Changes are being recommended to the legal protections MPs have when speaking in the House.
Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak freely in the House without fear of being sued for defamation, or otherwise being held legally liable for what they say in a parliamentary proceeding.
An inquiry was initiated last year, after ACT MP Heather Roy named a man who was still before the courts and under name suppression.
In reporting back to the House, Privileges Committee chairman Charles Chauvel said it recommended the sub judice rule in Parliament's standing orders be revised.
Mr Chauvel said that if an MP believes the public interest requires them to breach a suppression order or refer to a matter before the courts, they should be able to do this.
However, he told Parliament on Tuesday it should be made clear that this should be in exceptional cases.
"We also seek to make the reference subject to the discretion of the Speaker to first consider and take advice on, whether the statement that is sought to be made is truly in the public interest."
The committee has also recommended that media reporting on parliamentary proceedings have greater protection, extending parliamentary privilege to live coverage of the House.
Mr Chauvel said the broadcasting of Parliament is not protected at present which could leave the Clerk of the House open to legal action.
He said the committee has also recommended that qualified privilege be extended to cover political reporting.
The Government will respond formally to the recommendations.
