Should National Service be Re-Introduced?

[Ausfree]

Yesterday was National Service Day and I see in the local newspaper that former "Nasho's" who attended the Service in Newcastle, were unanimous in their verdict that National Service in a modern form should be introduced as a way of building character, discipline and the Nation. Not counting wartime, National Service was introduced between 1951 and 1959 and again from 1965 to 1972.

I am old enough to have gone through the "Ballot" in the second lot of conscription in the late sixties and even though I was not required to do National Service, I did complete six years in the "Citizens Military Forces" and I must admit, it was an interesting time and did instill discipline into me.

Has anybody any thoughts on this???

[Nero]

As a ex reasnoably recent serving member mid to late 90's. No bugger off it will devalue those who have served and its hard enough to convince outside employers you are actually capable of doing stuff. There is also the issue of been under pressure in a situation with someone who might not really want to be there.

[Rimmer]

I've always thought it would be great for alot of todays youth. Who have vast amounts of energy, too much spare time, no direction, unsure what they want from their future. Basically the cause of most youth crime and uncertanty.
Young adults looking to belong somewhere. I think National service would provide many of the things missing in some young peoples lives and actually encourage them to be proud, productive and understanding people.

Tod.

[drivesafe]

Hi Nero and while I can see and understand your point, there is more reason now to reintroduce National Service as a means of making sure our young adults get some life and discipline training, not just the Bogan upbringing many suffer from.

I served in the regular army ( for a very short time ) just after the last Nashos were abolished and it was a shame the way the army was run down but today's military forces are a credit to this country and could be used to bring some discipline to some of these Bogan.

[87County]

The current leaders and trainers in the ADF have enough real work to do without being burdened with the type of member such a scheme would bring in ;)

It's so different (and better) to work with people who actually want to be in the ADF from the start, rather than people who are "required" to be.

The professionalism of the services has improved out of site in the last 40 years - yes, not without faults I know - but substantially different in attitude from what it was like when there last were nashos.

[MickS]

I can understand both sides of the argument...but do we really want these types:

Lawless Australian thugs copy mayhem of US organised crime groups | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/lawless-sydney-thugs-copy-mayhem-of-us-organised-crime-groups/story-e6frfkvr-1226005487571)

..drafted into the ADF, in the hope it will turn them around?

The bogan element was mentioned...I think today's definition of a bogan is vastly different to what one may have been years ago. Grass roots is where it has to start. **** off ridiculous juvenile cautioning systems; touchy feely rub and tug sessions between counsellors and "disaffected" youth and their victims; give law enforcement their street offence powers back; no more namby pamby education where a kid can complain to the ombudsman about the way he/she was spoken to...ship them off to Long Bay for 48 hours of "hard" time and see how smart they are.

[mikehzz]

No. I know too many nasho's who ended up basket cases from going to Vietnam. If you chose to go in the army then you have a completely different personality than someone who doesn't want to join at all. Character destroying rather than building for many in my experience. No risk they would be shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan. No need to get shot at just because of a politition's whim. Their kids won't be there in most cases.

[Landy Smurf]

a catch 22 really.personally if they asked me to i would say no i have other thinsg to do.but there is alot of troubled youths that could benifit from it. i dont know if any of you have seen brat camp i think that should be done alot more

[Ausfree]

I can understand both sides of the argument...but do we really want these types:

Lawless Australian thugs copy mayhem of US organised crime groups | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/lawless-sydney-thugs-copy-mayhem-of-us-organised-crime-groups/story-e6frfkvr-1226005487571)

..drafted into the ADF, in the hope it will turn them around?

The bogan element was mentioned...I think today's definition of a bogan is vastly different to what one may have been years ago. Grass roots is where it has to start. **** off ridiculous juvenile cautioning systems; touchy feely rub and tug sessions between counsellors and "disaffected" youth and their victims; give law enforcement their street offence powers back; no more namby pamby education where a kid can complain to the ombudsman about the way he/she was spoken to...ship them off to Long Bay for 48 hours of "hard" time and see how smart they are.
You make a good point, we do need to toughen up the judicial system to deal with these types of people and maybe if you have a criminal record you are not suitable for the ADF. I think the type of person who may benefit would be one who is aimless in life and just needs a shove in the right direction to get them going.;)

[Ausfree]

No. I know too many nasho's who ended up basket cases from going to Vietnam. If you chose to go in the army then you have a completely different personality than someone who doesn't want to join at all. Character destroying rather than building for many in my experience. No risk they would be shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan. No need to get shot at just because of a politition's whim. Their kids won't be there in most cases.
Please not that I used the words National Service in a "MODERN FORM". This would preclude them from being sent to War Zones unless they agree to this. Also, as you mentioned a lot of the Vietnam Vets ended up as "Basket Cases" as would happen to any soldier in any war, however the Vietnam Vets had the additional problems of not being made to welcome when they came home and would even hide the fact that they served in Vietnam because of the reception they received from people who should have known better. It was not their fault they were sent to Vietnam it was the Politicians who sent them!!;)

[Bigbjorn]

All the guys I knew who were press ganged into the army in the 60's resented the interuption to their lives and most still consider that two years of their life was stolen from them.

Many of them used the term "reg" as in regular soldier as a term of derision, meaning a dumb person, someone who was stupid enough to volunteer to join.

[MickS]

You make a good point, we do need to toughen up the judicial system to deal with these types of people and maybe if you have a criminal record you are not suitable for the ADF. I think the type of person who may benefit would be one who is aimless in life and just needs a shove in the right direction to get them going.;)

I think you'll find the "aimless without not much direction" crowd are not the ones the pro-nasho debate want to be drafted. It's more the lawless youth...the 14 - 18 year olds getting ****ed and stoned on a Friday and Saturday night because of a dose of "mummy didn't cut my lunch right" blues - they are the ones they want to see straightened out. The problem is, those same youths get involved in low level street crime, and gravitate very quickly to bigger things. The broken windows theory needs to be implemented. Extinguish the small fires before they get bigger. You spit on the footpath, you get pinged.

The Swiss have it sussed. Mandatory conscription. Once you are old enough to understand, you KNOW you will be entering the military, and will continue to be part of it throughout your life. Mind you, it helps being a neutral country :lol2:

[Brian]

Yes, it should be re-introduced.
And for those Bogans as they have been called, they need to have RESPECT and DISCIPLINE drilled into them.
Also when you have left school and dont have a full time job, its the nashos for you.
Would improve this country no end.

cheers

[MickS]

it was the Politicians who sent them!!

As opposed too....??????????? ummm...errr...;) ahh that's right, couldn't really call our political leaders politicians...:cool:

[drivesafe]

Yes, it should be re-introduced.
And for those Bogans as they have been called, they need to have RESPECT and DISCIPLINE drilled into them.
Also when you have left school and dont have a full time job, its the nashos for you.
Would improve this country no end.

cheers

Like that idea, and see how many of these dropouts would suddenly find full time employment.

And make voluntary but a case of No Nashos, No Dole

[weeds]

nope

the defence force doesn't have enough money as it is for the regs....dont get me started on chocko's 'reserves' as i reckon its a massive waste of money

why should the defence have to put up with the un-employeed, fair chance they wont want to be there.............can you imagine your work taking on the unemployed, training them, and teaching them respect and discipline and them off loading them...more than likely back on the jam roll

the army may teach you respect and discipline however..............i best not go there

i enjoyed my 9 years in the regs, enlisted, got a trade, had a ball, transferred while i was still enjoying it.........not sure i respected the person wearing the rank 'in most cases i didn't' and i failed on discipline 'within the army that is' and 23 years on i am still doing chocko's 'WOFTAM's'

i reckon i have turned out alright, i joined the army because i wanted a trade and a guaranteed job for nine years and a whole lot more if i wanted, i didn't join for the army stuff and two way ranges were not on my list of things to do......for the boys that deploy, i salute them

i doubt that i would ever have been in a position where i was out of work and forced into a job i didnt want to do

[MickS]

Maybe make a reality TV show instead...specifically of the kind that constitutes a historically derived social experiment based on the premise of subjecting today's delinquent individuals to the conditions of the Australian national service of the 1950s in order to see if this could rehabilitate them..........bugger, already been done :lol2:



YouTube - Bad Lads Army: Private Woodend & His Beasting

[Brisruss]

I was in the last ballot in 1972 and would you believe it, it is the only lottery I have ever won. I was studying Civil Engineering at the time and they deferred my enlistment for a few months while I finished my Course.

During that time I had a medical and as soon as I graduated I was going in.

At that time we were still sending our boys to Vietnam. Some didn't come home and some came home with real problems. The Country did not do much to look after them.

When you consider we did not even have the right to vote, but we could be drawn out of a barrel and sent to a conflict like Vietnam whilst our mates who were lucky enough to miss having their marbles drawn out enjoyed life as normal.

As it turned out I did not go because Gough Whitlam won the election and conscription was abolished.

Interestingly, my wife and I have since travelled to Vietnam for a holiday, and i took a lot of interest in the war history while over there. I can tell you that it was not very pleasant. We saw the tunnels at CuChi and to think our guys had to go down them and try and ferret out the VietCong is frightening. We saw some of the traps used by the Vietnamese as well.

We saw people who have been maimed by land mines in Cambodia. Land mines are the most hideous aspect of war I can think of. So many civilians are still being killed or badly injured by them even now.

If you ever reintroduced it, a fairer system would be needed. Perhaps everyone should do 12 months but not be made prop up the professional armed forces. There is no way you can substitute a National Service trainee for a regular.

Just my two cents worth.
Russ

[Ralph1Malph]

Y'all are on drugs....just like the derros and drongos and mispent youth and bogans we are all talking about.
We are trying to RAISE the education standard of Soldiers, not lower it to accept societies dregs!
That and the fact that I am not a counsellor, not a child minder nor are we running an institution for naughty boys or unemployed young people.
The Military is a profession, not a community service.
That being said, I would have no problem if other professions had a similar scheme.....perhaps all unemployed should spend a year as a house painter (outdoors, plenty of time to contemplate life and of course refining ones patience). Or maybe all should be trained as mechanics (eye hand skills, oil appreciation and they get to behave whilst test driving your car).

On second thoughts, maybe it would have been better to have had conscripts assist with the floods. I am sure they would have had their minds right on the job! Particularly after knock off time when still working.

Sorry for my cynicism, but I have served through 2 or 3 various youth schemes in the Military over the past 28 years and the effort has far outweighed the gain in all cases, slurping scarce resources from the front line.

The army is no longer '3 hots and a cot', it is very much 'pay as you go'. You have to be able to manage your own affairs, find your own accomodation, manage a lease and rent schemes, budget for your own meal expenses, much as a civilian citizen, get yourself to work, on time, every time...the list goes on.

I also apologise to all the nashos, I hope you weren't scarred and I respect your contribution, but now is not the time. We need good quality volunteers, happy to put their lives on the line.

Rant over!

Cheers
Ralph

[drivesafe]

Hi weeds, I did the same thing.

When Whitlam did away with National Service in the early 70s, the Army did a huge advertising SCAM, tell you you could join the army and get a trade.

I like many hundreds of others joined up so, like you, I could get a trade. Being a train driver was great, but it wasn’t a trade you could take with you.

24 hours into rookie training and my platoon was in a Q & A session. One of the guys asked the officer “how long after basic training do we find out what trade apprenticeships we can do?”

The officer stated that “ unless you were doing an apprenticeship before you joined up, we were not eligible for an apprenticeship in the army.

You could have heard a pin drop.

Like most of the guys in my platoon, I had joined up to get one of the many trades being offered in the ads.

And like most of the guys in my platoon, my army career went down hill rapidly from that point.

Thanks to someone’s son in another platoon, who's father was a barrister, and did the army for false advertising, I and many others ended our army careers 7 months later, ( and in my case, with the help of some AWOL time ).

So the army was as bad as any other crooked institute at that time and my Point being, the army can be as bad as the bogans that need to do some time in the army..

Things have changed and while I would expect the REAL army could be maintained separately from the weekend warriors, I still think the modern army could easily be used to get dole bluggers on the straight and narrow and their dole money could be used to finance that part of the army.

BTW, to give you an idea of how ridiculous things were in the army in the mid 70s. I was stationed at Watsons Bay for a few months and at that time there were 14 privates and 34 Non Commissioned Officers. You reckon they weren’t short of solders?

[Nero]

Reading a few of the replies whats the average age of pro national service, 175 per chance, yes yes the youth of the day are all of our troubles they have no direction they are useless hoons drug addicts and eat babies. Nothing like back in my day where we walked to school in bare feet up hill both ways in the snow holding a hot potato for lunch to keep us warm.

If you have a look back through history nothing has changed the only difference is the mass media and mass communication. Anyone can get up and grandstand and whine make claims which no actual facts the population is larger there for there and more people of different subsets around even though the percentage of the population hasn't changed.

The other thing is I don't think people understand just how tiny the ADF is 50 000 across all three services. When I joined the Royal Antique Aircraft Federation (RAAF) there were 22 000 in uniform when I left there were 13 000. Spare capacity to take on a heap of people just doesn't exist anymore.

[MickS]

As stated in another comment, why should the ADF be regarded as a waste collection point and saviour of society's dregs, bogans, dole bludgers? Why should they be lumped with the job of rehabilitating these drips?

Toughen up juvenile laws, stiffen the penalties, reduce trading hours in licenced premises, long term dole bludgers to be put on road gangs, cleaning the **** and rubbish up off our national roads. And for those bogans not prepared to play by society's rules..give them a dose of this:

YouTube - Scared Straight 2

YouTube - Scared Straight 4

[CraigE]

In one word NO.
But they should maybe encouraging people to join and maybe cutting long term unemployed benefits if they do not do something.

[Disco44]

This makes interesting reading.It looks like this present generation is the only one that has never had conscription.

Boyhood Conscription.
The government of prime minister Alfred Deakin and other non-Labor governments had introduced a form of conscription for boys from 12 to 14 years of age and for youths from 18 to 20 years of age between 1905 and 1909.

An Australian Labor Party government instituted a system of compulsory military training for all males aged between 12 and 26 from 1 January 1911.

John Barrett, in his study of boy conscription, Falling In, noted:

"In 1911 there were approximately 350,000 boys of an age (10-17 years) to register for compulsory training up to the end of 1915. Since 'universal' was a misnomer, about half that number were exempted from training, or perhaps never registered, reducing the group to 175,000."[1]

There was also extensive opposition to boyhood conscription resulting in, by July 1915, some 34,000 prosecutions and 7,000 detentions of trainees, parents, employers or other persons required to register.

Under Labor prime minister Billy Hughes, full conscription was attempted during WWI through two referenda.

The first plebiscite was held on the 28 October 1916 and narrowly rejected conscription with a margin of 48% for and 52% against. The plebiscite of 28 October 1916 asked Australians:
Are you in favour of the Government having, in this grave emergency, the same compulsory powers over citizens in regard to requiring their military service, for the term of this War, outside the Commonwealth, as it now has in regard to military service within the Commonwealth?

A second plebiscite was held on 20 December 1917, and was defeated by a greater margin. The question put to Australians was:
"Are you in favour of the proposal of the Commonwealth Government for reinforcing the Commonwealth Forces overseas?"

After the failure of the first plebiscite, Billy Hughes left the Australian Labor Party parliamentary caucus, taking with him most of the Parliamentary party's talent.[2] He promptly crossed the floor with about half of the parliamentary party, creating a new National Labor Party and surviving as Prime Minister by forming a conservative Nationalist government dependent for support on the Commonwealth Liberal Party.[3] The remainder of the Labor Party, under their new leader Frank Tudor, then expelled Hughes and all who had followed him.[4] Following the split, Labor stayed out of office for ten years.
Cartoons such as this one, by artist Norman Lindsay, were used both for recruitment and to promote conscription.
Other notable opponents to Conscription included the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Daniel Mannix, the Queensland Labor Premier Thomas Ryan, Vida Goldstein and the Women's Peace Army. Most trade unions actively opposed conscription.

The vote of the AIF on both referendra was.
October 1916

72399 For.
58894 Against
2520 In formal

November 1917.

103789 For.
93190 Against
1987 In formal.
Source."Official History of Australia 1914-1918.

The people in Australia rejected both referendums.
October 1916.
1,087,557 For
1,160,033 Against

December 1917.

1,015,159 For
1,181,747 Against.
Source 'The Australian Encyclopedia" Vol 1.

Many people thought positively of conscription as a sign of loyalty to Britain and thought that it would also support those men who were already fighting. However, trade unions feared that their members might be replaced by cheaper foreign or female labour and opposed conscription. Some groups argued that the whole war was immoral, and it was unjust to force people to fight.
[edit] Divided Nation

The conscription issue deeply divided Australia with large meetings held both for and against. The Women's vote was seen as important with large women's meetings and campaign information from both sides aimed at women voters. The campaigning for the first plebiscite was launched by Hughes at a huge overflow meeting at the Sydney Town Hall where he outlined the Government's proposals.[6] This was followed by a huge pro-conscription meeting at the Melbourne Town Hall on September 21.[7]

Anti-conscriptionists, especially in Melbourne, were also able to mobilise large crowds with a meeting filling the Exhibition Building on September 20;[8] 30,000 people on the Yarra bank on Sunday October 15,[9] and 25,000 the following week;[10] a "parade of women promoted by the United Women's No-Conscription Committee - an immense crowd of about 60,000 people gathered at Swanston St between Guild Hall and Princes Bridge, and for upwards of an hour the street was a surging area of humanity".[10] An anti-conscription stop work meeting called by five trade unions held on the Yarra Bank mid-week on October 4 attracted 15,000 people.[11]

The first referendum bill was passed on 21 September 1916,[7] and mandatory registration and enrollment commenced while the first plebiscite campaign was underway. By October 5 The Age reported that of 11607 men examined, 4581 were found fit, approximately 40 per cent.[11]

The Age noted, in an article Influence of the IWW, that "the great bulk of the opposition to conscription is centred in Victoria.".[12] Many meetings in inner Melbourne and Sydney were disrupted by anti-conscriptionists with speakers being howled down from the audience in what The Age described as "disgraceful exhibition" and "disorderly scenes".[13]

The issue deeply divided the Labor party, with ministers such as Hughes and George Pearce, vigorously arguing the need for conscription for Australia to help the Allies win the war. They were supported by many within the party, including Labor's first prime minister, Chris Watson and NSW Labor Premier William Holman. Hughes denounced anti-conscriptionists as traitors, and a climate of bitter sectarianism (with most Catholics opposing conscription and most Protestants supporting it) developed.

On 1 November 1929, the mandatory provisions of the Defence Act were suspended and after 18 years conscription had come to an end.[14]
[edit] World War II

In 1939, at the start of World War II all unmarried men aged 21 were to be called up for three months’ Militia training. These men could serve only in Australia or its territories.

Conscription was effectively introduced in mid-1942, when all men 18-35, and single men aged 35–45, were required to join the Citizens Military Forces (CMF). Volunteers with the Australian Army scorned CMF conscripts as "chocolate soldiers", or "chockos", because they were believed to melt under the conditions of battle. However, CMF Militia units fought under difficult conditions and suffered extremely high casualties during 1942, in slowing the Japanese advance on the Kokoda Track in New Guinea. New Guinea was then an Australian territory.

By 1943, Australia had been bombed; 20,000 Australians were prisoners of war. The Commonwealth Government changed the Defence Act to extend the definition of areas to which conscripted servicemen could be sent to include now all areas south of the Equator in South-East Asia under the Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act (1943). This included all major war zones in the Pacific area. In effect, Australian conscripts could now for the first time be sent overseas to fight in the same areas as volunteers. The changes caused some public resentment and there was some public protest – but most people seemed to support conscription during World War II.

Compulsory military service ended in 1945, and most Australian personnel had been demobilised by the end of November 1946.
[edit] National Service in the 1950s
National Service training at Puckapunyal during the 1950s.

In 1951, during the Korean War, National Service was introduced under the National Service Act (1951). All Australian males aged 18 had to register for 176 (later 140) days of training and five years of service in the CMF. The regular military forces were kept as voluntary. In 1957 the system was changed to emphasise skill rather than numbers. The system was ended in 1959.[15]
[edit] National Service from the 1960s
[edit] Vietnam War

In 1964 compulsory National Service for 20-year-old males was introduced under the National Service Act (1964). The selection of conscripts was based on date of birth, and conscripts were obligated to give two years’ continuous full-time service, followed by a further three years on the active reserve list. The full-time service requirement was reduced to eighteen months in 1971.[16]

The Defence Act was amended in May 1965 to provide that National Servicemen could be obliged to serve overseas, a provision that had been applied only once before—during World War II. In March 1966, the Government announced that National Servicemen would be sent to Vietnam to fight in units of the Australian Regular Army and for secondment to American forces. Men who wished to avoid National Service could join the Citizen Military Forces and serve only inside Australia, claim a student deferment, or attempt a conscientious objection application. In order to be exempted on the basis of conscientious objection, an applicant needed to demonstrate objection to 'all' war, not merely one specific war. This meant that the rate of success for conscientious objection applications was generally low.

During the late 1960s, domestic opposition to the Vietnam War and conscription grew in Australia. In 1965 a group of concerned Australian women formed the anti-conscription organisation Save Our Sons, which was established in Sydney, with other branches later formed in Wollongong, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Newcastle and Adelaide. The movement protested against conscription of Australians to fight in the Vietnam War and made the plight of men under 21 (who were not eligible to vote at that time) a focus of their campaign. In 1970, five Save-Our-Sons women were jailed in Melbourne for handing out anti-conscription pamphlets whilst on government property. The group, which included Jean Maclean, Irene Miller and Jo Maclaine-Ross, was dubbed The Fairlea Five, after Fairlea women's prison in which they were incarcerated.[17] Barbara Miller is understood to be related to the decorated conscript Simon Anderson who mysteriously disappeared in 1970.
Four national servicemen assigned to the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment shortly before they and the battalion were deployed to South Vietnam in 1966

Young men who were subject to the conscription lottery also formed their own anti-conscription organisation, the Youth Campaign Against Conscription. Like Save Our Sons, it spread to other states - New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. It was the YCAC that imported the concept of draft card burning fom the United States, and ushered in a new form of resistance to conscription - active non-compliance. Instead of merely not registering (passive non-compliance with the National Service Scheme), these young conscripts actively demonstrated their distaste for the government's actions by destroying their registration cards. Unlike in the United States, this was not an illegal act, so its importance remained symbolic.

There were several high-profile controversies caused by the government's heavy-handed treatment of conscientious objectors, including William White and Simon Townsend (who later became a well-known TV personality). In 1969 the Gorton administration was severely embarrassed by a renowned This Day Tonight story in which a conscientious objector, who had been on the run from police for several months, was interviewed live in the studio by journalist Richard Carleton, who then posed awkward questions to the Army minister about why TDT had been able to locate the man within hours and bring him to the studio when the federal police had been unable to capture him, and the event was made even more embarrassing for the government because the man was able to leave the studio before police arrived to arrest him.

By 1969 public opinion was turning against the war. A Gallup Poll in August showed that 55 per cent of those surveyed favoured bringing Australian troops home, and only 40 per cent favoured them staying. This was the first poll to show less than 50% approval for the government's policy, and all polls after August 1969 were to reveal a majority in favour of bringing the troops home. In October, during his policy speech for the 1969 federal elections, Opposition leader Gough Whitlam declared that, if elected, the ALP would withdraw all Australian troops from Vietnam after June 1970.

At around this time, too, opposition to conscription became more radical. Active non-compliers began to call themselve Draft Resisters. Instead of waiting to be called up, Draft Resisters wrote letters to the Minister for National Service detailing their intention not to comply with conscription. Under law, this immediately rendered them liable for service. A number of these young men formed a Draft Resisters' Union, active in at least two states - New South Wales and Victoria. They included men like Bob Scates and Michael Hamel-Green. They went underground while maintaining a public presence, appearing at protests and being spirited away by the crowd before they could be arrested.

Australian Government Cabinet documents released by Australian National Archives in 2001 show that in 1970 the conservative Government was initially concerned about the growth of conscientious objection and outright opposition to the National Service Act. Federal Cabinet considered instituting an option of alternative civilian work program for conscientious objectors - a 'Siberian labour camp' option, in an attempt to reduce the numbers of objectors going to jail. This was never instituted, but was widely rumored at the time. Such work would have been menial labouring jobs in remote locations such as north and western Queensland, western New South Wales, and northern South Australia.[18]

In Cabinet Submission Number 200 for 1970, Appendix 1,[19] case studies of 17 men awaiting prosecution for failure to undertake service show a broad spectrum of opposition to conscription including:

* religious opposition from Jehovah's Witness viewpoint
* religious opposition from liberal Christian (Methodist) pacifist viewpoint.
* moral opposition to wars
* moral opposition to the Vietnam War in particular
* opposition based upon the compulsion and authoritarian nature of conscription and its conflict with democratic processes and ideals.

The documents reveal that draft-resistance and draft-dodging never posed a threat to the number of conscripts required, but the public opposition by draft-resisters such as John Zarb and Michael Matteson did have an increasingly political effect.

Conscription ended as one of the first acts of the newly elected Whitlam Labor Government in late December 1972. About 63,735 National Servicemen served in the military from 1964-1972. Of that number, 19,450 'Nashos' served in Vietnam, all with the Army.

[LieutenantRover]

If your 12.5 plus year old is in need of some discipline, stick him in the cadets. I've seen some good results with wayward youth and many go on to be good soldiers.

[Hoges]

Hi weeds, I did the same thing.

When Whitlam did away with National Service in the early 70s, the Army did a huge advertising SCAM, tell you you could join the army and get a trade.
.........etc
BTW, to give you an idea of how ridiculous things were in the army in the mid 70s. I was stationed at Watsons Bay for a few months and at that time there were 14 privates and 34 Non Commissioned Officers. You reckon they weren’t short of solders?

Best Mess in the country I reckon...Sydney was built where it is so the officers' mess @Watson's Bay would have a great view:eek::p:p

I'd agree re. the ADF having enough to do...bit like the steel mills at port kembla...if you couldn't get a job in Wollongong (many many) years ago...there was always the steel mills...then about 30+ yrs ago there was a purge because new technology meant that BHP needed real "talent" to operate effectively, not just bodies..

Reckon it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to fully train a soldier today...and the budget is always under pressure

Perhaps future "nashos" could be deployed in non-military activities...like a mandatory gap year before they go to "uni" ... or school of hard knocks and undertake reconstruction activities in a "youth corps" say in East timor or assist in indigenous communities which are often devoid of basic infrastructure...or Bob Brown can take them in weeding parties to keep his forests pristine:mad::eek::eek::wasntme::wasntme::twisted:

[drivesafe]

Best Mess in the country I reckon...Sydney was built where it is so the officers' mess @Watson's Bay would have a great view:eek::p:p

Yep, the first day I was at Watsons, I was in the duty officer’s office and there were some 20 or 30 pairs of binoculars, all sitting along the window sill.

First weekend duty I pulled I found out what all the binoculars were for.

Just a few hundred metres below the office was one of Sydney’s first nude beaches and did they get a show from that office.

And nobody complained about all the bare breasts, at feeding time or otherwise!