Which would fine if they weren't also proposing that the public pay the legal bill for MPs to launch such action against the public. If they're defending, sure

Which would fine if they weren't also proposing that the public pay the legal bill for MPs to launch such action against the public. If they're defending, sure, they need to be covered but if they want to go after the public they can pay for it themselves. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-suggests-publicfunded-legal-fund-for-mps-to-sue-for-defamation/news-story/69ed36299b449a58b0f1abeba886612e https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-sugge... A YouTuber lost a truth defense because things a politician said in parliament are inadmissible in court so it's not reasonable to claim they are "using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use". That politician could given up parliamentary privilege and made it a level playing field but he did not. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles-friendlyjordies-defamation-action/100596638 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles...