Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (12:02): I seconded the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment to this motion. His amendment, in a very calm and rational way, went through exactly why the motion moved by the member for Maribyrnong is nothing more than politics. Let's be frank: there's nothing subtle or sincere about this motion from the member for Maribyrnong. Subtlety is certainly not his strong suit—trying to politicise this for every single drop of political advantage possible. Anybody watching this broadcast would not have seen the sincerity dripping off him. This motion is about one thing: the member for Maribyrnong. The member for Maribyrnong is just trying to exploit this for political purposes—nothing else. No-one out there seriously believes that the member for Maribyrnong is here fighting for the interests of those who were victims of robodebt. No-one believes that! No-one in this House—not even those opposite, on the government benches—believes that the abiding motivation of this motion is to defend the interests of those Australians. This is about one thing: politics. There's no sincerity; there's no subtlety. That's why we have moved the amendments to this motion. Government members interjecting— Mr SUKKAR: It's very clear that the Labor government, including the backbenchers who are interjecting right now, have very little interest in the issues impacting Australians around their kitchen tables today. Ms Sitou: Where you've politicised it! That's outrageous! Mr SUKKAR: On cue: an interjection that highlights that exact point. Parliamentary time in this chamber today should be spent on trying to hold the government to account on what on earth they are doing for the millions of Australians who are struggling today, who will get home tonight, open their emails—or some, those with snail mail, will go to their letterbox and get the bill in the mail—and wonder, 'How on earth am I going to pay this bill?' That is what they will be doing today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Member for Deakin, if I could just— Mr SUKKAR: And instead— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Deakin, there has been a point of order called. I would ask you to take your seat. Mr Brian Mitchell: The point of order is on relevance. This debate has to be on the motion before the House, and he is straying far from the motion before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question before the House, which he is speaking to, is the amendment put forward by the opposition. Thank you for your interjection. The member for Deakin has the call. Mr SUKKAR: Thank you. That's a very confused backbencher there. It's not question time yet. Those standing orders don't apply. We've got millions of Australians who will get home today and have that bill in the mail, and they'll be wondering, 'How on earth do I pay it?' It could be a gas bill. It could be an electricity bill. Many of them will have voted for the Labor Party on the basis that its leader promised them he would reduce their power prices by $275 a year. Many Australians, honest people, would have thought that was an honest commitment from the Prime Minister. Every single person opposite who is interjecting had that on brochures that went out into people's letterboxes: 'We promise a $275 reduction.' People are today dealing with the consequences, and they would rightly expect that the government was focused on that. Instead, what we've got is a vindictive and politically motivated stunt from the government. Where on earth is the government's response to the royal commission? Where is it? I would say, with something that's 900 pages long, I can understand why the government would still be considering all of those recommendations. I understand that, which is why this motion today is so obviously politically motivated. How on earth could the government be moving this motion before they had considered and responded to the recommendations by their hand-picked commissioner? It's very clear— Ms Sitou: Now you're questioning the independence of the commissioner. Wow! Mr SUKKAR: Absolutely hand-picked commissioner. And if you are not willing, as a government, to respond to those recommendations then what on earth is this motion about? It's about politics. As I've said—and I've said it many, many times—the member for Maribyrnong is trying to squeeze every single drop of political advantage out of this. The reality is that people see that for what it is. Australians know that this now is being cynically used by the Labor Party, and I think, to be frank, that ruins your credibility on this issue. Sure, you don't have the 'sincere in chief' minister pushing this, but the utter lack of subtlety and sincerity, I think, is atrocious. That's why the very sensible amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business should be supported by those who are sitting opposite me. The reality is that there have been many times in political history when the House has apologised, and often there has been a willingness to apologise for the deeds of others. We very rarely see governments—or members of parliament, quite frankly—willing to apologise for things that they've done. They're always very willing to apologise for the sins of the past of others. But—to come to sincerity—you can only be sincere if you're willing to apologise for your own misjudgements and your own failures. Government members interjecting— Ms Sitou: Have you apologised? Mr SUKKAR: To the members who are interjecting who perhaps weren't in the chamber: the Manager of Opposition Business, in the amendment which has been circulated—and perhaps you should read that before you interject—has that as an opening line. I would encourage those who are interjecting to educate themselves and read the amendment before they vote. I know those opposite, in a lemming-like fashion, will do what the minister tells them to do with their vote, but I am saying quite clearly that, as an opposition, we've made our position clear. We closed down the scheme. Mr Shorten: You had to! Mr SUKKAR: The member for Maribyrnong was a minister in a government with a litany of issues. We all remember the devastating consequences of pink batts, which led to four deaths. It would be very disingenuous for any politician to come in and say, 'We are going to ascribe responsibility for that to everybody on that side of politics.' Of course we wouldn't do that. That's why this lack of sincerity from the government is turning Australians off what is a very political approach. I support the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment. I note his third point, and I reiterate it: … debate on this motion moved by the Member for Maribyrnong is diverting parliamentary time from the pressing challenges … eleven consecutive mortgage interest rate increases— I wish the members opposite would get as animated on behalf of their constituents about that— … gas and electricity prices increasing dramatically in the face of the government's inability to deliver the … $275 … and soaring inflation which is creating a cost of living challenge for Australians— Including their promise, before the last election, to deliver cheaper mortgages. We often ask, 'Where on earth are those cheaper mortgages?' I would say to those opposite: if you want to be sincere, reflect on promises you've made and broken; come into this House and apologise to the Australian people for what you have done. It's very easy to apologise for the sins of the past or the sins of others, but it's not so easy to reflect on your own actions—the mistruths that were told before last election. To now double down on that and divert parliamentary time away from the things that will be concerning, stressing and worrying families around their kitchen tables tonight is a shame.