Various media outlets, including the British Forces Broadcasting Service, have reported that the UK Strategic Defence Review will recommend the establishment of a new ‘Home Guard’, a part-time volunteer force for the protection of UK critical infrastructure. While this may seem like a rather drastic and old-fashioned response to the current geopolitical challenges in Europe, it would simply align the UK with several other like-minded NATO partners such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. This inevitably raises the question – does this hold relevance for Australia, which is similarly grappling with the challenges of home defence?

Although there are few details about the proposal, the UK has had similar schemes in the past. The best known is, of course, the WWII Home Guard, as immortalised in the TV comedy ‘Dad’s Army’. While the scriptwriters had a wide licence, the series captures many features of the Home Guard – volunteers, part-time, based on local units, and with a home defence role. At its peak, the Home Guard had over 1.5 million members and even crewed anti-aircraft guns and rocket projectors. Australia had a similar WWII organisation called the Volunteer Defence Corps.

A more relevant UK example could be the Home Service Force (HSF), which was established at the height of the Cold War in 1982. The HSF was based on the existing reserve Territorial Army (TA), drawing from the pool of former service members of the armed forces.[1] Volunteers up to the age of 60 were permitted to serve. Training was brief, and equipment was basic. However, all recruits had prior military training and were assigned as separate companies to the existing TA battalions, thereby reducing administrative overheads and utilising the established regimental system as an operational structure.

Another example could be the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), which was established in the early 1970s for service exclusively in Northern Ireland in response to the terrorist threat in the province. The UDR provided a similar part-time capability to the HSF, although prior military service wasn't required. The UDR conducted mobile patrols, search tasks, and static protection duties, ultimately employing both part-time and full-time staff. At its peak, the UDR had over 7,500 members.[2]

Is any of this relevant to the Army – should Australia raise a Home Guard? The examples above suggest that it is a genuine possibility. In addition to the UK, several Scandinavian countries maintain large Home Guard organisations. Norway’s force reportedly has over 40,000 personnel. The Danish Home Guard (the HJV) comprises over 12,000 active members aged 18 to 80 and is integrated into the nation’s defence structure and culture.[3] Indeed, even Queen Mary of Denmark is an officer in the Home Guard. In modern, affluent countries like Denmark and Norway, Home Guards are not a ‘Dad’s Army'; rather, they represent a real and contemporary answer to the age-old problem of how to protect the homeland with limited human resources.

For a potential Australian Home Guard, the UK models provide solid examples based on a similar Army structure. The Scandinavian Home Guards present many similarities, along with some useful differences, particularly regarding relaxed age and medical standards. Uncrewed air and ground systems may also offer new opportunities, as they are less reliant on the physical strength of operators compared to traditional protective security forces. Additionally, thousands of young Australians leave cadet organisations each year and may be inclined to join a Home Guard if they do not enter the ADF. Using the Danish example, creating an organisation separate from the Army allows the Home Guard to develop simpler training protocols and standards, rather than being constrained by existing doctrine. In an Australian context, this may also facilitate easier integration with tri-service security requirements and state infrastructure protection plans.

Naturally, such a proposal will raise various issues, particularly the concern that a Home Guard could cannibalise existing recruitment pools for both the ADF and state volunteer emergency services. However, a Home Guard is truly about ‘growing the pie’, not reallocating it. Security, training, and physical liability would also be important considerations. Legislative and remuneration options need to be assessed – perhaps a variation of the Cadet Force allowance could serve as a useful starting point. Recruiting will be challenging and will require an acceptance of risk at the point of enlistment. Initial training must be basic but could draw from previous Army Reserve training regimes. Advanced countries like Denmark and Norway demonstrate that these challenges are not insurmountable, and they have effectively utilised such forces for many years.

A Home Guard type organisation offers many advantages for a country with a comparatively small population like Australia.[4] It facilitates access to diverse demographics and work models to enhance the security force. A Home Guard or home defence force would alleviate the Army of numerous home defence tasks, employing enlistees who would otherwise not be part of the security solution. Furthermore, such an organisation would be relatively cost-effective, scalable, and serve as a useful adjunct to the Australian Defence Force's social licence. Regardless of the title, a volunteer part-time security force could be a valid and significant addition to home defence.

End Notes