IMO the Boxer is over the top in sophistication, physical size and cost for Australian needs......especially at what, something like $25 million a piece....
I will admit that the Boxers are big, though one could argue that for some of their potential roles the imposing (dare I say intimidating) size could be a bonus. It is surprising though that once you load them up there is surprisingly little room left inside. I would also point out that the alternative (the Patria AMV35) was also big - see below for photo of Boxer and AMV35 alongside Abrams and ASLAV:
And just the Boxer compared to the ASLAV it is replacing:
As for sophistication, I would have to argue that the Army as a whole s getting sophisticated. So long as the troops are trained, the equipment is reliable and supportable it should not be an issue. Moreover, if one goes truly networked and connect everything from the troops on the ground, their vehicles, through to helicopters, fighters, UAVs, surveillance aircraft and naval platforms one can get some truly mind blowing outcomes that you haven't seen even in 'Hollywood' depictions.
Won't comment on cost since all the platforms are expensive. Not denying this.
Finally, I will also admit that the Australian Army is generally getting 'heavy' and I often wonder what the thinking behind it is. If you look, they are going to shortly have Boxer CRVs, either Lynx KF41 or AS21 Redback (my money being on the latter), more Abrams tanks (in the M1A2SEPV3 configuration I believe), Abrams Breaching and Bridging variants, K9/K10 SPHs plus more. Even the Hawkei vehicles aren't that small/light when you see them up close. It is very much a heavy offering and whilst certainly imposing I do wonder about deployability. Even with C-17s and the two LHDs I think we will be very hard pressed to deploy anywhere in a hurry in numbers. That said, if their reputation/potential capability can act as a deference and thus avoid the needful rapid deployment in the first place then they will have been a good investment.