Labor’s Higgins hypocrisy: the nation deserves a moral reckoning
Labor’s campaign against the Morrison government over the alleged cover-up of a rape was based on false premises, yet the Albanese government refuses to be held to account.
This is not just a political embarrassment. It is an emotional and moral reckoning that might be too difficult to contemplate for many who seized upon the Higgins saga in 2021 and 2022 in one of the most extraordinary cultural and political movements in our recent history.
The Albanese government is now consumed by a singular tactic: to deny and stonewall the demands that it accept some form of accountability for a campaign that galvanised much of the nation, that had a profound electoral impact in ruining the Morrison government and that, in its cover-up dimension, has been found by two judges to have been fallacious.
The scale of hypocrisy is vast. Labor cannot tolerate the idea that much of its moral case and de facto show trial against the Morrison government was based on false assumptions. Indeed, it cannot allow that notion to flourish. Nor can much of the progressive media that ran this line for so long, that is typically obsessed with journalist ethics but, now that the flawed basis of much of its reporting is exposed, has embraced the great silence rather than covering the ongoing fallout.
As the Higgins issue four years later still winds its way through our politics and court system, Anthony Albanese refuses to accept the characterisation of this issue as a cover-up that didn’t happen – as documented by the judges. Having successfully undermined Scott Morrison and his then defence minister, Linda Reynolds, with the cover-up allegation, Labor is now engaged in denial that almost resembles its own brand of cover-up. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Foreign Minister Penny Wong – two of the spearheads of Labor’s 2021 political assault – deny responsibility and indulge in a “nothing to see here” smokescreen.
The truth is as ugly an insight into politics as you will find. The attack on Reynolds was almost unique in its abhorrence – that she covered up the rape of her staffer for her own political protection. There is scant hope for political recovery after that slander. The Higgins issue is riddled with political interest pursued in the guise of moral virtue.
Gallagher and Wong, having made a litany of false claims and benefited from them, face their own brand of political ignominy if their falsehood was to receive wide public acceptance.
The rape of Higgins in the Parliament House office of minister Reynolds has deeply damaged the lives and careers of many people, starting with the tragedy of Higgins herself and extending to two other women, the subject of devastating allegations by Higgins: Reynolds and former senior staffer Fiona Brown, who dealt with and supported Higgins immediately after the rape.
As veteran correspondent Michelle Grattan wrote in The Conversation: “Many players have vested interests, including Labor and some in the media. From Labor’s point of view, the affair provided it with electoral fodder; some in Labor appear to have the attitude that if there were political opponents who unfairly became victims, so be it. Labor will do all it can to avoid being held to account retrospectively.”
Incredibly, much of the Australian media sees this as a non-story, an attitude that surely suggests a degree of self-protection.
The Higgins saga now extends into Labor’s decisions as a government, notably the validity of the deed of the 2022 settlement between the commonwealth and Higgins under which Higgins was paid $2.445m on the basis of claims a number of which have been judged to be untrue. This inevitably raises the question: was this not just compensation for Higgins but part of a political pay-off?
Higgins and her partner, David Sharaz, triggered this political drama in February 2021 – nearly two years after the rape – by going to the media with allegations of rape and a Morrison government cover-up, targeting Reynolds and Brown, the core claims being that the government tried to suppress the alleged crime, prevent involvement of the police and pressured Higgins into a terrible choice between seeking justice and keeping her job.
From the start there was a documented three-way political collaboration around the breaking of the story involving Higgins/Sharaz, a willing media focused on Network Ten and The Project program, and the Labor opposition in the form of Gallagher. The purpose was to nail the Morrison government. It was wildly successful.
In no way is Morrison a political cleanskin. The Higgins affair exposed his personality and character deficiencies, notably in dealing with women – defects basic to his electoral demise. Under pressure, he misjudged and mishandled the issue and deserved every criticism on those grounds. He blundered initially by criticising Reynolds and his treatment of Brown was unworthy. Moreover, the Higgins imbroglio was not the cause of Morrison’s 2022 election defeat. It contributed, maybe significantly, but Morrison would surely have been defeated had it not occurred.
The revelations by journalist Lisa Wilkinson on The Project triggered a media and political firestorm that ran from early 2021 to the May 2022 election.
The subsequent problem for Higgins, Labor and the participating media arose from two court judgments. The 2024 Federal Court judgment by Justice Michael Lee found on the “preponderance of possibilities” Higgins had been raped by fellow staffer Bruce Lehrmann but Lee dismantled the conspiratorial cover-up accusation.
The judge found the cover-up allegation against Reynolds and Brown “objectively short on facts”, that Higgins in briefing the media had made “false representations as to what had occurred”, that she sometimes “told untruths when it suited her”, and that on the conflicting accounts from Higgins and Brown the judge was emphatic – he believed Brown, not Higgins. Brown had kept contemporaneous notes of her conversations with Higgins in the days after the rape and the judge included them in an annexure to his judgment.
In relation to Wilkinson’s submission that there was a “proper basis” for the media program and for suggesting that roadblocks were put in place to obstruct the police investigation, Lee found “there was no real factual basis, let alone a reasonable factual basis for the allegation”.
The irrevocable assumption on which the Labor and media campaign was based was that Higgins as a rape victim “must be believed”. But in this situation that took a double meaning – it applied not just to the sexual allegation but also to the political cover-up. In their attacks on Reynolds in the Senate in the weeks after the story broke Wong, Gallagher and Labor’s Kristina Keneally made clear that they completely believed Higgins on the cover-up, a highly convenient stance for Labor.
In her defence this week, Wong, replying to Liberal senator Anne Ruston, refused to concede her attacks were unfounded and said instead that “the heart of this matter was a young woman who a court found was raped in the office of a Liberal minister”. Yet this is misleading and evasive, as Lee’s judgment explains.
Assessing the initial report by Wilkinson that set the tone for the media campaign, Lee said “from the first moment, the cover-up component was promoted and recognised as the most important part of the narrative”. He said the rape was the “minor theme” and the cover-up was the “major motif”. What gave the story its power and guaranteed its enduring dynamic was the lethal claim at its heart: that the Morrison government tried to conceal a rape to save its political neck. The story was so compelling because it fused sexual abuse and political connivance.
Wilkinson’s opening words made this clear: “Tonight, claims of rape, roadblocks to a police investigation and a young woman forced to choose between her career and the pursuit of justice, and it all happened right in the heart of our democracy. Brittany Higgins says the government betrayed her.”
In the prelude to the program Higgins and Sharaz embarked on a tactic with Wilkinson to prosecute their case through the political system. The plan was to ensure the program would be part of a wider political campaign. The timing was to coincide with the parliamentary session. They discussed which politicians to recruit to their case.
On February 11, Sharaz messaged Higgins: “Katy is going to come to me with some questions you need to prepare for … She’s really invested now ha ha.” He later told Higgins he gave Gallagher The Project interview for context. “She’s angry and wants to help,” he told Higgins of Gallagher. After the media stories were running, Higgins messaged back about Morrison: “He’s about to be f..ked over. Just wait. We’ve got him.” Sharaz replied: “I still hate the c…”.
Under pressure in June 2023, Gallagher, as minister, issued a statement conceding she had been “provided with information in the days before the allegations were first reported” – but she did nothing with that information. Gallagher said her concern was to protect “the bravery and courage” of a young woman “who chose to speak up”. Yet her statement contradicted her earlier comment to Senate estimates that “no one had any knowledge” of Higgins’s pending revelations. It is obvious Gallagher misled the parliament.
The story was first revealed on the morning of February 15 by Samantha Maiden at News.com.au and then in more graphic detail by Wilkinson that evening on The Project. It was quickly apparent the story was so explosive that, depending upon its veracity, it had the potential to discredit Morrison or Higgins or even bring both undone.
Labor was ready from the outset. Gallagher launched the attack at question time at 2pm on February 15 after the Maiden story, even before the airing of The Project. The lines of attack were whether Higgins’s job was at risk if she reported the rape and whether Reynolds or Morrison’s office tried to dissuade Higgins from such reporting. Wong and the Greens continued the attack, Wong demanding to know what guarantees Reynolds offered Higgins to ensure her job and career would not be damaged.
From the first day the narrative was set. Each day in the Senate the attack intensified. Reynolds was ineffective in her defence – yet she had no hope. To defend herself meant attacking Higgins, but attacking a rape victim was never a viable option. Reynolds was a trapped, stationary target. Reynolds and Brown had been devastated by The Project story and the serial false claims by Higgins. Reynolds said it was like a “stake through my heart” – being accused of covering up a rape for political purposes. “It simply wasn’t true,” she said. Reynolds was adamant: Higgins’s job was never at risk, a point Lee confirmed. Brown later told this newspaper: “It was like standing in front of a firing squad. And it was the day my life ended, as I knew it.” It was the end of her distinguished public service career. At one point she came to the brink of suicide.
In coming days Wong and Gallagher widened their lines of attack. “You are shameful, you really are,” Wong told Reynolds. “Why is she continuing the cover-up?” Wong asked the Senate of Reynolds. Gallagher told the Senate that “Ms Higgins has given permission for us to ask questions about this incident.” Yet most of the questions they asked were based on now documented false premises: that Higgins had told Reynolds and Brown at the outset that she had been raped; that the only person the government was supporting was the alleged rapist; that the government was pressuring Higgins not to go to the police; and that Higgins had to choose between her job and seeking justice.
Wong told the Senate that Higgins deserved to be believed and that “we believe her”. Wong put Morrison in the dock, questioning his claim that he heard about the rape allegation only on the Monday morning of February 15 though his office had been alerted late the previous week. “At worst, Mr Morrison himself is part of the cover-up,” Wong alleged. She said Morrison ran a government where “nobody is accountable” and where “a serious crime was covered up”.
In fact, Morrison had not been told before the Monday morning. On this occasion his office was guilty of a serious oversight; they should have told him earlier but didn’t. It hardly mattered since Higgins, the Labor Party and most of the media didn’t believe Morrison anyway. Confidence in his truthfulness had reached rock bottom. As this point illustrated, even when Morrison told the truth he was disbelieved.
On February 16, Reynolds apologised to Higgins for the fact that she felt “unsupported”. On February 24, Reynolds was admitted to hospital and took medical leave. Days earlier she had been unable to answer questions in the Senate. Reynolds said later that Labor’s campaign had got her to “breaking point”. But she welcomed the fact that Morrison, while removing her as defence minister, kept her in the cabinet.
In his judgment Lee addressed the media’s role. Referring to Wilkinson and executive producer Angus Llewellyn, he said the way the Network Ten participants were “prepared to assist” the political plans of Sharaz undermined any claim as journalists to “disinterested professional scepticism”.
In relation to the Higgins payment with Labor ministers pointing out they had no role in this decision, Lee said Higgins had given an “express warranty” that the matters in the deed “are true and correct”. He said her claim for compensation was “based on allegations materially the same” as those provided to Maiden and The Project and “it is evident that several things being alleged were untrue”. Labor will face permanent criticism over this payout and its flawed justification.
In August 2025 the second court judgment was brought down – by Western Australia Supreme Court judge Paul Tottle, who found in favour of Reynolds in a defamation action she brought against Higgins. In effect, Tottle’s judgment reinforced the earlier Lee judgment. He found Higgins had been “dishonest” in claims she made about Reynolds and Brown being involved in a cover-up by the Morrison government and that the 2021 account by Higgins had been “untrue and misleading”.
On February 8, 2022, a year after the stories had broken but long before the court judgments, Morrison issued an apology to Higgins in the parliament. He said: “I am sorry. We are sorry. I say sorry to Ms Higgins for the terrible things that took place here.”
Watching Morrison, Brown was dismayed. She felt Morrison had prejudged the issue. She went into the bathroom and cried. It was Brown who at the start had supported Higgins, checked on her welfare, arranged for Higgins to see the AFP liaison officers at Parliament House, had resisted when Reynolds wanted the matter reported to the police. Brown felt it was for Higgins to decide whether to go to the police, a stance Lee applauded in his judgment.
After the 2019 election Higgins sent Brown a text: “I cannot overstate how much I’ve valued your support and advice throughout this period. You’ve been absolutely incredible and I’m so appreciative.” The Brittany of 2019 was different from the Brittany of 2021.
But Brown felt let down by Morrison and his office. She saw herself as “collateral damage”. In terms of current legal action, Reynolds is taking action against the commonwealth over the Higgins payout saying she was denied the opportunity to put her side of the story. Brown is taking action against the commonwealth claiming she was not accorded a proper duty of care when working in Morrison’s office in 2021, claims that relate to the Morrison era rather than the Albanese era.
Zali Steggall, defending Higgins, said recently that the ongoing scrutiny of the treatment given to Reynolds and Brown was “disgusting”. Greens leader Larissa Waters said any funds Reynolds and Brown secured should be donated to sexual violence support services. The indifference some female politicians display towards other women in the cause of politics and their apparent self-interest seems extraordinary.
There has been talk within Coalition ranks about an inquiry. That won’t happen and is unnecessary after the forensic judgments by Lee and Tottle. We know everything that happened in detail. But the opposing political positions are entrenched and won’t change.
Labor will try to shut down the saga but it will remain as a story where a rape was used for political gain on a series of false premises that influenced but did not determine an election outcome.
More Coverage
The Albanese government is now trapped in a morality tale that has turned on its originators. Having waged a campaign that helped to destroy the Morrison government on the allegation it engaged in a cover-up over the rape of Brittany Higgins, Labor is now exposed by the apparently irrefutable evidence its entire campaign was fraudulent.