I have to admit I have been trying to stay out of political stoushes of late, but this I just find funny as hell.

We have the richest man in Queensland, Clive Palmer, giving the Bligh government a gob full every chance he gets and as soon as he receives some return fire he goes off running to his QC to smack Anna with a defamation suit.

Australian defamation laws are meant to protect people’s reputations from unfair attack, however usually they are nothing more than a tool to stifle free speech, even though Australia has no explicit legal protection for freedom of speech. Clive Palmer is a hypocrite as far as I can tell.

Let’s look at some of his recent comments concerning the premier shall we:

“the face of Anna Bligh is just that… it’s a face… she’s a nice woman, she looks good, so let’s vote for her”

and

“the poor woman probably hasn’t got any control of the government at all… I’m sure none of her ideas have any influence”

Now keeping those comments in mind let’s examine the Australian legal definition of defamation.

In order to bring a defamation action a plaintiff must show three things. Firstly the material must have been published, which in this context means that it has been communicated to someone other than the aggrieved person. Most commonly this takes the form of a newspaper publication or television or radio broadcast. Secondly the person aggrieved by the publication must have been identified by that publication. Identification need not be by naming the person. It can arise from the inclusion of a number of characteristics that enable a person to be identified. Where a group of people have been collectively defamed, provided the group is limited in size, each member of that group may be a potential plaintiff.

Finally the material published must be defamatory. In terms of a legal test, material is defamatory if it does one of four things – expose a person to ridicule; lower their reputation in the eyes of members of the community; cause people to shun or avoid them; or injure their professional reputation.

Now temper that with the legal concept of Fair Comment – being that as a matter of public interest the topic enables a wide range of critical material to be published as review, analysis, opinion, satire and cartoons. The mere expression of an opinion is not sufficient to attract this defence. The opinion must be based on facts and these facts must be contained within the publication or be known independently to the reader.

I would argue that Mr Palmer’s diatribe is not of public interest, but rather slanderous. There is little basis of fact in his comments and certainly no evidence of such and as a result I take note of the lengths to which key LNP parliamentarians are taking to distance themselves and play down Mr Palmer, including Tim Nichols and Lawrence Springborg.

It could be argued that these comments are merely Mr Palmer exercising his right to freedom of political communication. This may well be the case but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
If Clive Palmer can engage in this type of political commentary then surely our premier in return has the same rights, after all she is a citizen as well.

Now let’s get to the point, Clive Palmer is suing the premier as he believes Anna has “conveyed a suggestion” and “embarked on personal attacks”. Let’s take a look at what Anna actually had to say in relation to the confirmed and AEC declared donations by Mr Palmer to the LNP to the tune of $600,000.

“It’s not unusual for rich men to buy football teams, as Mr Palmer has done. What is not common and what I don’t think is good for democracy, is when they buy a political party. The question you have to ask is what Mr Palmer is getting from this.”

Ok so I can see the suggestion of impropriety in that, but it’s not a personal attack and is it baseless? Does it unfairly attack Mr Palmer and his reputation? Or is it fair comment?

To make my personal judgement on this I merely look to some very public facts.
Firstly, we have Mr Palmer himself saying to the media he will seek to influence LNP policy should they win government and that he feels he is entitled to do just that, “I may have some influence on the policies”. Why is that?

Secondly, his son Michael has been pre-selected by the LNP at just 18 years of age for the seat of Nudgee, yes I am sure that was based on merit as a recent school leaver.

Thirdly, Mr Palmer’s private helicopter has been the mode of transport of choice for the Borg in his travels all over the state.

Ever heard of the saying “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. At some point Mr Palmer will want to see a return on investment and I think no one is naive enough to think otherwise – $600,000 buys a lot of lunches.

Is it just a coincidence that the LNP are very opposed to mining royalties, given that’s how Mr Palmer makes a living?

The return may just be that Mr Palmer sees a government that naturally aligns itself to his beliefs. I am no different, I support those people that are the closest match to my own ideological feelings but I think the point of difference is most people who donate cash to these parties aren’t also in the thick of it casting dubious political commentaries.

Partly as it does more harm than good, and I can promise Mr Palmer and the LNP one thing -this suit will do more harm to their reputation then any comment by Anna Bligh.

At the end of the day Mr Palmer made himself a viable political target when he started making very public political statements. If he can’t stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

While in general I feel Queensland could use a political shake up, there is no way Labour will lose this election, the gap will narrow but the Borg will never be a Queensland Premier, and the LNP shot themselves in the foot when they ostracised Mal Brough. Any chance they had in changing the government this time round died with him.

If you want a strong government you need a strong effective opposition and in Queensland they are a lame duck. If Labour is not fit to lead then certainly neither is the LNP. I have the election blues.