Well it seems Friendly Jordies otherwise known as Johnathan Shanks can't use the comments the NSW Deputy PM John Barilaro made about himself in FJ's truth defence.

"Mr Shanks proposed to argue that the imputation about perjury was substantially true and the comment about being jailed was honest opinion, because they related to comments Mr Barilaro made in a Parliamentary committee in 2018.

But since he could not do this without Parliamentary privilege being waived, he sought to have that part of Mr Barilaro's case struck out because he could not mount a defence."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/judge-rejects-arguments-in-friendly-jordies-defamation-case/100374936

I am struggling to see why the law works this way. I could understand it if it was Barilaro being sued for defamation, then the protections of parliamentary privilege should apply, but for someone who is being sued by a politician now being unable to use that politician's words as a truth defence seems cockeyed to say the least.

Johnathan Shanks comes across as a bona fide leftie git !

individual,

So what?

The law is the law.

Dear Steele,

Not sure how the law applies in this case and
am unclear as to where the law stands and why?
Questions do need to be asked. But I'm not
sure if it will make any difference in this
case. It sounds like the politician has some
powerful friends in high places.

The law is the law.
Foxy,
Inanity is not against any Law at this stage.

individual,

A little nonsense now and then
is relished by the wisest men.
( Roald Dahl).