Service guarantees? National Security expert calls for reimagined national service concept

Australia has a long and complex relationship with National Service, often intertwined with conscription, which has significantly influenced public perception and fueled widespread opposition.

Beginning with the First World War, where conscription referendums in 1916 and 1917 polarised the public debate, ultimately resulting in their rejection. Despite this, the notion of compulsory service persisted, re-emerging in various forms throughout Australia’s history.

Meanwhile during the Second World War, conscription was reintroduced to bolster Australia’s military efforts, particularly for defending the home front as Imperial Japan rampaged through the region following the attack on Pearl Harbour and capitulation of British forces at Singapore in early-1942.

As tensions escalated during the Cold War, the perceived threat of communism led to the introduction of peacetime National Service in 1951, requiring young men to undergo military training, less than a decade after the end of the Second World War.

However, it was the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s that marked the most divisive period in Australia’s National Service history. The introduction of a selective conscription system based on a controversial birthday lottery provoked widespread protests and public outcry, fueled by media coverage of the war’s devastating impact, that for the first time brought the horrors of war into the living rooms of average Australians.

Throughout these eras, the implementation of National Service has often reflected broader societal and political pressures, exposing deep divides over issues of duty, freedom, and the role of government in shaping individual lives.

While Australia has since moved away from compulsory service, the legacy of these programs continues to inform contemporary debates on national security, civic responsibility, and the value of public service, both in a "traditional" military sense and

VIEW ALL

Despite this domestic skepticism, National Service remains a valuable public policy tool globally. Countries like Germany, Israel, Denmark, Sweden, and Singapore have implemented such programs to provide young people with workforce exposure, opportunities to develop diverse skills, and the chance to contribute to their nation’s needs both at home and abroad.

Indeed, recent announcements by now former UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak around the potential reintroduction of National Service for school leavers in the United Kingdom has poured fuel on the fire across the Western world as they struggle to meet recruitment targets in the face of mounting geopolitical tensions.

Entering the debate on the Australian side of things is former Home Affairs secretary, Mike Pezzullo in a piece in The Australian, titled 'Your country needs YOU! A case for hard patriotism' in which he posits a new look take on national service for Australian consideration.

"Soft Patriotism" vs "Hard Patriotism" and not your grandfather's national service

Before we start, one of the most significant indicators of success for any national service program is the ingrained sense of patriotism felt by the people of a nation, the second is the sense of investment and ownership a people feel over the direction of travel for their nation.

Now while that might be a controversial statement to make, it does hold some weight in the broader context of the national service debate, particularly when it has reared its head in Australia, with the most powerful examples being conscription during the First and Second World Wars.

This starkly contrasts with the public response to conscription during the Vietnam War and Australia's devastating participation in the conflict, which was characterised by the civil unrest, university riots and anti-war protests targeting returning Australian troops for their involvement.

However, what is being proposed isn't necessarily your father, or grandfather's concept of national service, but its success still requires a high-level of patriotism within the population.

Pezzullo explains, saying, "Patriotism involves more than going to the beach on a summer’s day on January 26 to celebrate Australia’s national day. It is a love of country. It is an understanding that Australia is not an arbitrary geographical space that happens to be inhabited by randomly selected individuals who lack a connection to one another. It is a cherishing of the nation’s shared heritage, which is the legacy of settlers, pastoralists, farmers, miners, administrators, industrialists, workers and so many more."

However, today's patriotism and by extension a concept of national service are a little different, something Pezzullo details further, saying, "Today that sentiment is captured in the Australian citizenship pledge, when new citizens are asked to pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people, to share our belief in democracy, to respect our common rights and liberties, and to uphold and obey Australian laws.

"Most Australians embrace this form of patriotism. To call it soft is not to diminish it. Rather, it is to suggest that such patriotism is reflexive and relatively cost-free. It is a love of a readily understood idea of Australia that does not require much explanation or ideological rationalisation."

It is the final paragraph which incapsulates the largest issues we face today, for a number of reasons, not least of all the "relatively cost-free" nature of patriotism in Australia, and to be fair, this has largely been the case for much of our history as a result of our geographic isolation largely protecting us from the epoch defining conflagrations of the twentieth century.

However it is important to say, even if it is commonsense, Australia today is vastly different to the country and people in the past that at least tacitly approved of conscription and national service.

This for Pezzullo is where "hard patriotism" needs to figure more prominently in Australia's national consciousness and play a more important role in developing a culture of service in Australian society, however it isn't without its challenges, which he posits, "There is an altogether different, and more challenging, form of patriotism.

"Hard patriotism has a necessarily martial quality, as it is invariably associated with the defence of the nation. Today it is being displayed by Ukrainians and Israelis. Hard patriotism challenges us to ask of ourselves: what is to be defended, to the last if necessary, and are we prepared to pay that price?"

In asking the question, many would be safe in assuming that Pezzullo is narrowing his focus on the traditional, martial concept of "national service", in favour of expanding the concept of "hard patriotism" to be more accommodating of changing society and culture.

Pezzullo details this saying, "Hard patriotism cannot be solely expected of our armed forces, although it is intrinsic to the profession of arms, which traditionally has placed a more visible emphasis on duty, honour, service and country.

"In the event of having to defend the nation, hard patriotism would be required of all. Sacrifice and commitment would be expected from all, subject only to age or incapacity. Hard patriots would need to be found not only in the armed forces but also across a mobilised and resolute population," Pezzullo details further.

Everybody fights! No one quits!

Yes, I quoted Starship Troopers, no, I'm not sorry.

Importantly Pezzullo highlights that while thankfully, Australia hasn't need to entrench a culture of "hard patriotism", our aforementioned geographic isolation, the largely benevolent periods of global history where our great and powerful friend of the day, whether the British Empire or now the United States has largely protected us it is now a major challenge and one that needs to be urgently overcome.

He details this reality, saying, "Australia has no threatening neighbours or historical enemies. If we did, hard patriotism would be intuitive and reflexive. Instead, for more than two centuries we have mentally lived in an imagined sheltered land, far from strife. No matter that the security of our sheltered land has been a function of Australia being prepared to fight distant wars (and a close one in 1942-44) against Eurasian powers, thereby assisting first the British Empire and then the US to prevail over aspiring Eurasian hegemons.

Unpacking this further, Pezzullo adds, "Today, we still live in a sheltered land, at least in our national imagination. In the absence of enemies at the gate, it is hard to appreciate that our way of life may one day be threatened – if not necessarily by invasion, then by other forms of strategic coercion or military attack."

Confronting these challenges should be a paramount focus for Australian Governments as we face down an era of mounting multipolarity, geopolitical and geostrategic competition far closer to home than has ever been experienced.

Pezzullo unpacks this, saying, "Hard patriotism cannot be conjured into being suddenly on the eve of a military crisis or at the outbreak of a war. More so than a significant financial crisis, a public health emergency or a catastrophic natural event, a major war would throw its terrible shadow across society in ways that would require a more far-reaching mobilisation of the nation and greater sacrifices."

"A determined and resolute government could make the case today for hard patriotism, so that we were better prepared for the unlikely but credible prospect of major war. This would require a different discussion between the government and the people. Such a discussion would begin with a more honest explanation of the precarious nature of our strategic circumstances," he explains.

Here in lies the problem, the urgent need for a conversation with the Australian public and the realities that potentially face Australia over the coming decades and countering these challenges will require that every Australian steps up to the plate.

Or, in a more Australian manner, as championed by former prime minister, John Curtin, who urged Australians, "Its Fight, Work or Perish!"

First and foremost, this requires an acceptance that, "The sheltered land of our national imagination is no more. The Eurasian axis of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is seriously challenging the US and its allies in the struggle for mastery in Eurasia and therefore globally. Distance no longer affords us the protection that it once did, as potential adversaries field longer-range weapons and potent offensive cyber capabilities.

Equally, Pezzullo adds, "In a more honest discussion, we have to consider the possibility of the emergence of a world where an isolated US, following military defeat or strategic withdrawal, was unwilling or unable to extend its protective shield over Australia and other allies. In that world, US forces and facilities would not be present in Australia and its nuclear forces would not protect us. China would rule the waves of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and its military bases would be in our sea-air approaches, including probably in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands."

In facing down this concerning possible future, the national populace will need to be mobilised both in a traditional sense and in a more modern manner to protect our nation and its interests.

In order to deliver this, Pezzullo suggests, "One way may be to ask all citizens, perhaps aged 18 to 65, to affirm annually a pledge of service, where we would all be asked to register the kind of national service that we would be willing to render in the event of a military emergency involving the defence of the nation. This would not be limited to being willing to take up arms. It would include other categories of service such as medical, construction, logistics and so on."

However in order to have any success, we have to accept one thing Pezzullo overlooks, or perhaps due to word limits doesn't highlight is the need to provide young Australians in particular a reason to be invested in and optimistic about our national future and it can't be in a token manner, it has to be achieved in a meaningful manner.

This means not only seriously listening to, but also addressing the very really issues facing young Australians and doing so quickly, because the clock is fast running down, because, as Pezzullo states, "Unfortunately, Australia is no longer a sheltered land, and the times call for a new Australian patriotism."

Final thoughts

Declining economic opportunities, the worsening global and regional balance of power, and the increasing politicisation of nearly every facet of modern life have deepened feelings of disconnection, apathy, and helplessness among many Australians. This growing sentiment fosters a sense of inevitability about negative outcomes, disempowering both the public and policymakers as they face seemingly insurmountable challenges with little perceived benefit and significant risk.

Given these dynamics, it is understandable why many Australians—both within the general public and decision-making circles—appear resigned to mediocrity, finding it easier to accept the status quo than to pursue ambitious goals.

However, reversing this trajectory requires a national effort, starting with meaningful engagement with and opportunity for young Australians. After all, these are the people who will inherit the nation's future, and addressing their concerns while providing solutions to the challenges they face is essential.

Traditional models of national service are insufficient for this task. Instead, Australia must establish a system that invests in its youth while building the nation’s capacity and competitiveness.

A modernised and flexible approach to national service—encompassing both military and civilian pathways—could offer young Australians a tangible connection to national purpose. Such a program would not only empower individuals but also strengthen Australia’s economic and strategic position in an era of intensifying great power competition.

The uncomfortable and little discussed reality remains: defending the nation and securing its future will not be cheap or easy, and confronting this truth is essential for meaningful progress.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..