Palmer offers olive branch in Brough defamation suit

CLIVE Palmer has offered to drop his defamation lawsuit against Mal Brough.

CLIVE Palmer has offered to drop his defamation lawsuit against Mal Brough, one month after the Liberal National Party MP's lawyers lodged a defence attacking Mr Palmer's claims as "vague and imprecise".

On his first day in the House of Representatives as the member for the Sunshine Coast seat of Fairfax, Mr Palmer said he would make the offer in writing to Mr Brough, the former Howard government minister and MP representing Fisher, the electorate next to Mr Palmer's.

The colourful businessman had lodged an $800,000 defamation claim in the Supreme Court of Queensland in September over a war of words relating to both men's alleged involvement in the so-called "Ashbygate" affair.

Mr Palmer had accused Mr Brough of asking him to fund James Ashby's sexual harassment suit against Peter Slipper and Mr Brough denied it, sparking the defamation action. Mr Palmer argued Mr Brough's denial caused him "distress and embarrassment" and damaged his reputation.

Yesterday, the resources businessman said his pregnant wife Anna was urging him to drop the claim, in the interests of Sunshine Coast voters.

"It's up to him to agree to it," Mr Palmer said. "My wife said it was in the best interest of the electorate that Mal and I work together to bring about some good things for the Sunshine Coast.

"Mal and I have to serve the people who elected us to bring about social change, regardless of what political parties we come from. We're heading into Christmas, and I'd say the same to Mal, we've got to offer reconciliation."

However, a spokesman said that Mr Brough did not want to comment and was seeking legal advice.

"He is leaving the matter to his lawyers," the spokesman said.

Last month, lawyers for Mr Brough filed a notice of intention to defend and a 10-page defence in the Queensland Supreme Court.

In the document, Brisbane-based solicitors Ferguson Cannon Lawyers argue that parts of Mr Palmer's statement of claim are "vague and imprecise".

The defence admits that Mr Brough has not apologised for or retracted any of his statements, because he maintains he did not defame Mr Palmer.

It says that if a court does find Mr Brough's remarks were defamatory he would rely on several defences, including contextual truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege and implied freedom of political communication.