"Prominent political figure" meets Parliamentary Privilege

Earlier in the year we saw the usual story: a "prominent political figure" (who was not an MP) had been charged with some unpleasant crimes, and had had their name suppressed. And then the story got even more outrageous, when a judge decided that he would not be identified until after the election, and neither would the party he was associated with - effectively denying us crucial information which might affect our votes. At the time I pointed out that this was untenable, with potentially horrific effects on the legitimacy of any government which included that party, as well as our democratic institutions. But it looks like we've dodged that bullet, because in Question Time today Te Pāti Māori MP Rawiri Waititi effectively identified "prominent political figure" and the party he was associated with. From Hansard:

Does the Prime Minister agree with a judgment that we've got the leader of ACT chiming in about law and order but is first to get name suppression for his president for heinous crimes?

[You can watch the video (which includes an assist from ACT's David Seymour) here (start at 4m 30s)]

Waititi's question is absolutely protected by Parliamentary Privilege, and its for Parliament to judge whether he committed contempt. But that Privilege also protects the Hansard report and video above, as well as any delayed communication of those proceedings - like this blog post. While that protection is only "qualified", it generally means people are free to report and comment on the proceeding, provided they do not act in bad faith or with ill will, or "abus[e] the occasion of communication" (whatever that means). In this case, the person is still facing trial, so I'm not going to name them. But we should absolutely scrutinise the consistency of ACT's actions in seeking suppression with its stated positions on free speech, as well as its decisions about who holds office in the party, and we should judge them for it at the ballot box.