Mr BURGESS (Hastings) (16:05:01) — On the motion, it is always interesting to follow the Leader of the House and listen to her try and rewrite history. It is a regular occurrence. To say on one hand that she was going to get to this debate, that if we had time we were going to get to consideration in detail, but that it was the member for Bayswater that was standing up and taking up time is so disingenuous that certainly anyone reading Hansard really needs to read it in detail to understand exactly what the Leader of the House gets up to. She does it regularly. She will get up and she will verbal people and she will make an argument that really does not exist. Hopefully she is coming back — good — because she does this on a regular basis. She has already contradicted herself by saying that there was no agreement but then, harking back to Tuesday, that clearly there was an agreement and that she was making the point that we would do it if we had time.
Now, there was plenty of time. It is just a matter that certainly the government is trying to filibuster so that we do not have time to do this. There are all sorts of reasons why we should be going into consideration in detail on this bill. There was an agreement that has been reneged on, which is not unusual for the Leader of the House and not unusual for the government.
An honourable member interjected.
Mr BURGESS — Absolutely; it is standard play for these people. The minister was sitting at the table. We were all ready to go into consideration in detail, but of course they backflipped and reneged again — but that is exactly what we expect from this government. There was a commitment from them that they would go into consideration in detail — part of the democratic process. They promised to do this as part of their movement into government, but of course they have done almost anything but that while they have been in government.
We have got people that want to speak on this. We have got people that need to understand this bill. We have got ticket brokers, we have got theatres and we have got consumers that need to understand this legislation. This is a piece of legislation that is there to protect the consumer in some ways, but in other ways it can be quite tricky. If we do not get the opportunity to — do what it really amounts to — cross‑examine the minister to see, firstly, if he even understands what the bill is about, and I am sure that is why it is being hidden; the minister has run off like he normally does when it is time to answer any questions —
Honourable members interjecting.
Mr BURGESS — He would not have a clue what is going on in this bill, and now when it is time for him to come and answer some questions, he has the Leader of the House standing up there and taking cover for him. That is the situation we are in. There is no intent by this government to ever go into consideration in detail, even when it is a bill that changes the circumstances in relation to entertainment for our consumers, where they should understand what is going on, what their rights are, what they can do, whether they can be ripped off by somebody or whether this bill means anything at all and how it has changed the law. What does it really mean when a police officer or an authorised officer comes up to you and asks you for your tickets? Do you have to hand them over? If you put them in your pocket, is there search and seizure? What is it? We do not understand. I do not believe the minister understands. This government does not understand the legislation.
We have seen that so many times from this government. They do not understand the legislation they put through. So many times there is a problem with it, and they just do not recognise that, and they are too arrogant to even listen to the opposition when we are telling them there is a mistake. We are asking them to go into consideration in detail so we can thrash out some of these concerns and perhaps improve what is a faulty bill and put something on the table so that the consumers can understand it, because in the end, as the government is trying to argue, this is supposed to be for the protection of the consumer. Well, if it is for the protection of the consumer, Minister, come and sit down here; come and answer the questions that we ask on behalf of the consumer, and show that you know something about the law that you are trying to thrust upon Victorians.
Mr Wakeling interjected.