1. Introduction
Human capital is central to delivering Australia’s national defence, but also represents its most challenging component. The workforce of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has long been a focal point, with its size and composition under constant review. Factors such as public opinion, the strategic environment and fiscal constraints complicate determining the number of military personnel required. In recent years, the ADF is not only tasked with increasing its size, but also with redefining the skills expected of its personnel.
This paper argues that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), and by extension the ADF, should reconsider its recruitment standards to widen eligibility. First, I will explain the need for ADF expansion. Second, I will address the recruitment challenges the ADF faces, focusing on the shrinking pool of eligible recruits. Third, I will use a case study on recruitment waivers to demonstrate how RAAF can adjust its standards while remaining a potent fighting force. This section will define recruitment waivers and present a longitudinal statistical analysis to support lowering standards. Finally, I will offer recommendations.
2. ADF expansion
Between 2016 and 2024, the Australian Government mandated a 37% increase in the permanent ADF workforce (Woodside, 2024). This growth was deemed essential to position the ADF to address strategic challenges. However, it resulted in a significant increase in demand for both the quality and quantity of personnel. At the same time, the ADF faces a shrinking labour supply, creating a significant challenge. This decline in recruitment is driven by several factors, including decreasing interest in military service, fluctuating employment rates, shifting workforce preferences, increased competition from civilian sectors and widespread skill shortages.
In 2016, the ADF’s permanent workforce consisted of approximately 58,000 personnel (Department of Defence, 2016). This workforce, shaped by prior governments, provided a reliable and potent national defence capability. The ADF’s human capital at that time encompassed diverse skills in combat, technical, engineering, strategy and policy, and delivered operational success in humanitarian, domestic and international missions (Department of Defence, 2013, 2016). The 2016 Defence White Paper set the ADF on a growth path, mandating an increase in the permanent workforce to 62,400. This expansion, aimed at supporting the introduction of modern, complex systems, marked the largest growth target since 1993 (Department of Defence, 2016).
By 2020, the ADF reached a workforce of 59,200, bolstered by its status as an employer of choice in a favourable recruiting environment (Department of Defence, 2020). Offering job stability, competitive benefits, diverse opportunities and a career with a sense of purpose, the ADF was an attractive choice in a labour market that highly valued job security and career stability. Simultaneous capability acquisitions saw the demand for personnel with cyber, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) expertise increase substantially.
However, 2020 also saw the labour market begin to undergo rapid change, impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened competition and evolving workforce expectations. These factors hindered recruitment, leading to the ADF only meeting 75% of targets in consecutive reporting periods (Department of Defence, 2022, 2023). In 2022, the Australian Government announced a revised, and higher, workforce goal of 80,000 permanent ADF personnel (Morrison & Dutton, 2022). In an increasingly competitive labour market, this announcement heightened the recruitment challenge.
2.1. Recruitment challenge – labour force constraints
The ADF’s labour needs have expanded considerably since 2016. The Australian Government’s directive for rapid expansion has significantly increased recruitment targets. Simultaneously, modernisation of the defence force has changed the type of personnel needed, with an increasing need for a highly intelligent and skilled workforce. Put simply, the ADF is attempting to recruit more people than they ever have in peacetime.
To qualify for military service, individuals must meet various eligibility requirements, including citizenship, medical and psychological fitness, physical fitness levels, a valid driver’s licence, adherence to dress and bearing standards, and a suitable criminal or civil history (Woodside, 2024). Candidates must also meet educational prerequisites, have a checkable background and fall within specific age brackets. These standards, tailored to each of the three Services, have long served as a robust recruiting framework. In fact, they once acted as a filter as the ADF attracted more applicants than roles available.
However, the ADF is no longer drawing the required number of candidates, and these entry standards have become a barrier. A declining interest in military service, changing political attitudes and a growing aversion to a military lifestyle have reduced the size of the interested labour pool (Woodside, 2024). Within this shrinking pool, the number of candidates who meet all eligibility criteria has also decreased. Citizenship requirements, background checks and medical standards are just a few factors now limiting eligibility. In 2024, it was reported that current medical entry standards saw 70% of applicants deemed ineligible (Sky News, 2024).
The decline in eligible candidates presents an opportunity for the ADF to reassess its recruitment framework. To meet its growth targets, the ADF must reconsider adjusting its entry standards to align more closely with the available labour pool. It can no longer afford to turn away potential aviators, sailors and soldiers solely due to eligibility criteria that may no longer be relevant.
2.2. The exception – recruitment waivers
Shortages of human capital in militaries, along with debates over entry standards, are not uncommon. Historically, when facing labour shortages, militaries have used recruitment waivers to expand their pool of recruits and improve their recruitment outcomes (Gallaway et al., 2013; Malone et al., 2011; Robson et al., 2021). Australia is no exception to this practice.
A recruitment waiver is an exceptional measure that allows militaries to temporarily adjust entry standards, enabling them to enlist individuals who would otherwise be ineligible (Woodside, 2024). When applying a waiver, applicants are assessed on a case-by-case basis, with their disqualifying factors weighed against the military’s risk profile. Although waivers offer a practical solution to increase recruitment and expand the workforce, adjustments to entry standards – whether temporary or permanent – often draw criticism.
2.3. Criticisms of waivers
One common criticism of adjusted military entry standards is the perceived decline in force quality (Malone et al., 2011; Robson et al., 2021). Traditionally, military personnel are seen as young, physically fit, disciplined and well-groomed, often sporting a crew cut or a bun. This conventional image has persisted for decades, leading to the assumption that recruits who deviate from it may weaken the overall military force. This belief is seldom supported by evidence (Woodside, 2024). In many cases, recruits enlisted under waivers do not pose the greatest risk to the long-term strength of the military and may provide the talent needed (Malone et al., 2011; Woodside, 2024).
Another argument against waivers is the concern that lower entry standards lead to negative behaviour during service, and early separations due to decreased resilience (Robson et al., 2021). Distifeno (2008), Etcho (1996) and Huth (2007) addressed this exact question by conducting statistical analysis on the United States (US) Army, Marine Corps and Navy, respectively. The studies compared the performance of recruits with moral and conduct waivers to those without waivers. Within the US military, moral waivers address previous questionable behaviour, while conduct waivers cover civil or criminal offenses. By analysing separation behaviour and service retention, the studies aimed to identify differences between these two populations and determine whether the waivers do in fact lead to negative behaviour.
Their results indicated that moral and conduct waivers related specifically to a felony and substance use are correlated with increased negative behaviour and a higher likelihood of involuntary separation (Distifeno, 2008; Etcho, 1996; Huth, 2007). These outcomes suggest that relaxing certain standards can affect long-term service success. Although statistically significant findings, additional empirical studies counteract these results.
Gallaway et al. (2013) found that altered entry standards related to conduct and felony history in the US Army were positively correlated with long-term success. Similarly, Distifeno (2008) and Etcho (1996) showed that waiving a history of traffic violations can improve long-term service retention. Hassin (2019) also found conduct waivers to be a neutral factor in ongoing military service. These results dispute the argument that waivers lead to lower standards, early separation and decreased resilience.
2.4. Support for waivers
Proponents of waivers argue that waivers allow militaries to enlist the workforce they need to meet their objectives. Malone and Carey (2011) conducted a comprehensive study on recruitment waivers across the US Services and concluded that waivers do not detract from military performance. They found that waivered recruits do not pose a significant risk to the military’s overall strength. Distifeno (2008), Etcho (1996), Gallaway et al. (2013) and Hassin (2019) will agree with this, advocating for their use.
Recruitment waivers present a complex issue when determining the appropriateness of adjusting entry criteria. Empirical evidence reveals nuanced and varied outcomes, both positive and negative within the US. While there is no clear answer as to their effect, it is reasonable to suggest that thoughtful adjustments to entry standards can and should be considered to address human capital shortages.
2.5. Recruitment waivers in the ADF
During challenging recruitment periods, the ADF employs initiatives to expand the pool of eligible applicants and enhance recruitment efforts (Department of Defence, 2023). This recruitment approach prioritises assessing whether an individual is fit and proper, tailoring the process and entry criteria to each candidate. Currently, military recruiters must identify opportunities to propose a waiver, with each Service responsible for evaluating and accepting any specific risks associated with the individual. Although this process can be cumbersome, it allows the ADF to enlist candidates who may not meet all standard criteria but demonstrate potential to contribute effectively. In today’s labour market, where finding interested candidates is increasingly difficult, recruitment flexibility is crucial. The recruitment waiver system maintains strict entry standards, but with measured flexibility.
While viewed as a potentially risky approach, adjusted entry standards through waivers enables the ADF to address broader workforce needs, supporting recruitment targets and workforce growth. Given the Australian Government’s directive for ADF expansion, the Services must significantly increase the enlistment of aviators, soldiers and sailors. However, questions arise about the long-term sustainability of the force. Does adjusting standards compromise the quality of the ADF?
3. RAAF case study
To evaluate how altering entry standards would affect the ADF, a study was conducted on RAAF’s use of recruitment waivers from 2016 to 2021 (Woodside, 2024). This analysis sought to determine the impact of these waivers on long-term workforce growth and sustainability.
This study examined recruits who enlisted with and without waivers, focusing on their progression through Initial Military Training (IMT) and Initial Employment Training (IET). Linear probability models assessed whether waivers influenced training success and service outcomes. Service success, in this context, is defined when an individual successfully completes their training and becomes part of the trained force. This allowed for a comparison of recruits with waivers against their peers without waivers, aiming to identify any significant differences in service success.
The analysis revealed that, in general, recruitment waivers have negative implications for successful service (Woodside, 2024). Recruits who were enlisted with waivers showed a lower probability of achieving successful service compared to those without waivers. However, this finding is somewhat constrained by the study’s scope, as it does not account for variations in waiver types or specific role requirements.
A more detailed examination of different waiver types provided additional insights. Seven waiver types were analysed, each corresponding to a specific entry standard, in the context of the eight workforce segments (Woodside, 2024). The study’s statistical approach analysed the effect of adjusting one entry standard at a time, all else held constant (ceteris paribus).
The study’s most prominent finding indicated that a recruitment waiver for driver’s licencing requirements positively affects RAAF’s workforce growth by increasing successful service probability (Woodside, 2024). This result was common and significant across multiple workforce segments, suggesting that the current driver’s licence entry requirement may be redundant (Woodside, 2024). This result reveals that RAAF, and the broader ADF, could confidently recruit and enlist applicants without a driver’s licence, knowing it would not detract from the broader workforce goals.
Conversely, the effects of waivers for physical fitness standards varied across different workforce segments. In some workforce segments, these waivers decreased the likelihood of successful service, while in others they had a positive impact (Woodside, 2024). These results reflect the differing physical demands amongst workforce segments and suggest that entry requirements and standards should be better aligned with role requirements.
Regarding educational standards, the study indicated that the current requirements may be outdated and that in-service training is effectively addressing educational deficiencies. Adjusting these standards to better match modern role requirements could enhance recruitment efforts and ensure that training success is not undermined by obsolete requirements. Other positive effects were found relating to criminal history and checkable background, suggesting a tailored adjustment would be beneficial.
The study then addressed the impact of applying multiple waivers simultaneously. It found that using multiple waivers did not significantly increase the risk compared to a single waiver (Woodside, 2024). This indicates that combining waivers may not present additional risks to the workforce, although the study did not explore all possible combination of waivers. Lastly, the study accounted for temporal changes by employing fixed effects to control for variations over the six-year period. It found that the results remained consistent over time, suggesting that the findings are stable and can be extrapolated with confidence.
The findings highlight that strategic altering of entry standards can positively influence recruitment by broadening the pool of eligible candidates (Woodside, 2024). By lowering unnecessary barriers, RAAF and the ADF could increase their access to prospective applicants, allowing the enlistment of individuals who demonstrate potential for military service but may not meet traditional requirements. Recruitment waivers have proven to be an effective tool in facilitating these alterations, though their utility remains limited by current practices. To further maximise their impact, the ADF should consider more permanent adjustments to entry criteria.
4. Recommendations for change
The analysis of RAAF’s use of recruitment waivers from 2016 to 2021 offers valuable insights into the effects of altered entry standards on long-term workforce sustainability. While the results are nuanced and varied, they should not deter the ADF from revisiting its recruitment framework. Personnel shortages and a challenging recruiting landscape make it imperative to reconsider rigid entry standards. The study revealed opportunities for change, particularly in areas like driver’s licencing where reducing or permanently adjusting this requirement could significantly expand the eligible labour pool without compromising operational readiness.
Furthermore, the physical standards should be modernised. The study showed that physical needs are differing based on the workforce segment and that modernisation should be based on specific roles. For physically demanding roles, such as those in combat and security, maintaining current fitness standards is crucial for readiness. However, roles in less physically demanding areas, such as communications and cyber, could benefit from more flexible fitness requirements. This adjustment would widen the applicant pool while ensuring that standards align more closely with the specific needs of each role.
Educational standards are another area in need of revision. In-service training programs have successfully addressed educational deficiencies, indicating that some entry prerequisites may be redundant. Revising educational requirements, particularly for roles experiencing skill shortages, would remove unnecessary recruitment barriers without sacrificing the quality of the force. By aligning educational standards with role-specific needs, the ADF could enhance recruitment outcomes and ensure workforce growth. Criminal history and security background requirements should also be reviewed, to ensure they are not unnecessarily hindering workforce growth.
5. Creating a new normal
Currently, recruitment waivers are not extensively publicised and rely on military recruiters to identify candidates who may benefit from the waiver system. This approach limits the number of applicants who could potentially qualify, as many prospective candidates may be unaware that the entry standard can be adjusted. To overcome this, the ADF should consider broadening public awareness of recruitment waivers or, more significantly, revising entry standards permanently to remove the need for waivers in cases where they have been proven unnecessary.
Administrative inefficiencies also hinder the effectiveness of the waiver system. Processing large volumes of waivers can become cumbersome and delay recruitment. Given the positive outcomes associated with waivers in certain areas, it raises the question of whether some exceptions should become the norm. Liberalising entry standards where appropriate would not only streamline recruitment but also reduce administrative burdens, making the process more efficient and applicant-friendly.
Overall, the liberalisation of entry standards, particularly through the use of waivers, has produced more positive outcomes than negative outcomes within RAAF. Therefore, RAAF, and by extension the ADF, should consider permanently revising entry standards to better align with in-service demands and the realities of the contemporary labour market. By revising outdated entry standards, the ADF could better position itself to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing workforce landscape. These adjustments will not only assist in fulfilling the Australian Government’s growth directives but also ensure that the ADF remains a competitive and capable force, equipped to meet the nation’s defence needs.