(AUSTRALIA) Australia’s long‑held multicultural consensus is under heavy strain as a volatile mix of overseas conflict, domestic politics and hardline border measures fuels anxiety and division across communities ahead of the 2025 federal election. Community leaders and advocacy groups say a surge in street tensions linked to the Middle East, proposals to tighten citizenship rules, and new deportation powers have sharpened fears that migrants and refugees are being singled out and that social cohesion is worsening.

The stress points have piled up since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which officials and community groups say has spilled into Australian streets with pro‑Palestinian and antisemitic protests escalating into “open, often violent, conflict between different groups” in major cities. Steven Lowy, the former co‑chief executive of Westfield Corporation, warned in a University of NSW speech that

“Australia is now sleepwalking into a period of extremist politics and a social spiral,”
adding, “Half‑hearted rejection of anti‑Semitism is never enough, as history has shown all too well.” The alarm from prominent figures has been amplified by scenes of confrontation, arson and intimidation that have unsettled Jewish, Arab and broader migrant communities and complicated attempts to maintain calm.

The political temperature has climbed inside Parliament, too, after the issue of Palestinian statehood ruptured party unity in the federal Labor government. WA Senator Fatima Payman crossed the floor to vote against ALP policy, a rare public break that underlined the challenge of balancing the diversity of representation with diversity of opinion inside a governing party struggling to hold a multicultural consensus. Payman said,

“It is important to consider that modern Australia looks very different to what it did 20-30 years ago and will continue to change,”
a remark that underscored the growing electoral muscle of younger, multi‑ethnic constituencies who expect their views to be reflected directly in national decisions.

Outside the major parties, new movements are pushing harder. The emergence of “The Muslim Vote,” which claims to represent “a powerful, united force of nearly one million acting in unison,” has placed Palestine at the center of candidate assessments and sharpened electoral fault lines in suburban seats with large migrant populations. Supporters say their aim is to ensure Muslim voters are heard; critics warn that rating politicians solely on their stance on Palestine risks reducing complex local priorities to a single foreign policy test and could inflame open conflict at a fraught moment.

While political actors trade positions, the Albanese Government has drawn fierce criticism from migrant and refugee advocates over fresh border and deportation measures unveiled in September 2025. The so‑called “Anti‑Fairness Bill” would strip migrants and refugees of basic legal rights when facing deportation to third countries, including Nauru, and was paired with a secretive $400 million agreement with Nauru to facilitate deportations. Vithyaa Thavapalan, CEO of the South Asian Foundation Australia, condemned the plan:

“By stripping people of their right to challenge wrongful decisions, forcing unsafe deportations, and validating errors in law, the government is putting vulnerable communities at risk. We are appalled that such a move is being pushed through in secrecy, as it will have a massive and devastating impact on multicultural communities across Australia including South Asians who contribute so much to this nation.”
She also said, “We call on the Albanese to withdraw this legislation and protect the rights and dignity of all communities.”

Arab community leaders echoed the warning. Hassan Moussa, CEO of Arab Council Australia, said,

“These measures dangerously undermine fundamental rights, instil fear, and send a disturbing message that migrants and refugees are held to a different standard of justice.”
The government’s agreement with Nauru and the move to limit court challenges have become litmus tests for how far Canberra is willing to go to enforce removals, even as critics argue the approach cuts against the idea that every person—citizen or non‑citizen—deserves a fair process.

Election‑year rhetoric has sharpened the edges. The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia has urged all parties to stop using migrant communities as political props. FECCA Chairperson Peter Doukas said,

“Multicultural and migrant communities must not be used to score political points… Our cultural diversity is something to be celebrated, not weaponised.”
FECCA has also raised concerns about proposals floated during the campaign to toughen citizenship requirements, including adding questions about antisemitism and holding a referendum on deporting dual citizens convicted of crimes, calling these “opportunistic and divisive.” The debate about citizenship testing and potential penalties for dual nationals has laid bare deep sensitivities about equal treatment under the law and the risk of hardening public attitudes.

Polling suggests a shifting mood. The Scanlon Foundation’s 2024 Social Cohesion Mapping Report found that while 71% of Australians agree that accepting immigrants from many countries makes Australia stronger, support for multiculturalism has slipped by 2% and 7% over the past two years, and the share of people who say immigration numbers are too high rose to 49% in 2024, up from 33% in 2023. The report described “strains in Australia society which are not yet dire, but are disturbing.” A separate figure from a Scanlon Foundation study points to enduring goodwill—83% of Australians say multiculturalism is good for the country—but the deterioration in other indicators has set off alarms among policy experts who fear a loss of trust could accelerate if the economy tightens or security scares intensify.

Community unease has been magnified by violence that cuts through statistics. In Melbourne, a synagogue was targeted in an arson attack that forced worshippers to flee, an episode that rattled congregations far beyond the city. Sky News host Sharri Markson said,

“Our very values are inclusion and peace and tolerance and kindness and what we’re seeing on our streets doesn’t embody that.”
For Jewish leaders already warning about rising antisemitism, the attack underscored a sense of vulnerability. For Arab and Muslim Australians who have faced harassment and suspicion, it reinforced the fear that a wider public, fed by nightly images of clashes abroad, is ready to see neighbors through the lens of imported conflict.

Lowy’s warning captured the fragile balance.

“We can disagree with each other without collectively demonising a people based on race or religion. [But] it is a sad fact that there has generally been lukewarm denunciation of anti‑Semitism [sic], at best by the leadership of many of our institutions. Half‑hearted rejection of anti‑Semitism is never enough, as history has shown all too well,”
he said. Advocates and analysts say the past two years have exposed gaps in how institutions, from universities to councils to big employers, handle flashpoint events. The charge of hesitancy in calling out hate has been met by others who argue that free expression matters and that blanket condemnations can inflame tensions rather than defuse them. Either way, the room for a shared, workable center—a multicultural consensus built on equal respect and equal rules—feels narrower.

The fallout has been highly specific in the places where people live and work. School leaders report fraught conversations among parents and students split over the war, and local councils have faced heated meetings about flags, rallies and community venue bookings. Police say they are monitoring flashpoints but have struggled at times to prevent scuffles turning into open conflict when opposing demonstrations converge. Civil society groups warn that once neighbors begin to sort each other by stance on far‑away wars, the ripple effects can disrupt practical cooperation on everything from small business networks to sporting clubs.

Against that backdrop, the national debate about fairness in migration settings has become more pointed. Advocates for tougher rules say consistent enforcement is essential to public trust, and many in the electorate have pushed back against high arrivals during a housing crunch. However, the secrecy around the Nauru deal and the proposed limits on appeals have spurred warnings that the government is trading away the equal‑justice norms that distinguish Australia’s system. With the proposed “Anti‑Fairness Bill,” critics say due process is not a technicality but a safeguard for people who could be sent to unsafe places based on administrative errors. Supporters of stronger measures say rapid removals deter smugglers and reduce repeat attempts, but that argument has come under pressure as advocates document cases where mistakes can take months to correct.

The 2025 campaign has brought the citizenship debate closer to center stage. Proposals to add questions about antisemitism to the test draw on a desire to signal clear values, but they have also prompted questions about whether singling out one form of hate is the right approach, and whether a quiz is the best tool to protect targeted communities. A call to hold a referendum on deporting dual citizens convicted of crimes has triggered legal and ethical disputes about creating a two‑tier system for punishment. The Department of Home Affairs citizenship guidance lays out the existing pathways and requirements, but FECCA’s warning about “opportunistic and divisive” proposals reflects a deeper worry that policymaking by headline can fracture communities who already feel under suspicion.

For migrant families who have built lives over decades, the cumulative effect is wearying. Leaders in South Asian, Arab and Jewish organizations describe a climate in which small slights sting more, political arguments escalate faster, and institutions seem slower to reassure people that rules will be applied evenly. When government policy shifts are paired with sharp campaign language, many hear a message that belonging is conditional. The marked rise—from 33% to 49% in a year—in the share of people who say immigration is too high compounds the perception that the social license for large programs has thinned, even as 71% still agree that accepting immigrants from many countries makes Australia stronger.

As voting day draws closer, there are competing bets on whether the tension eases or accelerates. Some officials think fatigue with confrontation will push parties and community groups back toward practical, local problem‑solving. Others warn that another overseas shock, a viral clip from a protest, or a high‑profile court case could re‑ignite the worst instincts on all sides. The repeated calls for restraint—from Lowy’s plea against weak responses to antisemitism, to FECCA’s demand to stop weaponising diversity—reflect a view that what happens on the edges can quickly drag the center into dysfunction if leaders do not set clearer lines.

What is not in dispute is the scale of the stakes. A $400 million deportation deal with Nauru and a bill to narrow legal review would be major steps at any time; in an election year, they are magnified by the scramble for advantage. A new political entity rallying “nearly one million” voters on a single benchmark is a sign of deeper realignment; it is also a test of whether the wider system can integrate sharper identity‑based activism without corroding shared norms. And an arson attack on a place of worship is both a crime and a signal that words on screens and chants in marches can spill into fear and harm for families sitting down to pray.

The path out of this moment will likely depend on actions as much as words. Organizers of protests and counter‑protests can set expectations that exclude harassment and violence. Parties can choose to debate migration and citizenship without reducing complex lives to slogans. Institutions accused of slow responses to hate can tighten protocols and speak plainly, while still protecting open debate. And governments can pursue secure borders while preserving basic rights—to appeal, to be heard, to not be sent to danger—so that enforcement does not require exceptions to equal justice.

For now, Australia’s promise of a fair go rests on a fragile foundation. The recent combination of overseas war reverberations, hard‑edged policy, and tactical politics has pushed communities toward the edges of what they will accept, raising the risk that today’s flashpoints harden into tomorrow’s divides. Whether the country can hold to a broad multicultural consensus, even as arguments about antisemitism, free expression and equal treatment intensify, may be the defining social test of the year.