That's probably the smart thing to do.
With that said, I'm not that bright.
I didn't attend either protest, that being the March, or the counter March.
Anyway, here's my thoughts on the topic.
Yesterday, major Australian cities were filled with crowds waving the national flag in the March for Australia. What began as a fringe protest quickly gained traction, tapping into public frustration over issues like infrastructure strain, housing affordability, and rising living costs. While critics, including the media, politicians and other key leaders on the left dismissed the movement as right-wing or xenophobic, it reflects a broader concern: Australia’s immigration intake has surged at a time when many feel that public services and the standard of living are in decline.
Australia is facing mounting challenges: overcrowded schools, strained hospitals, unaffordable housing, and a skyrocketing cost of living. These issues coincide with record-high immigration, an estimated 477,000 new arrivals in 2025 alone, or roughly 1,300 per day. While immigration has historically contributed to Australia’s success, many are asking whether the current pace is sustainable without urgent investment in infrastructure.
This isn’t a modern issue. Immigration has been the backbone of the Australian economy for decades. With successive governments on both sides of politics embracing new arrivals as a way of pumping up the size of the economy and resulting in GDP figures reflecting growth.
However, following the explosion of government debt during the pandemic, coupled with insufficient productivity advancements, the Australian way of life has gone backwards. It’s not surprising that if you don’t have advancement, and you run up huge debts while paying people not to work for up to 18 months, that ultimately, there comes a time where the bill needs to be paid, and the Australian public doesn’t appreciate that the bill is coming in the form of a reduction in the standard of living.
This isn’t a surprise. Anyone with their eyes open could see this problem coming. The issue, however, is that anyone who dared to question it, was drowned out of the conversation, labelled a racist and shunned off as a right-wing nutter.
There are always fringe elements in any movement, and some voices at the protests hold views that are discriminatory or exclusionary. However, it would be a mistake to ignore the broader concern shared by many Australians; that large-scale immigration, regardless of origin, places real pressure on housing, public services, and social cohesion if not carefully managed and supported with proper infrastructure.
So, the natural question becomes; why? Why would the government, both current and past, continually allow so many immigrants to come to the country without taking the time to improve the infrastructure before their arrival?
As alluded to earlier, the answer, in my opinion, is economics. The government wants to be re-elected, and having negative GDP growth is one quick way to get booted out. So, increase the size of the economy by importing more people, and report gross figures, not per capita. Simple. But it goes beyond that. Mass expansion of the economy is the best way to erode government debt. You see, during the pandemic, government debt exploded. Australia as a country, historically ran with a small debt. In 2008 Government debt as a percentage of GDP was just 4.5%. Since that time, it rose, culminating at 37% on June 30 2021, some 15 months after the March 2020 lockdowns hit our shores. This debt, which is interest bearing, prevents the government from spending as freely as it would like. You can’t build new hospitals when you don’t have access to money. You can’t set up schools or supply critical infrastructure to new housing developments when you are struggling to finance your existing commitments. So, to reduce that debt, you need to grow the economy. Productivity gains is the preferred method, but that’s easier said than done. The simple method is to import people. If you double the size of your economy, that existing debt effectively halves, freeing you up to spend more in the future. This, in my opinion, is the main reason why successive governments on both sides of politics have been importing more and more people. You don’t need to pay off the debt if you shrink its effective size.
The debt is just one element too. You also have an aging population here in Australia. Not only are people living longer, but the birth rate has been on a steady decline for decades. In 1961 there were 3.54 births per Australian Woman. In 2023 that figure was just 1.50. This leaves no new taxpayers to cover the costs of society to house and maintain the growing number of retirees within the Country. As such, the government has no option but to import new taxpayers.
University has become the natural breeding ground for obtaining new taxpayers. At the end of the 1980s we saw the emergence of a private sector in higher education. During the early 2000s, this expanded dramatically, and universities opened their doors to as many international students as they could, with fee-paying international student propping up their profit margins. While not every university in Australia is now private, the vast majority are public institutions that operate commercially. International students in the late 80s and 90s were typically English speakers from western countries. However, as the universities looked for more and more numbers, they expanded, taking in students from China and India, relaxing standards to accommodate non-english speaking fee payers, and as a result, the value of the degree fell. This hasn’t helped when it’s come to getting productivity gains. The non-english speaking students often come from countries with a lower standard of living, so naturally wish to get a job and stay on here after. In time, they then bring their families over, and before you know it, there has been a natural progression from the European immigrants we saw in the 50s and 60s, to the Indian and Chinese that dominate the figures in the 2020s.
Why is productivity important? Naturally, every generation wants the next to have a better life than they did. That’s human nature for parents to want kids to have a better life. More holidays, better access to entertainment, reduced working hours, greater imports, etc. There is nothing wrong with wanting a better life, but you can’t have that without increased productivity. If all families have more money, then the cost of things just goes up. You need to produce more, more effectively, if standards of living are to increase. Unfortunately, despite some productivity gains, like the expansion of the internet, simply haven’t kept up with the increasing expectations of Australians. Productivity gains in the 80s under the Hawke/Keating Macroeconomic reforms were great. I can’t think of many examples since then, yet our expectations continued to grow.
Many Australians aspire to a better work-life balance: shorter working weeks, earlier transitions to retirement, and greater flexibility in the workplace. These goals reflect a society that has, for decades, enjoyed rising living standards. But without corresponding productivity gains, these expectations can become difficult to sustain. It’s a dilemma; people want more from life, but productivity growth hasn’t kept pace with these desires.
We as a country, have been eating up any productivity gains, through increased entitlements, or unproductive roles. Social media influencers, they produce entertainment, not a product, yet they earn a living. That living is paid for by wider society. Advisors, consultants, marketing, human resources, etc. These are full time roles, that while valuable in their own way, add little with respect to production. Yet they all need to be paid their full wage.
Simply put, some would say the Australian way of an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work has disappeared or at least is no longer as strong as it used to be. A growing number of people no longer want to put in an honest day’s work, yet they still want the full pay. This has, naturally, resulted in a decrease in the standard of living. It’s small, but it’s there, and when it’s overlaid with an increasing expectation passed down from generation to generation, it’s no surprise that Governments can’t appease the masses.
So, getting back to the March. It’s natural for the masses to be upset. The standards they’ve come to expect are not being met. But equally, what can the government do? When innovation isn’t there, when birth rates are declining, when work ethics aren’t what they used to be, the government doesn’t have much choice. It’s either go backwards or import people to expand the economy artificially.
What the government should be doing however, is rather than labelling those calling for a limit on immigration numbers as Nazi’s, they should be educating the public on why immigration is required under the current system, or what the alternative options are. Public debate on tax reform to better fund infrastructure, innovation incentives, encouraging domestic population growth and improved housing regulation would all benefit Australians, but would require politicians with substance.
Ultimately, if Australians want to maintain a high standard of living without relying so heavily on immigration, it will require difficult choices; greater investment in innovation, stronger work participation, and policies that encourage population growth. Immigration, when well-planned, can benefit a nation. But without honesty and long-term planning, it risks becoming a short-term fix for deeper structural problems.
Apologies in advance if there are a few too many generalisations and oversimplifications in there. I jotted down some thoughts quickly without giving it too much consideration or refinement.
