Australia’s multicultural consensus — long seen as one of the country’s defining achievements — is showing visible cracks. Anti-immigration rallies across major cities on 31 August and again in mid-October have revealed a significant rightward turn in Australia’s political landscape, exposing the fragile foundations of its multicultural identity. Once a celebrated pillar of modern Australian society, multiculturalism is now at the centre of a heated national debate about migration, belonging, and the limits of diversity.
The rallies, held in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, drew several thousand demonstrators under slogans such as “Australia for Australians” and “Stop the Invasion.” Organizers claimed they were protesting excessive migration levels, housing shortages, and rising costs of living. But the imagery and chants at many of these events — some featuring white nationalist symbols and neo-Nazi salutes — suggested a darker undercurrent.
Public reaction was deeply polarized. Supporters of the rallies argued that they reflected legitimate social anxieties about economic pressure, infrastructure strain, and government mismanagement of population growth. Critics, however, saw them as a dangerous revival of racist ideologies. Anti-racism organizations and migrant advocacy groups condemned the rallies as an assault on multiculturalism and called for stronger action against hate speech and xenophobia.
“Economic frustration is being weaponized to stoke racial resentment,” said Dr. Maria Kasmir, an immigration policy expert at the Australian National University. “When people conflate rising rents with migrants, it’s a sign that social cohesion is eroding.”
While public opinion remains divided, Australia’s political establishment appears increasingly uneasy about how to navigate the issue. The centre-left Labor government has maintained a defensive posture. Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek insisted that migration was “under control,” pointing out that the government had already reduced the annual intake. Yet critics argue that Labor’s response lacks conviction, relying on administrative adjustments rather than confronting racism head-on.
Within the conservative opposition, the Liberal Party faces its own internal tensions. A growing number of MPs have begun echoing rhetoric once confined to the far right — calling for tighter immigration caps and questioning the cultural compatibility of migrants. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has gone further, arguing that Australia must resist becoming “too diverse,” a remark widely condemned but applauded by hardline supporters.
Support for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has surged in recent months. A recent Resolve poll placed its primary vote at 12 per cent — overtaking the Greens for the first time since 2019. The rise of One Nation underscores how mainstream politics is being reshaped by populist energy, mirroring trends seen across Europe and North America.
Multiculturalism has been official government policy for more than five decades, but its meaning has shifted dramatically over time. After the dismantling of the White Australia policy in the 1970s, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s Labor government framed multiculturalism around equality and rights, emphasizing inclusion and justice for migrants. His successor, Malcolm Fraser, continued this vision, reinforcing Australia’s identity as a diverse and rights-based society.
Under the Hawke and Keating governments, multiculturalism became linked to social cohesion and economic growth — promoting diversity as a strength in a globalizing world. However, by the time of John Howard’s conservative government (1996–2007), the concept had been recast through the language of assimilation and national identity. Howard famously declared that he “always had trouble” with multiculturalism, arguing that new arrivals should adopt “Australian values.”
Later Liberal prime ministers further narrowed the concept. Malcolm Turnbull emphasized integration alongside diversity, while Scott Morrison’s tenure reframed multiculturalism through the prism of national security and border control. Under Morrison, diversity was tolerated so long as it did not threaten “social stability” — effectively subordinating inclusion to security.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has attempted to restore a more inclusive vision. “Multiculturalism must be nurtured, not managed,” he said earlier this year. Yet despite symbolic gestures, his government has struggled to define a clear, forward-looking multicultural agenda.
In June 2025, the Albanese government established an Office for Multicultural Affairs within the Department of Home Affairs and elevated the Minister for Multicultural Affairs — currently Anne Aly — to Cabinet rank. Aly, an academic and former counter-terrorism researcher, has sought to shift the debate away from securitization toward genuine inclusion. “We can’t keep making multicultural communities solely responsible for social cohesion,” she argued in August. “Cohesion is a shared responsibility — one that begins with fairness and opportunity.”
Despite these efforts, many experts remain skeptical. A government-commissioned Multicultural Framework Review released earlier this year found that Canberra often viewed multicultural communities as “problems to be managed” rather than citizens to be empowered. Similarly, Victoria’s State Multicultural Review urged a long-term, coordinated approach to inclusion, warning that reactive measures would fail to prevent deeper divisions.
Sociologist Andrew Jakubowicz, who contributed to the review, argues that institutional inertia remains a major obstacle. “Governments talk about diversity but fail to integrate multiculturalism into the machinery of policy,” he said. “We need a national multicultural commission with real authority — not just symbolic recognition.”
At the heart of the debate lies the contested idea of social cohesion. Initially introduced as a positive vision for unity amid diversity, the term has evolved into a policy tool used to regulate difference. Beginning in the early 2000s, successive governments increasingly tied social cohesion to integration, citizenship testing, and national security.
After the 2001 Tampa affair and the 9/11 attacks, Muslim and Middle Eastern communities were singled out in public discourse as needing to “integrate.” This association between cohesion and counterterrorism has persisted ever since. Critics contend that what began as a framework for inclusion has become a mechanism of surveillance and control.
Minister Aly’s approach represents a modest but notable departure. By acknowledging that exclusion often stems from mainstream institutions rather than minority groups, her stance reframes cohesion as a two-way process. But without clear metrics, funding, and political will, analysts fear her reforms will remain symbolic.
Australia’s broader anti-racism framework remains underdeveloped. The National Anti-Racism Framework, unveiled in 2024 after two years of consultation, proposed 63 recommendations across sectors including education, health, media, and justice. These included creating a federal anti-racism commissioner, mandating diversity targets, and reforming hate speech laws. To date, however, the Albanese government has not committed to implementing the recommendations.
The failure to act risks widening the gap between rhetoric and lived reality. Reports of racial harassment and online hate crimes have increased by more than 20 per cent over the past year, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Migrant advocacy organizations warn that the combination of economic anxiety and divisive politics is fuelling resentment, especially among younger Australians.
“Racism in Australia isn’t new — but its normalization is,” said community organizer Hana Ibrahim, whose Somali-Australian youth group faced harassment following the October rallies. “Multiculturalism was meant to protect us, not make us targets.”
Australia now faces a profound question: can it sustain the multicultural vision that has defined it for half a century? The challenge lies not only in countering overt racism but also in confronting structural exclusion — in workplaces, housing markets, education systems, and media representation.
“Multiculturalism used to mean equality, now it’s about management,” Jakubowicz observed. “Unless we return to its rights-based roots, we risk losing what made Australia unique.”
As Western democracies grapple with populism and xenophobia, Australia’s experiment in multicultural nationhood stands as both a success story and a warning. The anti-immigration rallies of 2025 are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a deeper anxiety about belonging in a rapidly changing world.
