Question Time AU

Matter of Public Importance

Migration

House of Representatives · Tuesday 10 February 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on concerns regarding high migration levels and their alleged impact on housing affordability and social cohesion, raised by the member for Kennedy. Government ministers and opposition members contested these claims, citing factual data on migration numbers and emphasising the economic and social contributions of migrants. Several speakers argued that structural policy failures, rather than migration, were the primary causes of housing and infrastructure pressures. The discussion concluded with a strong defence of multiculturalism and a rejection of assimilationist rhetoric.

Outcome

The debate concluded without a vote, as is standard for Matters of Public Importance.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Katter argued that approximately 300,000 student visa holders remain in Australia annually, contributing to a net migration figure that threatens national identity. Katter claimed that high migration levels, particularly from the Middle East and North Africa, were straining housing and jobs in Sydney and Melbourne. Katter asserted that migrants from non-democratic backgrounds struggled to integrate and cited incidents of anti-Semitic chanting as evidence of social division. Katter called for stricter criteria based on shared values, including Christianity and rule of law, to preserve Australian character.

Government response

Hill stated that while migration levels had been too high, the government was reducing them to a permanent intake of 185,000. Hill refuted claims that most international students stay in Australia, noting that the sector supports over 250,000 jobs and contributes significantly to the economy. Hill argued that skilled migrants are essential for addressing labour shortages in healthcare, aged care, and regional industries. Hill criticised the opposition for using misinformation and failing to specify which migration categories they wished to cut.