Ethics Committee Reports to the House.2 6

ETHICS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 206

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE REFERRED BY THE SPEAKER ON 13 AUGUST 2020 RELATING TO THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOUR OF A VISITOR SIGNED INTO THE PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCT BY A MEMBER, AND THE FAILURE OF THE MEMBER TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE THAT VISITOR

Introduction and background 1. The Ethics Committee (the committee) is a statutory committee of the Queensland Parliament established under section 102 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (the POQA). The current committee was appointed by resolution of the Legislative Assembly on 26 November 2020. 2. The committee’s area of responsibility includes dealing with complaints about the ethical conduct of particular members and dealing with alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege by members of the Assembly and other persons.1 The committee considers and reports on matters of privilege and possible contempts of parliament referred to it by the Speaker, the Registrar, or the House. 3. This report concerns a referral from the Speaker regarding a possible contempt of Parliament by the member for Mirani, Mr Steven Andrew MP (‘member for Mirani’) for failing to supervise a guest he signed into the parliamentary precinct (Mr Troy Thompson), leading to the guest allegedly intimidating a member of the House (the member for Thuringowa) and a possible breach of the Parliamentary Service By-law 2013 (By-law). The referral 4. On 12 August 2020, the member for Thuringowa, Mr Aaron Harper MP, wrote to the Speaker alleging that the member for Mirani had failed to supervise a guest on the parliamentary precinct (Mr Troy Thompson). The member for Thuringowa provided screen shots from Mr Thompson’s Facebook page in which Mr Thompson appeared to have placed a One Nation brochure, on the member for Thuringowa’s office door in the parliamentary precinct. 5. On 13 August 2020, the Speaker made the following ruling in the House and referred the behaviour of the member for Mirani and Mr Thompson to the committee: … Passholders who sign in and accompany guests are responsible for the behaviour of those guests on the precinct while they are here. Passholders must ensure that guests do not go into areas they are not permitted to, or engage in inappropriate conduct with other members or staff, or attempt to access the private papers of other members. A member has brought to my attention social media posts by a guest of the member for Mirani. The social media post shows a display of political material on the precinct and posting of paraphernalia on another member’s office door. The activity could, at best, be considered immature. In any event, it is not appropriate behaviour on the parliamentary precinct. Disappointingly, this is not the first time I have dealt with the behaviour of visitors on the precinct who have been the responsibility of the member for Mirani.

1 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, section 104B. Ethics Committee Page 1 On 23 October 2019, I made a statement in the House asking for the member’s apology to the House and suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct for six months. That was under section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988. I have decided to refer the behaviour of the member and his guest on the precinct to the Ethics Committee. I have also suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct under section 50 of the same act until such time as the Ethics Committee reports to the House.2 6. On 25 August 2020, the committee received correspondence from the Speaker relating to the referral. The Speaker’s correspondence detailed four allegations as follows: 1. That the Member for Mirani did not adequately supervise Mr Troy Thompson, a guest that the said member signed for access into the Parliament Precinct. 2. That Mr Thompson sought to intimidate the Member for Thuringowa by: a. taking photos of the Member for Thuringowa’s office door and office sign without the permission of the Member for Thuringowa; b. interfering with the personal office sign of the Member for Thuringowa with political material without the permission of the Member for Thuringowa; and c. publishing photos of the acts referred to in a) and b) above on a Facebook page attributable to Mr Thompson. 3. The allegation that Mr Thompson carried an item which conveyed a political message into the Parliamentary Precinct in breach of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 and published photos of the same on a Facebook page attributable to Mr Thompson and by doing so acted contrary to the dignity of the Assembly; and 4. The allegation that the Member for Mirani did not take any steps to prevent a breach of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 by Mr Thompson. Definition of contempt 7. Section 37 of the POQA defines the meaning of ‘contempt’ of the Assembly as follows: (1) “Contempt” of the Assembly means a breach or disobedience of the powers, rights or immunities, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees. (2) Conduct, including words, is not contempt of the Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with–– (a) the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its authority or functions; or (b) the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member. The committee’s proceedings 8. The committee has established procedures and practices for dealing with referrals which ensure procedural fairness and natural justice is afforded to all parties. These procedures are set out in chapters 44 and 45 of Standing Orders. The committee is also bound by the instructions regarding witnesses contained in Schedule 3 of the Standing Orders. 9. The committee applies the civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, in making a finding of contempt. This is a lower standard than the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard required for criminal matters. However, proof of a very high order is required to make a finding of contempt, consistent with the test applied in relation to misconduct charges at common law.3

2 Record of Proceedings, 13 August 2020, p 2032. 3 In the leading High Court authority in the area, Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, Latham CJ at 343-344 stated: ‘The standard of proof required by a cautious and responsible tribunal will naturally vary in accordance with the seriousness and importance of the issue’. Ethics Committee Page 2 10. The committee wrote to the member for Mirani and Mr Troy Thompson inviting both parties to make a submission addressing the specific elements to be established in the respective allegations of contempt. Both parties provided a response to the committee. 11. The committee also sought further advice from the Speaker concerning the procedures followed when members sign-in visitors to the precinct, and how visitors are advised of their obligations whilst on the precinct. The Speaker provided a response on 7 April 2021. 12. The committee then determined that it had sufficient information to deliberate on the allegations.4 13. With respect to the four allegations in this matter, two allegations were made against the member for Mirani and two allegations were made against Mr Thompson. This report deals with the allegations against each party separately. A summary of the conclusions and recommendations is contained at the end of this report. Allegations against the Member for Mirani

Allegation 1: The member for Mirani did not adequately supervise Mr Troy Thompson, a guest that the said member signed for access into the Parliament Precinct. Allegation 4: The member for Mirani did not take any steps to prevent a breach of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 by Mr Troy Thompson. 14. Sections 50(1) and (2) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 (PSA) provide: (1) All persons entering or upon the parliamentary precinct shall comply with the directions of the Speaker as to the behaviour, demeanour and conduct of such persons. (2) Directions of the Speaker may take the form of by-laws prescribing behaviour and conduct made from time to time by the Speaker. 15. Section 13(2) of the Parliamentary Service By-law 2013 (By-law) provides: (2) Also, a person on the parliamentary precinct must not, without the permission of the Speaker or an authorised officer, display a banner, or sign or other thing that is, or contains matter, associated with a political cause or campaign. 16. The Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 provides: No banners, signs or clothing or other items which carry or convey a political or protest message may be worn, held or displayed in any way by a person seeking entry into or on the parliamentary precinct or into or on the Legislative Assembly Gallery. No banners, signs or other similar items may be affixed to the buildings or fences upon the parliamentary precinct, other than by authorized Parliamentary Officers or Employees, without the express written permission of the Speaker. 17. Section 50(7) of the PSA provides that Speaker’s Directions do not apply to members of the Legislatively Assembly in the conduct of their parliamentary business. The rationale for this exclusion is that the Legislative Assembly should deal with its members. 18. The committee considered the member for Mirani’s conduct in the context of a possible contempt of parliament, and noted similar matters dealt with by previous committees. 19. The former Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee (MEPPC) in its Report No. 41 dealt with a matter concerning the disorderly conduct of members, Mr Shaun Nelson, member for Tablelands and Mrs Dorothy Pratt, member for Barambah. The conduct occurred on the parliamentary precinct during a public assembly regarding the deregulation of the milk industry. The members poured a can of milk at the entrance to Parliament House during the assembly. The committee found the members in contempt and recommended the members be suspended from the House for 28 days and not take their seats in the House until they apologised to the House.5

4 In accordance with Standing Order 211B(3) the minutes of the committee’s proceedings and submissions received in relation to this matter are attached to this report. 5 The then member for Tablelands was a member of the MEPPC and the committee also recommended he be discharged from the committee. Ethics Committee Page 3 20. In this matter, the MEPPC stated: There is no doubt that it is a contempt of Parliament for members or strangers to involve themselves in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct.6 [Emphasis added] 21. The Ethics Committee in Report No. 197 also dealt with a matter concerning the alleged disorderly conduct of the member for Maiwar.7 In this matter, the member for Maiwar participated in a public assembly outside the precinct. The member then entered the precinct and waved to the crowd outside, wearing a t-shirt exhibiting a protest slogan, and in the company of two children who both held signage displaying the ‘Greens’ party branding. 22. The committee found the possible breach of the By-law by the member for Maiwar was disorderly conduct, notwithstanding that the By-law does not apply to members. The committee found the member in contempt and recommended the House take no further action. 23. The allegations against the member for Mirani relate to disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct. Based on precedent, the elements to be established in order to give rise to a contempt are: • First, did the member for Mirani engage in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct? • Second, did the conduct amount to, or was it intended to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions?8

Element 1: Did the member for Mirani engage in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct?

24. The first limb of this element is whether the conduct in question occurred on the parliamentary precinct. The second limb is whether the conduct was disorderly.9 25. The alleged conduct occurred in the Parliamentary Annexe, which is considered part of the parliamentary precinct as defined by section 4 of the PSA.10 26. In relation to whether the member for Mirani’s conduct could be considered disorderly, the committee needed to be satisfied that the member for Mirani had failed to supervise his guest in breach of his obligations as a parliamentary pass holder. 27. The Speaker confirmed that the member for Mirani signed in Mr Thompson as a visitor to the precinct on the morning of 13 August 2020. Mr Thompson was also signed out as a visitor the same morning. In his correspondence to the committee, the Speaker reiterated that the host of a guest to the parliamentary precinct must not permit the guest to walk unescorted within the precinct. The requirement of pass holders to escort guests is reflected in the Parliamentary Service’s General Security Plan and supporting procedural documentation.11 28. The member for Mirani stated in his submission to the committee: … Mr Thompson was accompanied by me at all times, other than when he visited the Men’s room. During lunch times, if I was not available, one of my Staff stayed with Mr Thompson whilst the other attended the Café to purchase sandwiches, to ensure he was not left unattended at any time. On the days he attended the precinct, Mr Thompson was limited to, and was instructed to, stay within my office space, with my staff at all times…12

6 MEPPC, Report on a matter of privilege – Matter concerning the disorderly conduct of members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct, Report No. 41, p 2. 7 Ethics Committee, Matter of Privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 March 2019 relating to an alleged contempt by a member, Report No. 197, p 4. 8 MEPPC, Report on a matter of privilege – Matter concerning the disorderly conduct of members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct, Report No. 41, p 3; Ethics Committee, Matter of Privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 March 2019 relating to an alleged contempt by a member, Report No. 197, p 4. 9 Ethics Committee, Matter of Privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 March 2019 relating to an alleged contempt by a member, Report No. 197, p 4. 10 ‘Parliamentary precinct’ is defined in section 4 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 to include all land and improvements within the land reserved for House of Parliament, but does not include the Legislative Assembly chamber, or the galleries of the House, whilst the Legislative Assembly is in session. 11 Correspondence dated 7 April 2021. 12 Correspondence dated 26 March 2021. Ethics Committee Page 4 29. The member for Mirani further submitted that Mr Thompson was advised to: … “Use the restroom facilities, and please return directly to my Office” on Floor 10. Mr Thompson was instructed not to go anywhere else, touch anything, or leave to speak with anyone whatsoever on floor 10, or within the precinct, without myself as the responsible Person escorting him. 30. Mr Thompson submitted that the member for Mirani was not aware of his alleged conduct and that his conduct occurred on his way back from the bathroom. 31. The member for Mirani also submitted that as soon as he became aware of Mr Thompson’s actions through the Speaker’s Office, he made an apology in the House and to Mr Speaker. He also instructed Mr Thompson to remove any social media posts and photos relating to the member for Thuringowa. 32. On 13 August 2020, following the Speaker’s referral of the matter, the member for Mirani made the following statement in the House: Unfortunately, this morning I have been made aware that a visitor I had in the precinct had taken a photo of a door directly opposite my door. I would like to express my sincere apologies to both the House and the member for Thuringowa for this issue. I think everybody on both sides of the House understands that I have never, ever gone out of my way to be disrespectful or indecently treat people in this House, so I just wanted to make everyone aware that I had no understanding of this. I did not know it happened, and there is no way that I endorse that type of treatment or putting people or other members in this House down. I just wanted to make that very clear.13 33. The member for Mirani submitted that following his statement in the House he personally apologised to the member for Thuringowa and stated that he did not condone Mr Thompson’s behaviour. 34. The committee found that the member for Mirani took reasonable steps to meet his obligations as a pass holder and to ensure that his visitor was adequately supervised and did not breach the Speaker’s Direction. 35. Based on the information before the committee, the committee is satisfied that the member for Mirani’s conduct was not disorderly. Therefore, the first element is not satisfied.

Element 2: Did the conduct amount to, or was it intended to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions?

36. The committee addressed the second element for completeness. 37. In order to establish a contempt, the committee needed to be satisfied that the member for Mirani’s conduct amounted to, or intended to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions. 38. In Ethics Committee Report No. 197, to determine if the member for Maiwar’s conduct amounted to, or was intended to amount to an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions, the committee considered whether the member’s conduct: • breached a law made under parliamentary authority; or • was disrespectful to, or diminished the standing, authority or dignity of, the Parliament.14 39. The committee found no evidence to indicate any interference with the free exercise of the Assembly’s authority or functions by the member for Mirani. 40. Based on the information before the committee, the committee is satisfied that the member for Mirani’s conduct did not amount to, or intend to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise of the Assembly of its authority or functions. Therefore, the second element is not satisfied.

13 Record of Proceedings, 13 August 2020, p 2042. 14 Ethics Committee, Matter of Privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 March 2019 relating to an alleged contempt by a member, Report No. 197, pp 6-7. Ethics Committee Page 5 Conclusions 41. Based on the information before the committee, the committee finds that the elements necessary to establish a contempt of disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct cannot be satisfied. Therefore the member for Mirani is not guilty of a contempt. Recommendation 42. The committee recommends that the House take no further action. Committee comment 43. The Speaker noted in his referral that this was not the first time that he had to deal with the alleged conduct of the member for Mirani’s visitors. 44. On 23 October 2019, the Speaker made a statement in the House in relation to an incident with the member for Mirani’s visitors and requested the member apologise to the House. The Speaker also suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct for six months under section 50 of the PSA. 45. When referring this matter to the committee, the Speaker further suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct under section 50 of the PSA until such time as the committee reported to the House. 46. This second period of suspension has been for a period of 9 months. The committee suggests that this has been an adequate course of action in the circumstances. 47. Whilst the committee has made no findings against the member for Mirani, the committee reminds the member for Mirani of his obligations as a member of parliament to ensure that his visitors to the precinct uphold the standards required to preserve the dignity of the Parliament.

Allegations against Mr Troy Thompson

Allegation 3: Mr Troy Thompson carried an item which conveyed a political message into the Parliamentary Precinct in breach of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 and published photos of the same on a Facebook page attributable to Mr Thompson and by doing so acted contrary to the dignity of the Assembly. 48. Section 13(2) of the By-law provides that a person on the parliamentary precinct must not, without the permission of the Speaker or an authorised officer, display a banner, sign or other thing that is, or contains matter, associated with political cause or campaign. 49. As set out at paragraph 16, the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 provides further restrictions on displaying banners, signs and clothing displaying political or protest messages. 50. The By-law may prescribe penalties for failure to comply with specified directions not exceeding 10 penalty units, however, the enforcement of the By-law rests with the Speaker. 51. The allegation before the committee is that Mr Thompson breached the By-law, and by doing so acted contrary to the dignity of the Assembly. The committee considered the allegation against Mr Thompson in the context of a possible contempt of parliament. 52. As noted above, the former MEPPC stated: There is no doubt that it is a contempt of Parliament for members or strangers to involve themselves in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct.15 [Emphasis added] 53. The requirement for strangers to act appropriately on the precinct is also reflected in Standing Order 286(c) which provides ‘that strangers must not misbehave in any way in any part of the House or the parliamentary precinct’. 54. The committee considered Mr Thompson’s conduct in terms of disorderly conduct. Based on precedent, the elements to be established are: • First, did Mr Thompson engage in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct?

15 MEPPC, Report on a matter of privilege – Matter concerning the disorderly conduct of members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct, Report No. 41, p 2. Ethics Committee Page 6 • Second, did the conduct amount to, or was it intended to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions?16

Element 1: Did Mr Troy Thompson engage in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct?

55. The first limb of this element is whether the conduct in question occurred on the parliamentary precinct. The second limb is whether the conduct was disorderly. 56. As at paragraph 25, it has been established that the alleged conduct occurred on the parliamentary precinct. 57. Mr Thompson displayed a brochure which read ‘One Nation: Troy’s Plan for Thuringowa’ on the member for Thuringowa’s parliamentary annexe office door sign. This is confirmed from the posts on Mr Thompson’s Facebook page and Mr Thompson’s submission to the committee. 58. Section 13(2) of the By-law provides that a person must not, without permission of the Speaker or an authorised officer, display a banner, sign or other thing that is associated with a political cause or campaign. 59. The Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 specifies: No banners, signs or other similar items may be affixed to the buildings or fences upon the parliamentary precinct, other than by authorized Parliamentary Officers or Employees, without the express written permission of the Speaker. 60. The brochure displayed on the member for Thuringowa’s office door would constitute a ‘thing that is or contains matter associated with a political cause or campaign’ under section 13(2) of the By-law. There is no evidence before the committee to indicate that the Speaker provided permission for this item to be displayed. 61. Mr Thompson submitted that he had no intention to engage in disorderly conduct and that he had no knowledge of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018. Mr Thompson also described the incident as a lapse in judgement. 62. The Speaker advised the committee that the visitor rules of entry are visible on the visitor book as visitors signs-in. The visitor rules reflect the requirements under section 50 of the PSA, the By-law and Speaker’s Directions. Mr Thompson’s purported unawareness of the Speaker’s Direction does not absolve him from the responsibility to comply with such direction. 63. Based on the information before the committee, the committee is satisfied that Mr Thompson displayed political material on the member for Thuringowa’s office door without permission, was in breach of the By-law and Speaker’s Direction and that this amounts to disorderly conduct. 64. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

Element 2: Did the conduct amount to, or was it intended to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions?

65. To determine if Mr Thompson’s conduct amounted to, or was intended to amount to, an interference with the free exercise by the Assembly of its authority or functions, the committee considered whether Mr Thompson’s conduct: • breached a law made under parliamentary authority, or • was disrespectful to, or diminished the standing, authority or dignity of, the Parliament.17 66. The Speaker’s ruling on 26 March 2019 stated that the rationale for the By-law and directions restricting the display of political materials is ‘to keep the precinct free of protest and preserve its dignity’.18

16 MEPPC, Report on a matter of privilege – Matter concerning the disorderly conduct of members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct, Report No. 41, p 3; Ethics Committee, Matter of Privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 March 2019 relating to an alleged contempt by a member, Report No. 197, p 4. 17 Ethics Committee, Report No. 197, pp 6-7. 18 Record of Proceedings, 26 March 2019, p 605. Ethics Committee Page 7 67. Mr Thompson displayed political material contrary to the By-law and Speaker’s Direction. The committee considers the breach of the By-law and Speaker’s Direction is an improper interference with the free exercise of the Assembly’s authority and contrary to the dignity of the Assembly. The improper interference was perpetuated via the publication of the incident on Mr Thompson’s Facebook page. 68. Based on the information before the committee, the committee is satisfied that Mr Thompson’s conduct amounts to an improper interference with the free exercise of the Assembly of its authority or functions. Therefore, the second element is satisfied.

Conclusions

69. Based on the information before the committee, the committee finds both elements necessary to establish a contempt of disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct have been met. Therefore, Mr Thompson is guilty of a contempt.

Penalty

70. Standing Order 270(5) provides that the committee must with its report recommend the action that should be taken. 71. In accordance with the principles of procedural fairness, on 27 April 2021, the committee wrote to Mr Thompson to advise of its preliminary contempt finding and to seek a submission on possible penalty. A response from Mr Thompson was requested by close of business on 5 May 2021. Despite reasonable attempts to contact Mr Thompson no submission was forthcoming. The committee has therefore determined an appropriate penalty based on the material before it. 72. The committee agrees with the Speaker’s sentiments that Mr Thompson’s behaviour ‘… could, at best, be considered immature. In any event, it is not appropriate behaviour on the parliamentary precinct.’19 73. The committee took into account Mr Thompson’s initial submission in which he stated that the incident was a lapse in judgement, and apologised for his behaviour. The committee also acknowledged that Mr Thompson appeared to remove the material from Facebook at the member for Mirani’s request. 74. The committee considers that Mr Thompson’s behaviour, whilst immature, was at the lower end of the scale. On this basis, the committee does not consider the imposition of a financial penalty to be appropriate. 75. However, Mr Thompson has demonstrated that he cannot uphold the standards of behaviour required of a visitor to preserve the dignity of the Parliament. 76. On this basis, the committee recommends that the Speaker ban Mr Thompson from the parliamentary precinct under section 50 of the PSA.

Recommendations

77. The committee recommends that the House take no further action. 78. The committee recommends that the Speaker ban Mr Troy Thompson from the parliamentary precinct pursuant to section 50 of the PSA.

Allegation 2: That Mr Troy Thompson sought to intimidate the member for Thuringowa by: (a) taking photos of the member for Thuringowa’s office door and office sign without the permission of the member for Thuringowa (b) interfering with the personal office sign of the member for Thuringowa with political material without the permission of the member for Thuringowa, and (c) publishing photos of the acts referred to in (a) and (b) above on a Facebook page attributable to Mr Thompson.

19 Record of Proceedings, 13 August 2020, p 2032.

Ethics Committee Page 8 79. Standing Order 266(9) provides an example of a contempt includes: assaulting, threatening or intimidating a member or an officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty.20 80. Allegations of threatening or intimidating a member in the course of their duties have been considered by previous committees. 81. In a 1993 Privileges Committee report relating to the alleged intimidation of a member, the committee noted that merely attempting to intimidate or threaten is of itself not necessarily a breach of privilege, and that the threat or intimidation will only be contempt if it constitutes an improper means to influence members in their parliamentary conduct.21 82. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice also provides: Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to improperly influence a Member in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt.22 83. The former Privileges Committee noted that the ‘tendency to impair their independence’ referred to in Erskine May ‘… is not to be merely coincidental. It must be precisely what the person accused of contempt intended by their conduct.’23 84. The former MEPPC in Report No. 10 expanded on what it considered to be ‘intimidation or molestation’ of a member: … without laying down a general rule, the committee believes that for there to be an “intimidation or molestation” of a member there needs to be an act or omission which is related to the member’s conduct in performing his or her position as a member and which caused or could have caused the member to have fear or apprehension in the discharge of his or her duties.24 [Emphasis added] 85. Based on precent, the elements to be established in order to give rise to a contempt are: • Did the actions of Mr Thompson constitute an attempt to intimidate the member for Thuringowa when acting in the discharge of his duties as a member? • If yes, did the attempted intimidation amount to, or was it intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free performance of the member for Thuringowa’s duties as a member?25

Element 1: Did the actions of Mr Troy Thompson constitute an attempt to intimidate the Member for Thuringowa acting in the discharge of his duties as a member?

86. The first limb of this element is whether the actions of Mr Thompson amounted to intimidation of the member for Thuringowa. The second limb is whether that intimidation was directed to the member acting in the discharge of his duties. 87. In his letter to the Speaker, the member for Thuringowa indicated that he felt intimidated by Mr Thompson’s conduct. The member for Thuringowa also submitted to the committee that Mr Thompson’s behaviour was politically motivated, with the intention to intimidate and threaten him. The member for Thuringowa stated that Mr Thompson’s actions had a deep impact on him and caused him significant anxiety in the knowledge Mr Thompson was on the precinct during the sitting week.

20 Example 3, section 37, Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. 21 Privileges Committee, Report on A Matter of Privilege – Alleged Intimidation of a Member, 12 November 1993, p 7. 22 Erskine May, 1997, Parliamentary Practice, 22nd Edition, p. 124. 23 Privileges Committee, Report on A Matter of Privilege – Alleged Intimidation of a Member, 12 November 1993, p 7. 24 MEPPC, Report on a Matter of Privilege – Alleged Contempt by the Criminal Justice Commission, Report No. 10, p 20. 25 Report No. 82 and Report No. 142 related to letters sent to members by legal firms. No contempt findings were made. Report No. 167 related the alleged threatening and disadvantaging of a member and alleged deliberate misleading of the House. The matters were dismissed by the committee. SO 266(9) was also considered by the committee in Report No. 186 (Matter relating to the alleged intimidation of a member by the Secretary of the Pine Rivers Liberal National Party State Electoral Council and Report No. 189 (Matter relating to an alleged contempt of parliament by the Premier and Minister for Trade). These were the elements considered in those matters. Ethics Committee Page 9 88. Mr Thompson refuted the allegation of intimidation toward the member for Thuringowa. Mr Thompson stated he had no intention to intimidate the member and apologised to the member.26 89. In former MEPPC Report No. 82, the then member for Moggill interpreted the tone of a letter from a legal firm as an attempt to threaten or intimidate him on account of his actions in the House. This was in relation to the member for Moggill’s tabling of a document during proceedings. The MEPPC accepted the legal firm’s assurance that there was no intent to improperly interfere with the member’s duties. The committee also agreed with the Speaker who noted when referring the matter that those in the legal profession may not realise how inherently intimidating a legal letter can be.27 90. In another similar matter, the Ethics Committee in Report No. 142 noted that a letter from a legal firm did not contain any express threat of any consequences if the then Leader of the Opposition did not comply with their request. The request was not to repeat certain allegations or statements in any forum (including the House). 91. The committee accepted that then Leader of the Opposition felt threatened and intimidated by the letter. The committee found that a reasonable person fully informed could consider the letter intimidating on account of the Leader of the Opposition’s conduct in the House and that the first element was satisfied. However, the committee found there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the letter amounted to, or intended to amount to, an improper interference with the member’s duties.28 92. In this matter, the committee needs to be satisfied that Mr Thompson’s conduct could amount to intimidation. 93. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘intimidation’ as ‘to make timid, or inspire with fear’, and ‘to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear’.29 94. Mr Thompson’s conduct occurred outside the member for Thuringowa’s parliamentary office. This is an area of the parliamentary annexe that is only accessible to members and authorised staff. At the time, Mr Thompson was a candidate for the seat of Thuringowa in the upcoming state election. Mr Thompson took photos of the brochure left on the member’s office door and published those photos to Facebook. Based on the member for Thuringowa’s submission, there also appears to have been other commentary by Mr Thompson on social media about the member for Thuringowa which caused the member personal distress.30 95. The committee spent considerable time deliberating on this aspect of the first element. The committee acknowledged that it was understandable that the member for Thuringowa felt intimidated when he became aware of Mr Thompson’s actions given the context of the situation. 96. However, in order for Mr Thompson’s conduct to amount to intimidation, there needed to be an express threat directed to the member for Thuringowa in the course of his duties as a member of parliament. 97. In publishing the material on Mr Thompson’s Facebook page, Mr Thompson stated: Office for Thuringowa looked good, I have to earn it. Good gee up though, left some litrature [sic]. It’s directly opposite our Member for Mirani Stephen Andrew, good sign, perhaps!’.31 98. Mr Thompson then proceeded to discuss the promotion of new projects proposed for North Queensland. 99. There was no evidence before the committee of an express threat directed to the member for Thuringowa relating to the discharge of the member for Thuringowa’s duties. 100. Based on the information before the committee, the committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson’s behaviour did not amount to intimidation and element one cannot be satisfied.

26 Correspondence dated 11 March 2021. 27 MEPPC, Report No. 82, Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 18 April 2007 relating to an alleged intimidation of a member by a legal firm, p 6. 28 Ethics Committee, Report No. 142, Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 31 October 2012 relating to an alleged intimidation of a member by a legal firm, p 4. 29 Macquarie Dictionary, 2001, 3rd Edition, p 992. 30 Correspondence dated 25 March 2021. 31 Correspondence dated 25 August 2020. Ethics Committee Page 10 Element 2: Did the intimidation amount to, or was intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free performance of the Member for Thuringowa’s duties as a member?

101. The committee considered the second element for completeness. 102. The member for Thuringowa submitted that Mr Thompson’s conduct prevented him from undertaking his normal activities such as going to the cafeteria for a meal with the knowledge that Mr Thompson would be in the same room. Further, the member for Thuringowa submitted that publishing the incident on Facebook was a further opportunity to intimidate the member and threaten his free performance of his duties as a member.32 103. Mr Thompson submitted that he happened to notice the member for Thuringowa’s office on the second day he visited parliament when he went to the bathroom. He submitted that he did not go looking for the office or have any intention to intimidate the member and it was a brief lapse in his judgement.33 104. In order for a contempt to be found, there needs to be an improper interference with the member’s duties and it must be precisely what the person accused of contempt intended by their conduct. 105. Based on the information before the committee, the committee is satisfied that there is no evidence to indicate that the member for Thuringowa’s duties as a member were improperly interfered with and no evidence to indicate that Mr Thompson intended to improperly interfere with the member’s duties. 106. Therefore, the second element cannot be satisfied.

Conclusion

107. Based on the information before the committee, the committee found that Mr Thompson’s conduct did not amount to intimidation and that there was no evidence to indicate that the member for Thuringowa’s duties as a member were improperly interfered nor to indicate that Mr Thompson intended to improperly interfere with the member’s duties. 108. Therefore, Mr Thompson is not guilty of a contempt.

Recommendation

109. The committee recommends that the House take no further action.

32 Correspondence dated 25 March 2021. 33 Correspondence dated 11 March 2021. Ethics Committee Page 11 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE MEMBER FOR MIRANI Allegations 1 & 4 – Disorderly conduct Conclusion: Based on the information before the committee, the committee finds that the elements necessary to establish a contempt of disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct cannot be satisfied. Therefore the member for Mirani is not guilty of a contempt. Recommendation: That the House take no further action. Committee comment: The committee reminds the member for Mirani of his obligations as a member of parliament to ensure that his visitors to the precinct uphold the standards required to preserve the dignity of the Parliament.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR TROY THOMPSON Allegation 3 – Disorderly conduct Conclusions: Based on the information before the committee, the committee finds both elements necessary to establish a contempt of disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct have been met. Therefore, Mr Thompson is guilty of a contempt. The committee considers that Mr Thompson’s behaviour, whilst immature, was at the lower end of the scale. On this basis, the committee does not consider the imposition of a financial penalty to be appropriate. However, Mr Thompson has demonstrated that he cannot uphold the standards of behaviour required of a visitor to preserve the dignity of the Parliament. Recommendation 1: That the House take no further action. Recommendation 2: That the Speaker ban Mr Troy Thompson from the parliamentary precinct under section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988. Allegation 2 – Intimidation of a member Conclusion: Based on the information before the committee, the committee found that Mr Thompson’s conduct did not amount to intimidation and that there was no evidence to indicate that the member for Thuringowa’s duties as a member were improperly interfered nor to indicate that Mr Thompson intended to improperly interfere with the member’s duties. Therefore, Mr Thompson is not guilty of a contempt. Recommendation: That the House take no further action.

Mr Linus Power MP Acting Chair May 2021

Ethics Committee Page 12

Membership –– 57th Parliament

Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Member for Ipswich Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair

Member for Glass House

Mr Linus Power MP Member for Logan

Mr Daniel Purdie MP Member for Ninderry

Ms Kim Richards MP Member for Redlands Mr Ray Stevens MP Member for Mermaid Beach

Contact Telephone: 07 3553 6610 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.parliament.qld.gov.au/ethics Subscribe: www.parliament.qld.gov.au/subscribe

ETHICS COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS Standing Order 211B(3) provides that when the Ethics Committee makes its final report to the House on a matter, the committee shall at the same time, table in the House: (a) The minutes of its proceedings relevant to the matter; and (b) Any submissions received or evidence taken in respect of the matter (including transcripts of hearings) unless the committee resolves that some or all of its proceedings remain confidential.

The relevant minutes and evidence in respect of this matter are attached to this report.

Ethics Committee Page 13 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 2 Thursday, 25 February 2021, 2.00pm Library Seminar Room, Level 6, Parliamentary Annexe

Present Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair Mr Linus Power MP Mr Michael Hart MP (substitute for Mr Daniel Purdie MP under SO 202) Ms Kim Richards MP Mr Ray Stevens MP

Apology Mr Daniel Purdie MP

In attendance Ms Erin Hastie, Committee Secretary Dr Amanda Beem, Assistant Committee Secretary

Andrew/Thompson matter

The committee noted briefing paper no. 2 provided.

Discussion ensued.

Resolved

That the committee continue with the matter and endorse the Chair to write to the Speaker and Mr Andrews advising of the committee’s decision, with the wording of the letters to be settled by the Chair and Deputy Chair. Moved: Mr Power

Extracts of Minutes Page 1 of 7 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 3 Thursday, 11 March 2021, 2.00pm Committee Room 3, Level 6, Parliamentary Annexe

Present Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair Mr Linus Power MP Mr Daniel Purdie MP Ms Kim Richards MP Mr Ray Stevens MP

In attendance Ms Erin Hastie, Committee Secretary Dr Amanda Beem, Assistant Committee Secretary

Inquiry 1 – Andrew & Thompson referred by the Speaker on 13 August 2020

The committee noted Briefing Paper No. 5 provided.

Discussion ensued.

Resolved

That the committee write to the Member for Thuringowa, the Member for Mirani and Mr Thompson seeking further information about the allegations in the terms of the draft letters provided. Moved: Ms Richards

Extracts of Minutes Page 2 of 7 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 4 Thursday, 25 March 2021, 2.00pm Committee Room 3, Level 6, Parliamentary Annexe

Present Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair Mr Linus Power MP Mr Daniel Purdie MP (from 2.04pm) Ms Kim Richards MP Mr Ray Stevens MP

In attendance Ms Erin Hastie, Committee Secretary Dr Amanda Beem, Assistant Committee Secretary

Inquiry 1 – Andrew/Thompson referred by the Speaker on 13 August 2020

The committee noted Briefing Paper No. 7 provided.

Discussion ensued.

Resolved

That the committee note the correspondence from Mr Thompson and agree to write to Mr Speaker seeking advice about the information provided to visitors. Moved: Mr Power

Extracts of Minutes Page 3 of 7 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 5 Thursday, 22 April 2021, 2.00pm Committee Room 1, Level 6, Parliamentary Annexe

Present Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair Mr Linus Power MP Mr Daniel Purdie MP Ms Kim Richards MP Mr Ray Stevens MP

In attendance Ms Erin Hastie, Committee Secretary Dr Amanda Beem, Assistant Committee Secretary

Inquiry 1 – Andrew/Thompson referred by the Speaker on 13 August 2020

The committee noted Briefing Paper No. 8 provided.

Discussion ensued.

The committee determined that it has sufficient information to deliberate on the matter.

Resolved

That no finding of contempt be made against the member for Mirani. That a finding of contempt be made against Mr Troy Thompson in relation to allegation 3. That the committee write to Mr Thompson seeking a submission in relation to penalty. Moved: Mr Power

Extracts of Minutes Page 4 of 7 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 6 Thursday, 13 May 2021, 2.00pm Committee Room 3, Level 6, Parliamentary Annexe

Present Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair Mr Linus Power MP Ms Kim Richards MP Mr Ray Stevens MP

Apologies Mr Daniel Purdie MP

In attendance Ms Erin Hastie, Committee Secretary Dr Amanda Beem, Assistant Committee Secretary

Inquiry 1 – Andrew/Thompson referred by the Speaker on 13 August 2020

The committee noted briefing Paper No. 10 provided.

Discussion ensued.

Resolved

That in relation to the finding of contempt made against Mr Troy Thompson, the committee recommend that the House take no further action and recommend the Speaker take specific action under section 50 the Parliamentary Service Act 1988, such as banning Mr Troy Thompson from the parliamentary precinct.

That the committee instruct the secretariat to prepare a draft report in relation to the matter. Moved: Mr Powell

Extracts of Minutes Page 5 of 7 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 8 Thursday, 27 May 2021, 2.00pm Committee Room 3, Level 6, Parliamentary Annexe

Present Mr Linus Power MP, Acting Chair (appointed under SO 202) Mr Andrew Powell MP, Deputy Chair Mr Michael Crandon MP, substitute member (appointed under SO 202) Mr Daniel Purdie MP Ms Kim Richards MP Mr Adrian Tantari MP, substitute member (appointed under SO 202)

Apologies Ms Jennifer Howard MP, Chair Mr Ray Stevens MP

In attendance Ms Erin Hastie, Committee Secretary Dr Amanda Beem, Assistant Committee Secretary

Inquiry 1 – Andrew/Thompson referred by the Speaker on 13 August 2020

Chair’s draft Report No. 206

The committee noted the Chair’s draft Report No. 206 provided.

Discussion ensued.

Resolved

That the committee adopt the Chair’s draft report and authorise the Acting Chair to table the report. Moved: Mr Power

Materials to be tabled under SO 211B(3)

The committee noted the materials to be tabled under SO 211B(3) provided.

Discussion ensued.

Extracts of Minutes Page 6 of 7 EXTRACT OF MINUTES –

Ethics Committee Meeting No. 8 – Continued

Resolved That the committee: (a) note the material to be tabled under SO 211B(3), and (b) authorise the tabling of the Speaker’s referral letter dated 25 August 2020 with redactions as agreed to. Moved: Mr Crandon

Resolved That the committee treat the attachments to the Speaker’s letter dated 7 April 2021 as confidential pursuant to SO 211B(4)(a). Moved: Mr Tantari

Extracts certified correct on 27 May 2021

Mr Linus Power MP Acting Chair

Extracts of Minutes Page 7 of 7

Our ref: your ref: 200825-OUT-Ethics Committee

25 August 2020

Mr Joe Kelly MP Chair of the Ethics Committee Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

Dear Joe

I refer to my ruling of 13 August 2020 (enclosed) in relation to the alleged behaviour of a visitor signed into the Parliamentary Precinct by the Member for Mirani.

In my ruling I referred the allegation to the Ethics Committee for consideration and report in accordance with Standing Order 268 (2).

As per my ruling, I formally refer the complaint to the Ethics Committee in relation to the following matters;

1. The allegation that the Member for Mirani did not adequately supervise Mr Troy Thompson, a guest that the said Member signed for access into the Parliament Precinct.

2. The allegation that Mr Thompson sought to intimidate the Member for Thuringowa by;

a. Taking photos of the Member for Thuringowa’s office door and office sign without the permission of the Member for Thuringowa b. interfering with the personal office sign of the Member for Thuringowa with political material without the permission of the Member for Thuringowa; and c. publishing photos of the acts referred to in a) and b) above on a Facebook page attributable to Mr Thompson.

3. The allegation that Mr Thompson carried an item which conveyed a political message into the Parliamentary Precinct in breach of my Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 and published photos of the same on a Facebook page attributable to Mr Thompson and by doing so acted contrary to the dignity of the Assembly; and

4. The allegation that the Member for Mirani did not take any steps to prevent a breach of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 by Mr Thompson.

Parliament House George St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia

Phone + 61 7 3553 6700 Fax + 61 7 3553 6709 Email [email protected] Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au In addition, for the information of the committee, I attach the following documents that are relevant to the Committee's consideration of this matter:

 Speaker’s Statement to the House dated 13 August 2020  Email from the Member for Thuringowa, dated 12 August 2020 to the Speaker  Speaker’s Statement to the House dated 23 October 2019  Letter from the Speaker to the Member for Mirani dated 22 October 2019  Letter from the Speaker to the Member for Mirani dated 9 October 2019  A copy of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 2032 Speaker’s Ruling 13 Aug 2020

Macalister, I advised the House that the member for Mudgeeraba had written to my department demanding to know what had happened to a $21 million commitment to Gold Coast Springbrook Road under the then Minister for Main Roads Craig Wallace during the Bligh Labor government. I advised the House that the project was in fact cut by the Newman LNP government and that the member for Mudgeeraba had obviously forgotten about that. During my contribution, the member for Mudgeeraba interjected to say, as Hansard reflects, that she did not forget; Craig Wallace cut it. Mr Speaker, that statement is false and I will be writing to you alleging that the member for Mudgeeraba— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members to my left, I have just given guidance about matters of privilege being heard. I will not tolerate interjections during these matters of privilege being raised. It is every member’s right in this House to raise those matters. Mr BAILEY: That statement was false and I will be writing to you alleging that the member for Mudgeeraba has intentionally attempted to mislead the House in relation to who in fact cut the $21 million project for Gold Coast Springbrook Road.

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House Hon. KJ JONES (Cooper—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Tourism and Innovation) (9.36 am): I rise on a matter of privilege. I do not do it very often. In question time this week— Mrs Frecklington: No plan, no budget. Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, maybe I was not clear. There will be no interjections. You are warned under the standing orders. Ms JONES: I rise on a matter of privilege. In question time this week, the Leader of the Opposition and senior shadow ministers, including the members for Everton, Chatsworth, Glass House and Moggill, repeatedly made false and misleading claims in this House regarding the Cross River Rail project. I believe these members are in breach of standing order 266 and in contempt of the parliament. Despite the Minister for Transport and Main Roads and myself as the minister responsible for the Cross River Rail project providing accurate advice and factual information about the project numerous times, and despite the member for Everton’s own documents—well, my documents, but he tabled them in the parliament—which contradicted their own comments, indeed contradicted his own comments, have continued to repeat these false and misleading claims eight times. I would like to inform the House I have today written to you, Mr Speaker, regarding this contempt.

REPORT

Register of Members’ Interests Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the 33rd report of the Register of Members’ Interests. Tabled paper: Thirty-Third Report on the Register of Members’ Interests.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Responsibility of Passholders to Parliamentary Precinct, Referral to Ethics Committee Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, security on the precinct is a collective matter. All passholders must ensure that procedures regarding security are followed. One of the responsibilities of passholders in signing in guests is to ensure that those guests are accompanied by a passholder at all times. Passholders who sign in and accompany guests are responsible for the behaviour of those guests on the precinct while they are here. Passholders must ensure that guests do not go into areas they are not permitted to, or engage in inappropriate conduct with other members or staff, or attempt to access the private papers of other members. A member has brought to my attention social media posts by a guest of the member for Mirani. The social media post shows a display of political material on the precinct and posting of paraphernalia on another member’s office door. The activity could, at best, be considered immature. In any event, it is not appropriate behaviour on the parliamentary precinct. Disappointingly, this is not the first time I

13 Aug 2020 Privilege 2033

have dealt with this behaviour of visitors on the precinct that have been the responsibility of the member for Mirani. On 23 October 2019, I made a statement in the House asking for the member’s apology to the House and suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct for six months. That was under section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988. I have decided to refer the behaviour of the member and his guest on the precinct to the Ethics Committee. I have also suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct under section 50 of the same act until such time as the Ethics Committee reports to the House.

PRIVILEGE

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House Mr SPEAKER: On 18 June 2020, the Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning wrote to me alleging that the member for Everton deliberately misled the House on 16 June 2020. The matter relates to two statements made by the member for Everton during the matters of public interest debate. The first statement being, ‘Queensland is still the only state without a budget’ and the second statement being, ‘Before the coronavirus, this state had … the highest debt level in the country.’ I sought further information from the member for Everton about the allegation made against him, in accordance with standing order 269(5). With respect to the first statement, I note that the member for Everton apologised in the House on 11 August 2020. His apology is noted at page 1835 of the Record of Proceedings. With respect to the second statement, I find that the member for Everton has made an adequate explanation for the basis of his statement. Therefore, I will not be referring the matter for the further consideration of the House via the Ethics Committee. I seek leave to incorporate the ruling circulated in my name. Leave granted. SPEAKER’S RULING—ALLEGED DELIBERATELY MISLEADING THE HOUSE

On 18 June 2020, the Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning wrote to me alleging that the Member for Everton deliberately misled the House on 16 June 2020.

The matter relates to two statements made by the Member for Everton during Matters of Public Interest.

The first statement being, ‘Queensland is still the only state without a budget’ and the second statement being, ‘Before the coronavirus, this state had… the highest debt level in the country’.

In his letter to me, the Treasurer contended that the first statement was misleading because at that point in time no state, nor the Commonwealth government, had delivered a budget.

The Treasurer further contended that the second statement was misleading, and provided figures from the 2019-20 mid-year economic updates as evidence of this.

I sought further information from the Member for Everton about the allegation made against him, in accordance with Standing Order 269(5).

With respect to the first statement, the Member for Everton has apologised in the House on 11 August 2020. The apology is noted at page 1835 of the Record of Proceedings.

With respect to the second statement, the Member for Everton provided the revised actual figures from the 2018-19 year that was contained in each state and territory’s 2019-20 budget, which he concluded was the basis for his statement that Queensland had the highest debt level. This material differs from the evidence the Treasurer relied on to assert the contrary.

Having considered the material presented by both members, in relation to the first statement, and noting the Member for Everton’s apology in the House on 11 August 2020, I consider the Member for Everton has made an adequate apology for the statement.

In relation to the second statement, I consider the Member for Everton has made an adequate explanation as to the basis for his statement.

Therefore I have decided that the matters do not warrant the further attention of the House via the Ethics Committee and I will not be referring the matters.

I table the correspondence in relation to these matters. Tabled paper: Bundle of correspondence relating to an allegation that the member for Everton, Mr Tim Mander MP, deliberately misled the House.

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House

From: Thuringowa Electorate Office To: Office of the Speaker Cc: Neil Laurie; Aaron Harper Subject: FW: One Nation Candidate on Parliament Precinct. Date: Wednesday, 12 August 2020 10:09:51 AM Attachments: image001.png 20200811_235041.jpg Screenshot_20200811-231052_Gallery.jpg Screenshot_20200811-231108_Gallery.jpg Screenshot_20200811-231516_Facebook.jpg Screenshot_20200812-094209_Facebook.jpg

Dear Mr Speaker

As per below email from Aaron Harper MP. Please find attached photos as referred.

Kind regards

Roslyn Mellon Assistant Electorate Officer

Aaron Harper MP – State Member for Thuringowa ------Unit 8B, 48 Thuringowa Drive, Kirwan 4817 PO Box 393 Thuringowa Central 4817 E: [email protected] P: 07 4766 3100

From: Aaron Harper Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2020 9:29 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Neil Laurie ; Thuringowa Electorate Office Subject: One Nation Candidate on Parliament Precinct.

Dear Mr Speaker,

I write to you today very concerned about the behaviour of guests on Parliament, namely related to the Member for Mirani Stephen Andrews MP, and his guest Mr Troy Thomson the Thuringowa One Nation Candidate who has embarked on a personal attack (as articulated in a recent Townsville Bulletin Editorial) which my Office will send you as additional information, this may assist put my complaint to you in some context.

Over the last 2 days this candidate has posted numerous photos of the precinct, however last night I discovered photos of One Nation Candidate materials being displayed in front of my Office door 1004 on level 10, with comments of having left literature at my door. He has posted this on his Facebook so these images were perhaps taken yesterday 11/08/2020.

Why is this person taking photos of my Office? For what purpose I do not know, however, it feels pretty creepy that a person is standing outside of my office taking photos when I am in there working. A Member should feel safe in the Parliament precinct, not feel like someone is following you or taking photos in some way to intimidate or imitate the my role.

It is also concerning to me that I share the same level (22) where my bedroom is. It has caused me some anxiety that this person could perhaps be taking similar images of my bedroom, which I generally leave unlocked.

I draw to your attention that there were a number of divisions yesterday, which the Member for Mirani attended, who was with his guests at this time? was he left unattended in the precinct? Was this when the photos were taken?

Some other members have indicated to me over the last few days this MP and guests has been seen drinking in Bars (Strangers and/or Lucinda, with his guests), I cannot confirm whether the Member has taken this particular guest into the Lucinda Bar, however it raises other concerns of where this guest has been in the precinct.

I know in October 2019, the Member for Mirani was warned about guest’s behaviour and a ban placed on him after he had to apologise to the House about guests going through Members draws in the Chamber, I have similar concerns about the recent days and ask that this Members and his guest Troy Thompson be investigated about concerning conduct in the parliament precinct.

I would ask the Speaker look into this matter, as I consider this weeks concerning behaviour has replicated similar actions in 2019.

Regards,

Aaron Harper.

23 Oct 2019 Legislative Assembly 3509

WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2019 ______

The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am.

Mr Speaker (Hon. Curtis Pitt, Mulgrave) read prayers and took the chair. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I respectfully acknowledge that we are sitting today on the land of Aboriginal people and pay my respects to elders past and present. I thank them, as First Australians, for their careful custodianship of the land over countless generations. We are very fortunate in this country to have two of the world’s oldest continuing living cultures in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples whose lands, winds and waters we all now share.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Member’s Alleged Failure to Register an Interest Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Registrar of Interests, who is also the Clerk, that a complaint by the member for Capalaba about the Leader of the Opposition’s registration of interest was received in accordance with schedule 2, section 14 of the standing rules and orders. A complaint in accordance with this section is required to be forwarded to the Ethics Committee by the registrar. Given the current sitting schedule and the risk that this matter may be raised in the House, it is appropriate that the House be formally advised. I draw to the attention of members that standing order 271 now applies to the matter.

Responsibility of Passholders, Suspension of Member’s Right to Visitors; Apology Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, security on this precinct is a collective matter. All passholders must ensure that procedures regarding security are followed. One of the responsibilities of passholders in signing in guests is to ensure that those guests are accompanied by a passholder at all times. Passholders who sign in and accompany guests are responsible for the behaviour of those guests on the precinct. Passholders must ensure that guests do not go into areas they are not permitted or engage in inappropriate conduct with other members or staff or attempt to access the private papers of other members. Parliamentary security has provided me with video footage of the member for Mirani and a group of visitors to the parliamentary precinct under his responsibility late in the evening of Saturday, 19 October 2019. The footage indicates that several of the visitors interfered with members’ desks in this chamber by opening the compartments under the desk where members store personal belongings and, in some cases, interfering with the contents. Footage showed that in some cases when this occurred the member was standing next to the visitor interfering with the member’s desk. A parliamentary security officer on hand had to go to the chamber to request the member and his visitors leave the chamber. Disappointingly, this is not the first time I have written to the member about the behaviour of visitors he has responsibility for on the parliamentary precinct. I have suspended the member’s privileges to bring visitors to the parliamentary precinct for six months under section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988. I now ask the member to make an immediate apology to the House.

Mr ANDREW (Mirani—PHON) (9.33 am): I wish to apologise unreservedly to this House and all of its members. I have always endeavoured to ensure school groups and the public are given access to their parliament and I am proud to speak about the rich history and cultural heritage this parliament comprises. Unfortunately, over the weekend I brought a group of people into the House to give them a tour, which they were very excited about. Members who invite visitors into the parliamentary precinct have a responsibility to ensure they are escorted at all times to ensure that they do not cause nuisance or interfere with the rights and privileges of members. I acknowledge that members have the right to privacy of their chamber desks and the contents stored within.

3510 Tabled Papers 23 Oct 2019

I acknowledge that visitors under my supervision interfered with members’ privacy and I must take responsibility for this. The violation of members’ privacy is a grave matter and I express to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, my most sincere apologies. I accept your ruling and will abide by it.

Parliamentary Indigenous Liaison Officer Mr SPEAKER: As most members are aware, in August this year Mr Brett Nutley resigned from his role as Queensland parliament’s first Indigenous liaison officer after 11 years with the Parliamentary Service. Indeed, Brett was the first parliamentary Indigenous liaison officer in Australia and his efforts, his enthusiasm and his achievements have inspired other parliaments to follow our lead. Over the years Brett assisted the House, its committees and its members to better engage with our Indigenous communities. I would like to belatedly take this opportunity to thank Brett for his dedication and for always being approachable, friendly and professional. I am sure all members will join me in thanking Brett and wishing him well for his future endeavours.

Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: It is also an opportune time to welcome Mr Joe Stewart who commences in the role today. Joe is a descendant of the Quandamooka people of the islands and waters of central and southern Moreton Bay and brings with him a wealth of experience which includes consulting and liaising with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the delivery of education and training services. I look forward to working with Joe as we work to continue to improve in this important area.

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise that we will be visited in the gallery this morning by students and teachers from Greenbank State School in the electorate of Jordan and Lockyer District State High School in the electorate of Lockyer.

PETITIONS

The Clerk presented the following paper petitions, sponsored by the Clerk—

Victoria Point, Police Beat From 287 petitioners, requesting the House to consider the model of a neighbourhood Police Beat and a backup support system for Victoria Point [1912].

Palliative Care From 18 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure equal access to world class palliative care for every Queenslander and to not consider legalising euthanasia [1913].

The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the honourable member indicated—

Numinbah Valley, Hooning Ms Bates, from 639 petitioners, requesting the House to permanently install anti-hooning CCTV cameras and other infrastructure at the intersection of Nerang-Murwillumbah Road and Pine Creek Road in the Numinbah Valley [1914].

Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS TABLING OF DOCUMENTS (SO 32)

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk—

Minister for Housing and Public Works, Minister for Digital Technology and Minister for Sport (Hon. de Brenni)—

[1915] Board of Architects of Queensland—Code of practice, explanatory notes

[1916] Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland—Code of practice for registered professional engineers

your ref: 191022-OUT-Andrew

22 October 2019

Mr Stephen Andrew MP Member for Mirani

By Hand and E-mail: [email protected]

Dear Mr ckew

Parliamentary Security has provided to me video footage of yourself and group of visitors to the Parliamentary Precinct under your responsibility, late on the evening of Saturday 19 October 2019. This footage shows yourself and the visitors in the Legislative Assembly Chamber.

The footage indicates that several of the visitors interfered with Members' desks by opening the compartments under the desk where members store personal belongings and in some cases interfering with the contents. Footage showed that in some cases when this occurred, you were standing next to the visitor interfering with the Member's desk.

As a result of this activity being captured by security cameras in the chamber, a Parliamentary Security Officer on duty had to go to the chamber to request yourself and the visitors you were responsible leave the Chamber.

The privacy of Members' desks has long been enforced by successive Speakers as it is a clear invasion of their privacy for other persons to access the contents of Members' desks. The behaviour of visitors under your responsibility interfering with Members' desks is not acceptable.

Disappointingly, this is not the first time I have written to you about the behaviour of visitors you have admitted to the Parliamentary Precinct.

On 9 October 2019,1 wrote you about the actions of another visitor under your supervision on 22 August 2019. As I stated in that correspondence;

As a Member you are entitled to a members' pass. As a pass holder you have responsibilities that include not leaving visitors to the precinct unescorted. Leaving visitors unescorted in the precinct is a serious matter. Any further transgressions of your responsibilities as a Member and a pass holder and I will consider a referral to the Ethics Committee.

Parliament House George St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia Phone + 61 7 3553 6700 Fax + 61 7 3553 6709 Email [email protected] Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au Given that the video footage shows that guests under your responsibility and, with your tacit approval, violate other Members' privacy, I believe I am forced to take much more severe action to protect the privacy of Members.

You have until 7:30pm today, Tuesday 22 October 2019, to show cause why you should not;

Have your privileges to bring visitors to the Parliamentary Precinct revoked for 6 months under Section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988, and Make an immediate apology to the House

I shall make a ruling on this matter when Parliament sits on Wednesday 23 October 2019.

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Our ref: your ref: 191O09-0UT-Andrews

9 October 2019

Mr Stephen Andrews MP Member for Mirani PO Box 56 SARINA QLD 4737

I recently received a complaint about a member of the public, , being in the parliamentary precinct unescorted.

My inquires revealed the following:

• On Thursday, 22 August 2019, signed in at 11.50am at the Parliamentary Annexe and was given a visitor's pass. • host was yourself for a function at the Undumbi Room at 1.15pm. • was collected in the foyer with others by former Member . escorted the group up to the Undumbi Room. • However, it appears left the function and without escort exited the Annexe at 2.53pm. It is during this time that , unescorted, was sighted by the complainant.

I have also written to about this matter.

Yours sincerely CJ)J;t

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Parliament House George St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia Phone+ 61 7 3553 6700 Fax+ 61 7 3553 6709 Email [email protected] Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au SPEAKER'S DIRECTION Section 50 of the Porliamentory Service Act 1988, Section 9 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, and Standing Orders 284 to 286

I, the Honourable CURTIS PITT, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, hereby make the following direction pursuant to:

Section 50 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988 as to the behavior and conduct of persons entering or upon the parliamentary precinct; and Section 9 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 with respect to the rights, powers and immunities of the Legislative Assembly to control its own proceedings specifically to maintain Order within the Legislative Assembly Chamber and its Gallery; and Standing Orders 284 to 286 which gives the Speaker the privilege of admitting strangers to the galleries of the House and controlling the behavior of strangers.

No banners, signs or clothing or other items which carry or convey a political or protest message may be worn, held or displayed in any way by a person seeking entry into or on the parliamentary precinct or into or on the Legislative Assembly Gallery.

No banners, signs or other similar items may be affixed to the buildings or fences upon the parliamentary precinct, other than by authorized Parliamentary Officers or Employees, without the express written permission of the Speaker.

I also hereby authorize all authorized officers (as defined in Section 3 of the Parliamentary Service By-law 2002) to issue directions not inconsistent with this direction in accordance with Section 50(5) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1988.

This direction is effective from the below date and is intended to apply indefinitely until revoked.

HONOURABLE CURTIS PITT MP SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND

19 April 2018

A292688 IN CONFIDENCE 1. Ethics Committee 11th March 2021 Queensland Parliamentary Service George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Ms Jennifer Howard MP Ms Erin Hastie Committee Secretary Cc: [email protected]

RE: Ethics Committee Correspondence - PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL – WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Ms Howard,

I acknowledge receipt of correspondence from the Ethics Committee, dated 11th March 2021.

In writing this, I formally respond to the matter & any allegations as such, referred by the Speaker to the Ethics Committee (the committee) on 13 August 2020 under Standing Order 268(2). It is my understanding the Ethics Committee of the 57th Parliament has resolved to continue further with this matter, which lapsed at the dissolution of the 56th Parliament on 6 October 2020.

I refute the allegations of intimidation toward the Member of Thuringowa, or any associated allegations. As a guest of parliament, I did not have parliamentary privilege, therefore, I have not been read into, nor informed of the Speakers Direction dated 19th April 2018 at any time during my visit, in regards to political messaging until this correspondence. Had I been informed of said Speakers direction, these alleged actions would not have taken place. At no time during my visit to Parliament was I informed of this direction as a guest of the Member of Mirani. It may be alleged that upon signing into enter Parliament I was duly informed, however, I refute this claim, as I signed in under duress, due to the haste at this time of the morning, and that the Members and their guests were rushed through to ensure they met the first sitting schedule for the day.

I would like to clarify at no time was there any intent to engage in disorderly conduct per say, it did not interfere with the free exercise of the Assembly throughout the day in mention, nor its functions of said day. At no time was there an intention to intimidate the Member of Thuringowa, I sincerely apologise to Mr Harper MP if he feels my actions have in anyway felt this was my intent, I assure the ethics committee this was not my intention, but a mere lapse in judgement on my part.

Mr Stephen Andrew MP had no awareness of any of my alleged actions at the time, until he was addressed the next day in parliament, I believe he apologised immediately once informed by the committee. With regard to the allegations, I had only noticed the office directly opposite Mr Andrew MP was in fact the Member of Thuringowa’s on the second day, when I went to the bathroom, so I did not go looking, nor intent to offend, I had been watching the sitting with his advisor in Mr Andrews office. It was a lapse in my personal judgement, of no more than 2 mins, which resulted in 2 photos, with no intention of intimidation toward Mr Harper. At no point in time was I informed that these alleged actions may breach any directive, I would refute any claims otherwise.

Again, I sincerely apologise to the Ethics Committee, Mr Aaron Harper MP and Mr Stephen Andrew MP for any actions during my visitation that may have caused any issues in relation in said actions.

Yours Sincerely

Troy J Thompson

25 March 2021

Ms Jennifer Howard MP Chair, Ethics Committee Parliament House George Street Brisbane Queensland 4000

RE: Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker to the Ethics Committee on 13 August 2020

Dear Ms Howard,

Thank you for your letter dated 11 March 2021 seeking further information with regards to the incident on the 12 August 2020.

If it is generally accepted that it is a contempt of Parliament for members or strangers to involve themselves in disorderly conduct, I would submit that:

i. Both the Member for Mirani and Mr Troy Thompson engaged in disorderly conduct on the parliamentary precinct as submitted in evidence in my letter to the Speaker of 12 August 2020. ii. The conduct was intended to interfere with the free exercise of the Assembly and in accordance with Standing Order 266(9) the behaviour was an attempt to both intimidate and threaten.

Mr Thompson’s action were politically motivated with a clear intent to intimidate and threaten me.

The improper conduct went further than the incident at my office on the parliamentary precinct. By publishing the incident on his One National Candidates social media Facebook Page, Mr Thompson used this as a further opportunity to intimidate me and to threaten my free performance of duties as the Member for Thuringowa.

One of my deep concerns is this person was left to do whatever he liked on Level 10, where my office is, particularly when the Member for Mirani was in the Chamber making speeches. My Office is directly opposite the Member for Mirani, and I had a practice of not locking my door, so this person could have been in my Office? I have since changed my habits.

As I stated in my former correspondence, this behaviour had a deep impact on me, causing me significant anxiety, in the knowledge Mr Thompson was on the precinct for the duration of the week. It prevented me doing my normal activities, such as simply going to the café for a meal, having the knowledge this person would be in the same room.

During that particular sitting week, I spent considerable time in my room on level 22, in an effort to avoid any interaction with this person, who went on to make unsubstantiated, baseless and false allegations and one that I consider a threat of violence, and I quote one of his online comments that I read in Townsville (“he has a face I want to punch”) about me. He continues to denigrate me and this now includes my family on his social media pages, which continue to this day.

I will share with the committee that my wife and I also sought legal advice as to whether we pursue a defamation case due to this persons ongoing behaviour.

There is little doubt this persons desire is designed to intimidate me and damage my reputation as the Member for Thuringowa.

This awful and disgraceful behaviour continues and I am attempting to provide additional information (screen shots) of his Facebook page, which he created after he was disendorsed from One Nation, called Thommo’s Tales.

My Office made several complaints to Facebook, about the false allegations and I do inform you that this page recently was pulled down. I do not know if that was in relation to our complaints.

I would be pleased to speak further with the Committee if required.

Yours sincerely

Aaron Harper MP State Member for Thuringowa

Stephen Andrew State Member For Mirani Shop 1&3 Broad Street Sarina QLD 4737 Ph 0748060700

E; [email protected]

Re; Ref: A656722

Dear Chair and Committee Members,

I would like to respond to the written correspondence dated 10 March 2021.

I refer to the matter referred by the Speaker to the Ethics Committee (the committee) on 13 August 2020 under Standing Order 268(2). In connection with this matter, I enclose a copy of the correspondence to the committee dated 25 August 2020. It states.

The material before the committee alleges that you may have committed a contempt of Parliament by: 1. Not adequately supervising Mr Troy Thompson, a guest that you signed for access into the Parliament Precinct; and 2. Not taking any steps to prevent a breach of the Speaker’s Direction dated 19 April 2018 by Mr Thompson.

1. Not adequately supervising Mr Thompson. On the Day Mr Thompson came into the precinct to assist with a petition and direction on Hydrocarbons used in large air conditioner units (Shopping Centres) and the cost benefits to save money for large A/C areas Pubs and Clubs and advised on other matters. He also sought the advice of his Brother, who is an authority on the matter at the time, to assist my research.( Record of Proceedings, (13 August 2020 PRIVATE MEMBER'S STATEMENT.) During his time here, Mr Thompson was accompanied by me at all times, other than when he visited the Men’s room. During lunch times, if I was not available, one of my Staff stayed with Mr Thompson whilst the other attended the Café to purchase sandwiches, to ensure he was not left unattended at any time. On the days he attended the precinct, Mr Thompson was limited to, and was instructed to, stay within my office space, with my staff at all times. It was clearly demonstrated to him on the first day he attended. During the time spent working together, nothing was mentioned about campaigns or paraphernalia relating to campaigns. I notice also in the Speakers Directions dated 19 of April 2018, there are no comments relating to the taking of photographs. Could you please direct me to the ruling? I noticed one photo that was taken was of Southbank. I did not witness this photo taken either. At all times under my care and with my staff, Mr Thompson never spoke out of turn or showed any outward intimidating behaviour. As far as I was aware, he acted appropriately within the precinct. At no time would I have been led to believe that he would have engaged in inappropriate behaviour to other Members- certainly not to stray and take photos, with the intent to display them on social media. That behaviour was not in line with the business we were attending at the time. Also my Staff and I did not see any campaigning material, nor was any campaign material brandished by Mr Thompson. He did carry a leather brief case, that was checked by security on every entry into the precinct.

2. Steps taken to prevent a breach of the Speakers Direction.

During his time on the Precinct, Mr Thompson was instructed by myself to confine himself to my Office, to watch the Parliament proceedings on the office live stream provided and to remain with my Staff who were in my office at the time engaged in research, Mr Thompson was informed If there was a need for myself to attend the Chamber, or any other duties that would take me away, he was to stay with Staff until my return. I was very clear on this; “Use the restroom facilities, and please return directly to my Office” on Floor 10. Mr Thompson was instructed not to go anywhere else, touch anything, or leave to speak with anyone whatsoever on floor 10, or within the precinct, without myself as the responsible Person escorting him. I also explained I had to be in the Chamber during certain times and to stay within my office and with staff, unless nature called. Both my Staff were in my Office, assisting with Parliamentary matters. Mr Thompson had not indicated any of his actions during his time at my office.

To assist the Committee concerning office arrangements on floor 10, Mr Aaron Harper Member for Thuringowa’s door is directly opposite my door here on floor 10. The door itself is approximately 2.4 meters directly across the hallway from my office. At no time did I make Mr Thompson aware of other Member’s office locations, or engage other Members in conversation. In my usual busy routine, I always proceed directly to my office with guests, where Mr Thompson was told to stay with my Staff and was shown the Men’s restroom as we left the lift.

The first time I was aware of any of his actions, was when George at the Speaker’s office called me. I immediately proceeded to the Chamber where I unreservedly apologised to the House and to the Speaker in a Personal Explanation concerning the matter. Prior to leaving my office to go to the Chamber, I instructed Mr Thompson to immediately remove any posts and that any photos relating to the Member for Thuringowa to be deleted immediately. He then proceeded to apologise. I reiterated to confine himself to my office with my Staff until I returned to escort him from the precinct.

There was also mention in Mr Harpers letter concerning Mr Thompson attending the Members Bar and other areas, which did not occur. I did escort Mr Thompson to floor 5 after working on a hydrocarbon refrigerant submission, where he was instructed to sit and remain outside the Members Bar in the Cane lounges that front onto the Flag Poles, whilst I bought Mr Thompson one beverage prior to him driving back to his lodgings. I did not witness him take a photo from the balcony, as pictured in the letter provided by the Ethics Committee. This also must have taken place prior to me being alerted of the issue?

Members of this Committee know myself and my conduct towards them and Staff in this House. I have never, slandered or intimidated any person here in this House or on Facebook. I have not to my knowledge been warned under standing orders in the House in either Question Time or during other proceedings, in contrast to other Members. Sadly, I cannot speak for others who take it upon themselves to indulge in this unpleasant behaviour at the expense of others which brings us to this point.

On leaving the House after my Public apology, I caught up with Mr Harper entering the lift, and proceeded to personally apologize to Mr Harper and explained that I did not have knowledge of or did I condone such behaviour towards himself or anyone else for that matter.

Regards Stephen Andrew State Member For Mirani Shop 1&3 Broad Street Sarina QLD 4737 Ph 0748060700

E; [email protected]

Our ref:' A671058

7 April 2021

Ms Jennifer Howard MP Chair Ethics Committee

By email: [email protected]

Dear Ms Howard

I refer to your correspondence on behalf of the Ethics Committee dated 26 March 2021 in regards to the current matter involving the Member for Mirani and a visitor on the precinct.

The authority for signing in visitors to the precinct comes from the Parliamentary Service By-Laws 2013, the General Security Plan (part 2.21, pages 10-11 and 14) and the ancillary Visitor Management procedures.

A visitors' register is located at each public entry. All visitors must sign in the visitors' registration book (colour of the day), have their photo ID checked and be issued with a pass that they must wear at all times while in the complex. Their host must collect them from the reception area, not permit them to walk unescorted within the parliamentary precinct and remind them to sign out on departure from the complex.

The Visitor Rules of Entry are visible on the Visitor and Contractor books as they sign in. A copy of those Rules of Entry are attached.

In addition to the Committee's request for information, I have provided the visitor sign in register for Troy Thompson on the 13/08/20 with ail other visitor details redacted. It appears he arrived at either 8.10 am or 8.50 am (entry is not legible) and left the building at 9.50 am.

Please find attached the suite of the relevant policy and procedural documentation to assist with the committee's assessment of this matter. Please note the General Security Plan is a confidential document and should not be distributed beyond the committee.

Yours sincerely

HON CURTIS PITT MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Parliament House Enc George St Brisbane Queensland 4000 Australia Phone + 61 7 3553 6700 Fax + 61 7 3553 6709 Email [email protected] Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au