Taxpayers entitled to ask reason for Higgins payout

As the defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson draws to an end, evidence heard in the Federal Court raises an important question for taxpayers. That is, why was a former Liberal staffer to Coalition defence minister Linda Reynolds, Brittany Higgins, who alleges she was raped by Mr Lehrmann, another staffer, in Parliament House after a night out drinking in 2019, awarded a settlement of $2.4m by the Albanese government? Was there any dereliction of duty by the commonwealth and, if so, by whom? Was there a cover-up? The settlement of $2,445,000 included $1,480,000 for loss of earning capacity over 40 years, $400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation, $245,000 for legal costs, $220,000 for medical and like expenses arising from the alleged sexual assault and $100,000 for domestic assistance.

One of the central tenets in the case has been that Ms Higgins was the victim of powerful forces inside the Morrison government who pressured her to stay silent or risk her career – in other words, a cover-up. The possibility that a cover-up had occurred was skewered on Tuesday when Justice Michael Lee asked Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, what Stephen Rice described in The Australian as a “killer question”. The judge asked: “Can I proceed on the basis that no submission will be made Ms Brown was a knowing participant in a systemic cover-up of a rape?” Ms Chrysanthou paused, took stock and replied: “Not for the purposes of these proceedings, your honour.” There would be no submission that Fiona Brown, a former chief of staff to Senator Reynolds and therefore the boss of Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann, had engaged in a systemic cover-up of an alleged rape. Just a week earlier, Wilkinson had claimed Ms Brown had been part of a conspiracy to cover up a hideous crime – “taking orders from the Prime Minister’s office”. “You’d agree that it would be wicked conduct … being involved in the systemic cover-up of a rape allegation?” Justice Lee had asked Wilkinson. She replied: “Yeah, it was about keeping the details away from the media.”

Now that the cover-up idea – which would have been a dereliction of duty by members of the Morrison government – has gone out the window, the question of why taxpayers should pay Ms Higgins $2.4m looms larger than ever. For that reason it is in the public interest that the National Anti-Corruption Commission looks into the matter, which was referred to it by Senator Reynolds. As Janet Albrechtsen wrote earlier this month: “We, the taxpayers, are the only people who have not had our interests represented.”

The public interest is the reason The Australian has invested so much time in covering this story from the outset. Amid the febrile environment of the #MeToo movement, Ms Higgins’s allegation and the Morrison government’s response to it, strongly pursued by the Labor opposition, were controversial political issues. Ms Higgins herself upped the ante in March 2021 when she addressed thousands of protesters on the lawns outside Parliament House as part of a wider debate about the treatment of women, particularly in Parliament House. Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold’s handling of the matter also raised concerns. These were aired comprehensively in the inquiry into Mr Drumgold’s conduct headed by retired Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC. It found Mr Drumgold did not act “with fairness and detachment as was required by his role”. His resignation in August helped clear the air but, as we said at the time, the protracted, painful story – which has been full of stumbles and missteps – still had a long way to run. Only two people know for sure what happened, if anything, on the couch in Senator Reynolds’ Parliament House office in the early hours of Saturday, March 23, 2019. The current trial, however, suggests the saga still has a way to run.