Australian Defence Force Recruiting Systems Need Urgent Overhaul

In early 2024, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) was approximately 4,300 personnel short of its authorised strength of 62,700 permanent members. This shortfall makes the 2040 target of 80,000 personnel increasingly difficult to achieve.

While recruitment challenges are often attributed to competition with other industries and Australia’s low unemployment rate, other factors significantly hinder ADF recruitment. Pay and conditions are frequently cited as an issue, but ADF salaries remain competitive. Australia’s median full-time salary is around $88,500 per year, while ADF personnel—such as a sergeant, fully qualified officer, or a private at pay grade 5—earn above this median. Increasing salaries further may not yield proportional improvements in recruitment or retention.

In 2024, 64,000 individuals applied to join the ADF, yet the average time to complete the recruitment process was 300 days. These figures highlight two major issues. First, a modest increase in successful applicants would have closed the 4,300-personnel gap. Second, the drawn-out recruitment timeline is clearly inefficient. A lengthy recruitment process is particularly problematic in an era of rising geopolitical tensions, where swift expansion of the ADF is critical. Moreover, many high-quality applicants likely abandon the process in favour of faster-moving opportunities elsewhere.

Of the 64,000 applicants, some were recruited, some withdrew, and others were deemed unsuitable. However, it is implausible that none of those rejected applicants could have competently filled some of the 4,300 unoccupied positions. The ADF’s stringent entry standards need reassessment to ensure they align with operational needs rather than bureaucratic inflexibility.

Historically, Australia’s military recruitment was far more inclusive. During World War II, approximately one in eight Australians was deemed fit for service. In contrast, many individuals who fought in past conflicts would be ineligible under today’s stricter standards. The ADF should reconsider its approach to minor or historical health issues, particularly concerning mental health. Advances in medical understanding and treatment have rendered many previously disqualifying conditions manageable. However, the ADF’s conservative stance continues to exclude a growing number of otherwise capable candidates. Expanding mental health support during and after service would enable Defence to recruit from this broader talent pool.

To improve recruitment outcomes, the ADF must allocate greater resources to recruitment and streamline bureaucratic processes. Prioritising high-performing candidates and reducing delays in documentation and medical evaluations would increase the likelihood of securing top talent. Additionally, a thorough review of the ADF’s contract with its recruitment provider, Adecco, could identify areas for improved efficiency.

Ultimately, the ADF must modernise its recruitment standards and processes to reflect current workforce realities. A balanced approach, focusing on an applicant’s current capabilities rather than outdated risk assessments, will better serve Defence’s long-term needs. With these adjustments, the ADF can effectively tap into the existing pool of applicants, making the 2040 goal of 80,000 personnel a realistic achievement.