I joined the Army at 45, leaving behind a stable civilian career to serve. I knew the transition would be challenging, but I still underestimated the toll it would take – not just on me, but also on my family. This reflection is not a complaint, but a call to action. Because if we want to retain good people, we must do more to support the families who serve alongside them.
The Real Cost of Service
In my previous civilian career, I rarely missed family events. I supported my wife daily, and our life was predictable. Now, I live away from her most weeks, she manages our household alone, researching new communities and jobs for our posting. She does it with grace, but I know she should not have to.
We are preparing for a move to Darwin. I do not know what my job will look like. She does not know where we will live. We do not have young children, and for that, I am grateful – I see the strain on families who do. I have met colleagues who have posted away from their families during critical schooling years. Many are on second or third marriages. The emotional and financial cost is real.
History Has Warned Us
This is not a new problem. The Auditor-General’s Audit Report No. 35 1999-2000, Retention of Military Personnel highlighted how postings disrupt family life, children’s education, and spouses’ careers. In 2008, MAJGEN Slater reflected on the words, “We recruit the member and retain the member’s family.” That truth still stands – but we have not acted on it enough.
I read Exit Wounds by MAJGEN John Cantwell. Both he and his family are deeply affected by his wartime service and while not necessarily the intention of his book, I reflect that his family moved 23 times. That is not just a number – it is a lifetime of upheaval. It made me think: are we doing enough to support families through these transitions? I do not think we are.
A System Built for another Time
The posting system has not changed much in decades. However, society has. Most families now rely on two incomes. Spouses have careers, not just jobs. Children face intense academic pressure. Moving every few years is not just inconvenient – it is disruptive.
We are still operating in a system designed for single-income households. That is no longer reality. While postings are valuable for career development, they must be managed with empathy and foresight.
The Little Things Matter
Throughout my training, I heard the phrase “the little things matter.” It resonates deeply. Because in Defence we have outsourced perceived little things, things that are not our core job but affect our largest asset, our people. I cannot help but think that from the highest ranks we have forgotten that little these things are big things that affect our serving lives. It is often the little things – posting uncertainty, lack of support for families, poor communication – that accumulate and become big things. These are not minor inconveniences. They are stressors that affect relationships, careers, mental health, and subsequently: retention.
Defence has outsourced many roles it considers “non-core.” However, these are the very roles that support our core mission. From relocation services to base amenities, these “little things” shape the daily experience of serving members. When they are done poorly, it sends a message: your comfort, your family, your wellbeing; are not priorities.
A Call to Action for our Leaders
To our Defence and Army leaders: we must do better. Retention is not just about pay – it is about people. It is about making service sustainable for families. The things we need to do a better job with include:
- Planning careers with families in mind.
- Offering flexible posting options.
- Supporting spouses’ employment.
- Improving relocation services.
- Communicating clearly and early.
- Holding outsourced providers accountable.
- Providing an internal forum for members to tell their story.
- Treating service members differently than civilians – because their lives are different.
We have known this for decades. We have said the right things. Now it is time to act.
A Call to Action for you
To our colleagues, friends, and mates: tell your story. Tell me, tell someone, tell anyone that will listen to your experience.
There is a missed opportunity here to find a forum to tell our story internally, talk about what it would take for us to quit, to read about our mates’ past personal experiences, and use the wealth of that knowledge to reset, influence, and improve our own futures and ultimately make it easier to serve.
In Conclusion
I hesitated to write this. I wondered if my opinion mattered. However, after talking with mates, hearing their stories, and living the experience myself – I know it does. If this reflection resonates with even one person, then it is worth sharing.
We recruit the member. We retain the member’s family. Let’s start truly acting like it.
I've posted so much I forget where I am. Wife got Jack of it and I'm now unaccompanied. Car registration from QLD, drivers licence NT and as of late Jan living in NSW.
Army career management thought that she should just transfer between different states and territories as I posted around the country.
I asked if I could just transfer to another Federal Govt department; needless to say the answer was no.
Since I was 16 I knew all I wanted in life was to be a soldier, but my experience has been universal discouragement from everyone I spoke to. Eventually I decided to join anyway, but in conversation with my wife, speaking to current and prior ADF members, reading the studies, the simple truth could not be ignored: that the dislocation caused by moving damages families and is not in their interest.
To date I’ve submitted my forms to transition out and am sad to leave the career behind
But that's a problem in its self.
Operational Capability 100 = Service Requirements 33/1/3 +Family Welfare 331/3 + Career Opportunity 331/3. The challenge for Defence is managing the equation without distortion of the factors.
I understand that service requirements must remain the first priority and the Army’s ability to generate and sustain capability, particularly in times of crisis, cannot be compromised by overly rigid geographic constraints. Thus any such regional model would need to retain sufficient flexibility to meet operational needs, fill critical roles, and respond to emerging contingencies.
There would also need to be an honest conversation about trade-offs. Regional stability may, in some cases, narrow the range of appointments available to an individual, potentially slowing promotion or limiting exposure to key developmental roles. For some, this would be an acceptable compromise; for others, particularly those pursuing senior command or specialist pathways, the traditional national posting model may remain preferable.
Ultimately, a regional approach would not have to replace the existing system. It could sit alongside it as an alternative stream or opt-in pathway, giving soldiers and families more choice while still preserving the Army’s core requirement: to place the right people in the right jobs at the right time. If implemented carefully, such a model could strengthen both capability and retention by recognising that supporting families is not separate from readiness, but that it is part of it.
Like you said I can’t complain either - I love my job and my wife and I enjoy the adventure of moving - always have. As our children start to consider high school we are now starting to take stability as a concern for future jobs. That’s great for me in my position however how is a 40 year old digger or first year LT with high school aged kids supposed to make the same decisions?
I don’t know what the answer is as there’s unintended consequences for all however I think you hit the single income model square on the head - really needs to change.