Member for Keppel, Brittany Lauga.
Member for Keppel, Brittany Lauga. Allan Reinikka ROK030816alauga1

'I thought Tim Nicholls was more substantive'

BRITTANY Lauga's parliamentary neighbour has slammed the LNP for using Question Time to ask about allegations surrounding the Keppel MP's husband.

Rockhampton MP Bill Byrne said he thought Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls was "more substantive” than to bring family matters into parliament.

Ms Lauga and her husband Wayne were reportedly drinking at the Keppel Sands Hotel on Saturday when a man with them got into a fight. The Courier Mail reported the Laugas were then ejected and Mr Lauga smashed a glass on a pool table.

But Ms Lauga told parliament on Wednesday night that neither she nor her husband had been involved in a fight nor had they been kicked out.

But the incident became the subject of the LNP's first three questions during parliamentary question time on Thursday.

LNP leader Tim Nicholls asked Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk how the Laugas' alleged behaviour fitted with the government's laws on alcohol-fuelled violence.

Mr Byrne said he had expected more from Mr Nicholls and believed the line of questioning diminished parliament.

"I've got many feelings about the manner frankly, but I suppose for public consumption, it's certainly says much about the tenor and nature of politics in this state when those matters are brought forward by the Opposition,” he said.

"It's akin to playing the man, or in this case the woman, rather than the ball. Rather than talking about substantive policy issues, or differences in their ideology, what people pay us to do in the Queensland parliament, what we saw today was again the lowering of the tone of the personal attack, the ludicrous line of questioning that was put forward.

"I thought it was a waste of an opportunity for an Opposition to actually hold a government to account for substantive matters. It reflects very poorly on them.

"I've always thought that Tim Nicholls was a more substantive figure than that. And that he had the capacity to bring forward serious and substantive discussion in parliament.”