Login
iscover
There’s clear evidence that Australia is losing the Defence recruitment race and the gap is widening each year.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
It’s no secret that the Australian Defence Force and defence industry are facing significant workforce challenges. Recruitment has already been identified as a reoccurring issue in the federal government’s Defence Strategic Review (DSR) released earlier this year.
The DSR recommends an increase in recruitment speed from application to enlistment and the process of recruitment should be achieved in days, not months.
The DSR also recommended changes to Defence’s recruitment framework, a comprehensive strategic review by 2025 of the ADF Reserves, and consideration of the reintroduction of a Ready Reserve Scheme.
The previous federal government announced a target of growing Australia’s armed forces to 80,000 uniformed personnel by 2040 to operate newly purchased military equipment.
But does our nation’s population have the collective cultural spirit to take up arms in an international conflict in the Indo-Pacific to use those weapons?
For now, I’ll be leaning towards the “probably not” camp.
Australia’s “she’ll be right” attitude, traditional reliance on colonial powers, and historic isolation from international conflicts do not play well with preparing our citizens for a war much closer to home.
In my opinion, Australia does not currently have the meaningful national majority needed for a modern conflict, although the last dregs of World War II patriotism, spurred by the honourable fight of the underdog country against international bullies, will likely grab a few sparse sections of the population.
This is illustrated in a survey commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs and undertaken by Sydney market researcher Dynata of 1,000 Australians in March 2022. The survey asked, “If Australia was in the same position as Ukraine is now, would you stay and fight, or leave the country?”
The survey found around 46 per cent of people would “stay and fight”, down to 32 per cent of those aged 18 to 24, and 35 per cent of those aged 25 to 34.
About 28 per cent would “leave the country”, up to 40 per cent of those age 18 to 24 and 38 per cent of 25 to 34-year-olds would leave. About 26 per cent of people surveyed in total were unsure what they would do.
I would argue Australian citizens are not only unmotivated to defend this country but also ill-equipped for the fight. Decades of continual political opposition to civilian defence policy has crippled future hopes for a grass-roots defence network.
Federal and state governments from both major political parties have implemented increasingly strict firearms legislation in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, the country’s worst mass shooting (35 people killed) in 1996.
In a fit of overzealous legislation, innocuous close quarters, combat-style skirmish sports such as airsoft, gel blaster, and paintball were also targeted to be outlawed or heavily restricted. Those sports have traditionally fared well with military recruitment and veterans in Europe and the USA.
The result of this legislation wave has brought about a rate of 3.41 licensed gun owners for every 100 people nationally, according to statistics published by the University of Sydney in April 2021. Around 868,000 of the total 25.69 million Australians held a current gun licence in that year.
If the majority of the population have never held a rifle or seen Australian Army soldiers in uniform outside of Anzac Day, how can we expect them to readily step in the door to the nearest Australian Defence Force recruitment office when it’s crunch time?
There are examples of successful domestic defence policy within the Indo-Pacific and Europe. More than 60 countries have legally authorised compulsory military service in some form internationally and more than 20 have conscription laws in place but not actively being used.
Singapore runs a National Service Obligation in which male Singapore citizens and permanent residents are required to complete 40 days of operationally ready national service per year until age 40–50. This can be deferred for university studies but must be completed later.
South Korea also runs a compulsory military service for men aged 18 to 35, however, the training can be delayed until age 28 to accommodate university study and career development. The military service can run for 18 to 21 months and is considered a primary duty of residents.
In Sweden, those age 16 to 70 living in Sweden are part of the country’s total defence service as part of military service, civilian service or general compulsory national service. Residents complete basic training, receive a posting, and have a wartime posting order once they turn 18.
Finland has a similar system in which male Finnish citizens are subject to the conscription call-up beginning the year they turn 18 years and women can apply for military service voluntarily. Conscripts receive military training and are mustered to the Finnish Defence Forces’ reserve.
Countries like the People’s Republic of China and Russian Federation have an indisputable military recruitment advantage over Western democracies like Australia. Justly or unjustly, they can leverage state-run military education programs, government-sponsored media and have control over conscription programs to significantly boost military recruitment for national defence.
Earlier this month, the Chinese National People’s Congress Standing Committee submitted a draft patriotic education law to further promote the spirit of patriotism in the country among younger generations.
The draft included areas of patriotic education such as ideology and politics, history and culture, national symbols, national unity and ethnic solidarity, national security and defence as well as the deeds of heroes and role models. It’s expected that all PRC citizens should undertake patriotic education, however, it also stipulates that schools at all levels should integrate patriotic education into the entire educational process to promote quality ideological and political theory courses.
Many schools and universities in China reportedly already conduct strengthening military training such as boxing, marching, saluting, and shooting for high school students each September as an expansion of national defence education. In 2021, the Ministry of Education and the National Defense Mobilization Department of the Central Military Commission clarified that military veterans could be employed by schools for students’ military training.
The Russian Federation is taking a similar approach under a cooperative agreement signed between Russian sports public organisation “Practical Shooting Federation of Russia” and Russian firearms manufacturer Kalashnikov Concern on 26 June.
The agreement promotes teaching responsible attitude to weapons, respect for military-patriotic traditions, popularising physical culture, sports and a healthy lifestyle. Both organisations hope to achieve these aims through the military-patriotic education of citizens, raising the prestige of youth involvement in state defence and security, development of educational and methodological support, educational materials, and the introduction of joint educational programs.
Kalashnikov Concern president Alan Lushnikov said both organisations have common views on the matter.
“In particular, we believe that our main task is to restore the former respect for weapons and for the person; the defender of the Fatherland,” he said.
“Weapons are always very serious and very responsible. That is why we intend to prioritise educational and educational activities aimed at increasing the responsibility of gun owners to society.
“On the other hand, society should also treat a person with a weapon without fear and disdain, as is often the case today, but with respect and gratitude.”
