privileges committee

Parliament's Justice Committee thinks it would be wrong for courts to force people to say sorry if they say untrue things about judges. So why should Parliament be able to force people to say sorry if they say untrue things about MPs?

In the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocity, the political life of the nation must go on; for as W.H. Auden so eloquently put it, "even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course".  Of course, for now much of this political life remains focused on what we ought to do in that event's wake.

Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee (P3C!) is going to have to decide the boundary of fair criticism of the House's Speaker. This should be fun!

According to Phil Lyth on Twitter (hey - it's how you know News is new!), Andrew Little and Chris Hipkins have been referred to Parliament's Privilege's Committee (or, as I've had cause to call it before

Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee has had a hard look at how social media is being used to report on Parliament ... and decided that everything is working pretty much fine as it is. Hooray!

Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee – it is, apparently, mandatory to refer to it as such in print, so I shall shorten the term to PPPC or P3C – has just put out a report on "the use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings".

Parliament is planning to pass a law saying how much freedom its members (and others involved in its proceedings) have from legal liability. What's more, it's telling the courts that they've stuffed that issue up.

  

Three important public law developments fell on the one day. That makes posting a bit of a challenge!

Three pretty interesting public law developments took place today. (I fully recognise that attaching the descriptor "interesting" to the phrase "public law developments" is an open invitation to ridicule, but I stand by the claim!)