Privilege and accountability

The other day Matt Robson presented the Privileges Committee's report on "effective repetition" and Parliamentary Privilege, which recommended a law change to ensure that MPs could not be sued for defamation merely for saying that they stand by something said in the House. The privilege goes back to the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, which stated that

the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament.

There are legitimate concerns about the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege - and we just have to look at Winston Peters' behaviour to see why - it exists for a reason, and it is important that our representatives be able to discuss matters without fear of legal sanction. While defending the privilege, Robson recognises this, saying that it "is not a cloak or barrier to stop MPs from being accountable" and that

MPs should be held to account if they unfairly abuse parliamentary privilege and hurt innocent Kiwi families.

But how, if not by law? By their fellow MPs, of course. And Robson is starting by announcing that he will name Winston's sources. This will apparantly shed some light on what is going on here, possibly expose them to legal action, and hopefully dry up the sewer he is getting his information from.

Update: Fixed link to point to Robson's full press release. Looks like he'll be using his Parliamentary privilege to remind people of exactly how Winston has abused it in the past, as well...