The incredible reemergence of right-wing populist politics, most notably championed by Donald Trump’s landslide 2024 presidential election victory last month, has sparked global debates about the direction of national policies in many western countries.
Trump’s “America First” mantra, which prioritises domestic interests, has proven highly effective in advancing U.S. economic growth and strengthening national identity when he was last in power. For Australia, adopting a similar approach could deliver significant economic and social benefits, especially in a world that is increasingly marked by global uncertainty and internal division.
One of the most compelling arguments for an “Australia First” approach is its potential to rejuvenate the nation’s economy. Trump’s economic policies, such as tax cuts for businesses, deregulation, and a focus on bringing jobs back to the U.S., resulted in strong economic growth, low unemployment, and a revitalised manufacturing sector.
For Australia, similar policies could stimulate growth, particularly in industries such as mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, sectors where Australia still has a competitive edge but has lost ground to cheaper foreign imports and outsourcing. By focusing on encouraging local production and securing Australian jobs, the country can reduce its dependence on foreign goods and services, thus increasing self-sufficiency and driving domestic job creation.
Additionally, an “Australia First” approach would encourage greater investment in Australian industries, making the country less reliant on international supply chains that have been exposed as fragile during global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Australia is so busy apologising for their past that they have lost a sense of their true national identity and what it means to be proudly Australian.
By incentivising Australian businesses and entrepreneurs through tax relief and deregulation, Australia could foster innovation, bolster small businesses, and ensure that the economic recovery benefits Australian workers first and foremost. This focus on self-reliance is especially pertinent as Australia faces an increasingly complex global economy, where rising competition from China and other emerging markets puts pressure on traditional industries.
The Trump administration also stressed the importance of controlling borders to ensure national security and protect domestic labor markets. Australia’s approach to immigration has long been a point of debate, and while the country has one of the highest immigration rates per capita, it’s important to reassess the impact of such high levels of immigration on housing, job markets, and social services.
A more measured approach, prioritizing skilled migration and ensuring that immigrants contribute to Australia’s social fabric and economic growth, could alleviate some of the challenges arising from an influx of people. Ultimately, a net-zero immigration approach could prove to be the most beneficial to the Australian economy and the fabric of Australian society. In a time of high unemployment, particularly in regional areas, reducing competition for jobs while focusing on the local workforce could also improve social cohesion and national pride.
Moreover, the “America First” model promotes a nationalistic approach to trade. Under Trump, the U.S. adopted protectionist measures such as tariffs to bring manufacturing jobs back to the country and negotiate better deals with trading partners. Australia could benefit from similar protectionist policies that ensure trade agreements reflect the best interests of Australian workers and industries.
The recent trade tensions between Australia and China highlight the need for Australia to diversify its economic partnerships and assert its interests on the world stage, just as Trump did with China, making it clear that unfair trade practices would not be tolerated.
Socially, an “Australia First” approach would also foster greater unity. By focusing on national identity, preserving traditional Australian values, and taking a tough stance on issues such as illegal immigration and national security, the government can strengthen social cohesion and rebuild national pride.
Trump’s emphasis on “law and order” and his policies to protect local communities resonate with Australians who are concerned about rising crime rates and social instability in some urban centers. Promoting respect for Australian traditions and values while emphasizing a clear path to citizenship could create a more unified, proud nation.
In conclusion, adopting a “Australia First” approach—similar to Donald Trump’s model—could provide significant economic and social benefits for the country. By prioritizing local industries, encouraging job creation, protecting borders, and fostering a sense of national pride, Australia can ensure a more prosperous and cohesive future in an uncertain global landscape.
Just as Trump’s policies had a positive impact on the U.S., a carefully crafted “Australia First” strategy can help the nation navigate future challenges while ensuring that the needs and interests of Australians are placed at the forefront.
1 thought on “Why Australia should adopt a Donald Trump-style “Australia First” approach”
My degrees are in English Lit and mostly Ancient History and I might just fail first year Economics but my understanding is that:
Our Australian economy is not large like that of the States, it is middle sized, so will our economy be big enough to achieve what you outline?
Some scholars have argued that the American economic indicators were in fact better under Biden than Trumpie but to be fair to Trumpie, fighting Covid mucked up a lot of things for his Administration.
You are dead right about immigration into Australia. We are importing far too many people and far too many of them, should not be passing entrance discernment. There is now, finally, considerable alarm over the sheer number of entrants to Australia who have “gamed our immigration system,” or who for cultural/religious reasons are simply unsuitable vis-a-vis Australian social cohesion.
We need to boost our manufacturing, even though it may only be medium scale. Note what happened towards the end of Covid, here in Australia. We make our Blundies in Tassie, so that was fine. However their very good quality innersoles come exclusively out of China. Quelle horreur, none could be procured from workwear retailers around Australia. They are not the sort of thing you would normally consider stockpiling prior to Covid, “in case of disaster.” Aussies were told it might be a couple of years before the requisite innersoles came rolling out of China again. Many farmers and country folk wore out their inner soles. Farmers’ wives and equestrian types were for over a year, cutting out inner-soles from Weeties cardboard packets and putting them under the worn out ones, 4 at a time. It’s the inner sole which wears out, not so much the sole of the boot. Much discomfort for the feet of the above people. Plus only the elastic sided Blundies with sock top protectors, keep out the dreaded sputnik burrs. All was woe but would not have been, if we had just manufactured the inner soles at home. Even though things have improved, one still can’t buy more than 5 pairs at a time from the Blundie website, ie they are STILL being rationed. How the Princess of Wales is coping with fresh inner soles for her Blundie lace ups cannot be discerned but it is probably the same for her, as the rest of us. If Blundies had done solo inner soles back in the 1960s or 1970s, do you really think that we would have brought them all in from China? No way!!
We are one of the most primitive economies in the OECD because we are almost purely extractive [mining]. Our extractive industries need to be far more “value added.” We need vigourous capital investment in rare minerals and to “value add” them for export.
We need a degree of protectionism but too much, will ultimately be destructive to our economic growth.
Lizzie bat Shobai.
7 7 7 7 7 7 7