It’s taken a defamation trial to discover the truth, but finally we know how much the Albanese government paid to settle Brittany Higgins’ untested claim that she would not be able to work for at least 40 years after allegedly being raped by Bruce Lehrmann.
If the figure itself is astounding – $2.3m – how much more extraordinary was the government’s determination to pay the money without challenging the veracity of the claim.
The payment went to the heart of Labor’s hopelessly conflicted role in this tawdry affair.
Leave aside the question of whether Higgins was raped by Lehrmann: Justice Michael Lee will answer that in due course when he hands down his decision on whether Network 10 was justified in reporting Higgins’ allegations.
Instead look at the supposed reason for the payment, as stated by Higgins in the witness box on Tuesday: that the commonwealth had admitted it had breached its duty of care to her and that “they didn’t go through proper processes, so that’s actually why they settled with me.”
The two women Higgins claimed had failed her were former ministers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash, who were alleged to have exacerbated a “toxic and harmful” work environment, subjecting her to “victimisation, ostracism” and pressuring her not to discuss the assault or their response to it.
Each of those claims has been hotly disputed in the current defamation proceedings.
Indeed, on the evidence presented the only two people to encourage Higgins to go to the police were Reynolds and her then chief of staff Fiona Brown.
None of these women were asked to give evidence about what had occurred, before the commonwealth handed over $2.3m to Higgins, for what she claimed was 40 years of economic loss and the end of her pursuit of a future political career.
Reynolds was actively muzzled, as The Australian revealed a year ago, with the government threatening to tear up an agreement to pay her legal fees and any costs awarded unless she agreed not to attend a mediation.
The former Defence Industries minister was therefore unable to dispute any of Higgins’ allegations about a failure to support her or properly investigate the incident, a number of which were contested at Lehrmann’s criminal trial and again during these defamation proceedings.
The taxpayer-funded settlement was reached after a single sitting, astonishing lawyers familiar with such matters, and only revealed – without any details – in a late-night statement clearly designed to minimise media coverage.
The government has repeatedly refused to answer questions about its role in the settlement but has denied any involvement in the decision by Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, who was central in pursuing the Brittany Higgins saga against the former Morrison government when she was in opposition.
Text messages between Higgins and her boyfriend David Sharaz revealed by The Australian show the pair planned to directly enlist the help of senior Labor figures to pursue Ms Higgins’ rape allegation and her claim the Coalition government covered it up.
Higgins’ role as the face of the #MeToo movement came into sharp focus at the defamation trial on Tuesday when Whybrow played in court the speech Higgins made after Lehrmann’s criminal trial ended in a mistrial.
In the speech Higgins claimed “this is the reality of how complainants in sexual assault cases are treated” and made remarks about Lehrmann and the justice system that many lawyers argued at the time were highly prejudicial to a future trial.
On Tuesday Whybrow went one step further, asking Higgins if the speech was “designed to blow up a retrial”, a suggestion she denied.
Whybrow put it to her that by then she had become the figurehead of the #MeToo movement.
“Accidentally, but yes”, Higgins agreed.
Whybrow’s proposition was that Higgins was doing everything she could to ensure there would not be another criminal trial, with its high standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – and that instead she wanted a civil trial where standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities.
Whybrow pointed to media reports in the days after Drumgold’s announcement that Lehrmann would file defamation proceedings.
Higgins responded on the same day with a social media post saying: “Following recent developments, I feel the need to make it clear I am willing to defend the truth as a witness in any potential civil action brought about by Mr Lehrmann.”
When someone replied: “You had your chance”, Higgins responded: “Appears like I may be gifted another one in a slightly more favourable court.”
Higgins agreed on Tuesday that she had been referring to a court with a lower standard of proof but said she would also have been willing to go through a criminal trial again.
“I put myself through the criminal court once I was gonna keep going. And then when it looked like he wanted to make money off being a rapist, I of course put my hand up and said please put me back in – and here I am.”
Linda Reynolds has asked the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate the compensation payment to Higgins.
As more witnesses give evidence in the defamation case over the coming days about Higgins’ claim she was abandoned by those who should have protected her, that case may become more pressing.
Weak government response means anti-Semites are winning
The Albanese government must now assume Australia’s Jewish community is under active terrorist attack and set up an Operation Sovereign Borders-type multi-agency campaign to combat the deadly rise of anti-Semitism.
Rise of local terror demands better from our leaders
The scourge of anti-Semitism in Australia has become a runaway train that now demands a radically escalated counter-terror mindset from federal and state governments, police and spy agencies.