Colony justify, nor than the amount which, as far as they are in a position to judge, the Colony could reasonably afford. It would probably not exceed one-quarter of the military expenditure incurred by the Colony of New South Wales, though both the population and public revenue of South Australia, compared to those of New South Wales, are considerably greater than this proportion.

2. It will be observed that in the foregoing Remarks no account is taken of the utilization as a Reserve of the 700 men of the Defence Rifle Clubs referred to in paragraph 7 of the Commandant's Report under consideration. The Rules for these Clubs, given in Appendix (F) to the Report, show no provision for the drill of their members, and it is understood from a despatch of the Governor, dated the 24th March, 1898, that the question of the training of the Rifle Clubs is being held over for the present. The Committee adhere to their opinion, formerly expressed, that without some instruction in marching and simple formations members of these Clubs could not satisfactorily take their place in the ranks of the South Australian Forces when required to do so in anticipation of or on declaration of war.

The Committee further consider that money spent on the Defence Forces of the Colony is more likely to produce an adequate result than an equal expenditure on Rifle Clubs.

3. With regard to the details of paragraph 6, Table (B), it is not clear what advantage is gained in a public Report of this nature by a division of the troops under the headings of Fixed Defences and Field Force, which apparently only affects their allotment on mobilization. The Colonial Defence Committee would also call further attention to paragraph 3 of their Remarks No. 158 R., dated the 1st April, 1897, on the subject of the permanent organization of the forces, especially with regard to the Field Artillery and to the Machine-gun and Signalling Corps. The eight-company organization of a battalion of mounted infantry having now disappeared from the Imperial establishments for that arm, the Colonial Defence Committee's Remark in that paragraph on the subject of mounted infantry organization no longer applies.

4. The part of the Commandant's Report dealing with matériel (paragraphs 9 to 15) calls for few remarks from the Committee. They endorse his opinion that a field battery of four 15-pr. B.L. Mark I, 7 cwt., guns is required. This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee contained in their Memorandum No. 65 M., dated the 12th June, 1896. They do not trace that any action has as yet been taken to provide a 12-pr. Q.F. gun for the defence of the entrance to the Port River, as recommended in paragraph 3 of their Remarks No. 157 R., dated the 16th February, 1897, or to mount the two 6-in. B.L. guns imported for placing on barges at Fort Glanville to replace the two 64-pr. R.M.L. guns at present there, and thus considerably increase the efficiency of the fort at comparatively small expenditure. But they

Page 205

Page 205