AS we face yet another major flood here in Dungog Shire, the cleanup feels painfully familiar.
Roads cut, homes damaged, bridges blocked or damaged.
Volunteers and emergency services working around the clock, many of them exhausted, few full-time.
It’s a reminder that, while our community spirit is strong, our disaster response resources are stretched thin.
Dungog, like many rural towns across Australia relies heavily on volunteers from larger towns and cities when disaster strikes.
These volunteers are dedicated, but frequency and duration of events make timely and sustained support harder to maintain.
Nationwide, volunteerism is declining.
The ABS reports formal volunteering fell from 36 percent in 2010 to 26 percent in 2022.
Younger generations are volunteering far less than their parents and grandparents did, and our ageing volunteer base is now at capacity.
Extreme weather events are also on the rise.
Whatever you believe is causing this trend, the data doesn’t lie: natural disasters in Australia have more than doubled in the past decade.
These events are becoming more frequent, more severe, and more disruptive, affecting larger areas and more people each year.
They are no longer rare; they are recurring.
The Australian Defence Force continues to support disaster responses where needed and do receive some training in this area.
However, natural disaster recovery is not the ADF’s core role, nor should it be.
The ADF’s primary responsibility is national defence, and as global conflict risks rise and regional tensions increase, this is where their focus and training must remain.
Stretching the ADF thin across both combat preparedness and domestic response is not a sustainable long-term solution.
At the same time, the ADF is facing serious challenges with workforce retention.
The full-time ADF workforce has declined by 1.4 percent over the past five years, and the force is currently thousands below its authorised strength.
As the ADF works to rebuild and refocus on its core mission, we need to seriously consider how Australia can meet growing domestic challenges, without compromising national security.
So what is the alternative?
Should Australia consider establishing a National Guard, a dedicated, federally funded disaster-response and domestic resilience force that would operate as a fourth service under the Australian Defence Force?
This structure would allow the Guard to utilise existing ADF assets and infrastructure, making it more cost-effective and operationally efficient.
Its focus would be on emergency response and recovery, enabling the Army, Navy, and Air Force to maintain their core defence capabilities while ensuring Australia has a ready, well-trained force to assist during natural disasters and domestic emergencies.
The Guard would be trained in flood, fire, recovery, and emergency logistics.
This force would be ready to respond quickly and effectively to the increasing number of natural disasters, easing the burden on volunteers, emergency services, and existing branches of the ADF.
While the Guard would operate as its own structured entity, it could work closely alongside existing agencies such as the SES, providing reinforcement, surge capacity, and a consistent national standard of training, without disrupting the volunteer-led community model that is already in place.
Importantly, the Guard wouldn’t just respond to disasters, it could also assist with what often proves the most difficult part: the aftermath.
As we face a mammoth clean-up across the mid-east coast of NSW, it’s clear that having a ready, deployable clean-up and recovery force would be invaluable.
The initial response is often swift, but the long-term recovery, clearing debris, restoring access, and rebuilding infrastructure lags behind due to limited hands and local funding limitations.
A dedicated, federally backed team focused not just on response but on clean-up would make a real, tangible difference to affected communities.
There’s also scope to explore how the National Guard could support broader community resilience beyond disaster response.
In regions experiencing increased crime or social pressure, particularly in parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory, Guard members could work in coordination with police, councils, and local organisations to provide temporary, structured assistance.
The focus would not be on enforcement, but on backing overstretched services with trained personnel offering visibility, logistical support, and community engagement.
It would be done carefully and with clear oversight, ensuring the Guard complements, not replaces, existing institutions.
With the right approach, the Guard could also offer a pathway for young people who feel trapped in cycles of crime, disengagement, or disadvantage.
This would need to be developed in full partnership with local communities, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, to ensure it is safe, culturally appropriate, and voluntary.
It’s not a solution to deep-rooted issues, but it could be part of a broader, community-led strategy to reconnect young people with meaningful paths forward.
Participation would be an opt-out approach for high school graduates, rather than opt-in.
Members would undertake structured training in emergency response, logistics, leadership, and recovery operations.
In return, they could receive a base wage and a range of service-linked incentives.
For example, every year of service, participants could earn one year of free university or TAFE education.
For those not pursuing study, an alternative could be a First Home Buyer benefit, a scalable housing incentive that grows with each year of service.
Helping participants step into the housing market with stronger financial footing.
These benefits would be paired with accredited training, practical life skills, leadership development, improved physical fitness, and greater confidence.
Equipping young Australians with the tools to succeed both during and after their time in the Guard.
And what about youth mental health?
We cannot ignore the crisis unfolding in youth mental health.
According to the ABS, nearly 40 percent of Australians aged 16–24 experienced a mental disorder in 2020–22.
Around 26 percent reported high or very high psychological distress in a single month.
These figures are rising, and they highlight the need for more than reactive mental health services; we need proactive, preventative engagement.
Volunteering and structured service can help.
Research shows that young people who engage in prosocial activities like volunteering work are significantly less likely to experience mental health challenges.
These activities increase life satisfaction, self-esteem, social connection, and psychological resilience.
A National Guard could provide not just training and opportunity, but stability, support, and belonging at a time when many young Australians feel lost.
Yes, the cost would be significant. But what is the cost of doing nothing?
Natural disasters now dominate our news cycle every few months.
State and federal leaders move from one emergency to the next.
Our system is reactive, and under-resourced at the local level; our youth are crying out for opportunity, structure, and hope.
As the mid-east NSW coast begins another massive clean-up, we should ask: are we prepared for the next one?
And are we doing enough for the next generation?
Maybe it’s time we were.
