Australia's population dynamics are shifting dramatically, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reporting a record-low fertility rate of 1.50 births per woman in 2023 and a crude birth rate of 10.7 per 1,000 people in 2024, the lowest in recorded history. The natural increase in population, births minus deaths, dropped to 105,200 in 2024, driven by only 292,500 births against 187,300 deaths. This decline, coupled with rising housing costs and high immigration, has sparked debate about whether having children in Australia has become a luxury, inaccessible to many due to economic barriers. Critics like myself, cite the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, argue that these conditions amount to "passive genocide" by suppressing births. What we have is a program of the Great White Replacement, to cull out the traditional White Australian population by passive means.

Housing affordability is a primary driver of Australia's declining birth rates. CoreLogic (now Cotality) data shows that home purchase and mortgage servicing costs reached record highs by the end of 2024, with rents similarly unaffordable. HSBC research indicates that a 10% increase in house prices correlates with a 1.3% drop in birth rates, with an even sharper decline among renters. For many young Australians, the dream of homeownership, a traditional prerequisite for starting a family, remains elusive. In 2021, 69% of 15- to 24-year-olds lived with their parents, up 5% from 2011, reflecting housing uncertainty. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute notes that 40% of 25- to 34-year-olds in Sydney and Perth rely on family assistance to buy a home, with mortgage rates doubling from 3% to 6.2% over two years. These costs delay family formation, as couples prioritise financial stability over parenthood. Hence there is a direct causal relationship between government policies and a radical drop in births, particularly in the White population.

Beyond housing, the cost of raising children is prohibitive. A 2016 study estimated that a low-income household spends $137 per week to raise a six-year-old, while a 2021 Suncorp survey reported over $100 weekly on food alone per child. Additional expenses, such as IVF ($10,000 per cycle), private hospital births (requiring $2,400 in extra health insurance premiums), and childcare (where mothers can lose up to 100% of their take-home pay for additional workdays), further deter parenthood. The "motherhood penalty," a lifetime earnings loss for women with children, exacerbates these challenges, particularly as women, who make up over 60% of higher education students, choose their careers.

Australia's immigration policy, which saw net overseas migration account for a historically high share of population growth in 2024, indirectly suppresses fertility. High immigration drives up housing demand, pushing prices and rents higher, which in turn discourages couples from having children. This creates a negative feedback loop: low fertility necessitates more immigration to sustain population growth, further inflating housing costs. The shift in urban housing from family-friendly homes to high-rise apartments, particularly in cities like Sydney, compounds the issue, as smaller dwellings are less suitable for raising children.

Economic barriers are not the sole drivers of declining fertility. Social changes, including increased access to contraception, greater female education, and evolving gender norms, have empowered women to delay or forgo motherhood. The median age of mothers rose to 31.9 in 2023, with 53% of first-time mothers aged 30 or older, compared to 17% for those over 35 three decades ago. Climate change concerns also influence decisions, with 43% of 18- to 30-year-olds citing it as a significant factor in family planning, and these anxieties are fuelled by the government and media. These trends reflect a broader shift toward individual autonomy and career choice, with many young Australians feeling that the future is too uncertain for parenthood.

The Passive Genocide Claim

The assertion that Australia's declining birth rates constitute "passive genocide" under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) requires development. Article II of the convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." The mainstream view is that such claim hinges on whether economic policies suppressing births, such as those exacerbating housing unaffordability, meet this threshold of intent. The mainstream view is that there is no evidence that Australian policies are deliberately designed to prevent births among specific groups. Housing unaffordability and high living costs result from complex market dynamics and policy decisions, such as immigration levels and land-use regulations, rather than targeted efforts to suppress reproduction. The global nature of declining fertility rates, down from 5.4 in 1963 to 2.1 in 2023, with developed nations at 1.5, suggests they say structural economic and social trends, not a coordinated genocidal agenda. Countries like South Korea (0.72) and Japan (1.3) face even lower fertility rates without claims of genocide, indicating that these are systemic issues tied to modernisation, not intentional destruction.

But this argument fails because even if there are modernisation forces responsible for the birth dearth in East Asia, it does not follow that these same forces offer a complete explanation of the Australian situation. Those modernisation forces are more relevant to countries modernising, and Australia has been through that and received its initial demographic decline from these factors, such as women's lib, the destruction of the traditional family and the opening of Pandora's Box of policies stemming from feminism. However as argued above, the additional social factors that lead to demographic decline relate to government policies such as replacement level mass immigration, which destroys the basis for young people, mainly whites, to start families. Systemic neglect of housing affordability and economic pressures effectively targets younger generations, particularly native-born Australians, by making family formation unattainable. X posts reflect this sentiment, with users like @craigkellyAFEE warning that a fertility rate of 1.5 could lead to a 74% population decline in four generations, framing it as a "national emergency."

Yes, other groups are affected as well, which lends support to a wider replacement thesis, where traditional Australians, are being phased out in favour of a people who will fit into the Chinese communist New World Order, which the Labour party embraces by its actions and policies. The "intent" condition is met, because these policies which crash births, are intentional policies, and it is a fallacy to suppose that even if there is no explicit public statement of the Great White Replacement, that the government is not aware of this, any more than with its racial bias against whites in immigration policy. In the US for example, both Bill Clinton and Joe Biden welcomed the coming white minority. This too fits with the narrative of anti-whiteness which the Left, across the West, propagate.

In conclusion, having children in Australia has become a luxury, driven by record-high housing costs, childcare expenses, and economic insecurity, exacerbated by high immigration, all intentional government policies or directly connected to them. These factors have pushed the fertility rate to a historic low of 1.50, with profound implications for the nation's demographic and economic future. There is a case that this amounts to "passive genocide" under the UN Convention.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/06/having-children-is-becoming-a-luxury/