Higgins says minister’s welfare checks turn ‘nefarious’ in hindsight
Just when you thought all the political conspiracy claims in the Higgins-Lehrmann saga had been debunked, something new from the witness box.
Just when you thought all the claims about a political conspiracy by Liberal ministers in the Higgins-Lehrmann drama had been well and truly debunked, along comes Brittany Higgins into the witness box.
On Friday in the defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, Higgins once again suggested that Liberal ministers and staffers had tried to bury her allegations of rape for “nefarious” purposes.
Even Shane Drumgold, the ACT chief prosecutor who sparked the official inquiry — and his own professional demise — by alleging untoward influence in the case, had resiled from that claim by the end of the inquiry. Walter Sofronoff KC found that “there was not a single piece of evidence that anyone had applied pressure upon Ms Higgins that could legitimately be described as ‘strong political forces’ ”.
But on Friday “nefarious” was the word Higgins chose to describe the actions of former minister Michaelia Cash, who had rung her several times to check on her welfare. Higgins maintained she told Cash about the alleged rape in October 2019, despite the Liberal senator denying she had any knowledge of it until February 2021.
She said Cash was told about the alleged sexual assault after her chief of staff Daniel Try was contacted by then-defence industries minister Linda Reynolds following a media inquiry about an incident involving two staffers.
The defamation trial has heard evidence of the support Cash offered after she learned of the alleged assault. One voicemail left by Cash said: “Michaelia here, just checking up on you. You look absolutely gorgeous on Saturday … just remember, we’re with you every step of the way. Okay. Sleep tight. I’ll see you tomorrow.”
But for Higgins, those messages became evidence over time of a darker motive.
“Since I’ve told my story recently, those calls I’ve characterised them as nefarious on the basis that … as of 2021 Daniel Try and Michaelia Cash have testified that they had no knowledge of a sexual assault,” Higgins said.
“So now with the benefit of hindsight, I look back and consider those calls, potentially checking-in as opposed to actually looking after my welfare. At the time, I perceived it to be support, and I adored Michaelia, but with the benefit of hindsight, yes, now I look back at it in a different light now that she denies ever knowing.”
As for Reynolds, Higgins claimed on Wednesday that her then-boss had responded to her disclosure of the alleged rape with the words: “These are things women go through. If you go to the police please keep us informed”.
Higgins stuck to her evidence on Friday, even after Lehrmann’s barrister, Steven Whybrow SC, showed her a very different account she’d prepared in 2021 for police and The Project.
Detailing her meeting with Reynolds and her chief of staff Linda Brown several days after the incident Higgins wrote: “The Minister stated that the reports of what had happened made her feel ‘physically ill’ and that she was ‘shocked and appalled by what had taken place.”
That seemed to be at odds with her account on Wednesday of Reynolds callously treating her alleged rape as “things women go through”.
“What’s caused you to change that view?” Whybrow asked.
“Nothing,” Higgins replied. “My mind is a lot more accurate in terms of information I’m giving to a courtroom setting as opposed to a Word doc that I did in private for myself,” she maintained.
Whybrow suggested Higgins was trying to paint a narrative of Brown and Reynolds being highly unsupportive of her.
“Fiona Brown was just following instructions,” Higgins replied. “I’ve never blamed her and I don’t blame her,” Higgins said. “Linda Reynolds avoided me and in my view, did not meet her duty of care. I felt unsupported … They didn’t do the right thing by me.”
Whybrow asked Higgins about her earlier account, in which she had said Reynolds and Brown had both told her that if she chose to report the incident to the authorities that they “would be supportive”.
Higgins: “That’s not necessarily correct. What I meant to say was that if I chose to, please let them know, let the office know.”
Whybrow: You’ve changed it from ‘supportive’ to ‘we want to know what’s going on’?
Higgins: It depends, it was what I inferred at the time.
At this point judge Michael Lee intervened in a bid to understand Higgins’ evidence.
“You thought it was correct at the time you put it in the document?” he asked.
“Not … it wasn’t verbatim the words that I know to be true now but yes, I did put it in the document. I accept that the document is incorrect.”
Higgins said she “absolutely” now had a better recollection than she did two years earlier.
Justice Lee refrained from further questions.
More Coverage
Spending on health is all cure, no cause
Australia spends less than $140 per person per year on preventive health – three times less than several comparable countries – and fails to track how the money is spent or its cost-effectiveness
Read more
‘I’ve never seen this class of people’: mortgage burden approaching 1990s pain
Australian homeowners are feeling mortgage repayment pressure similar to baby boomers who paid 17.5 per cent interest in 1990 as housing affordability slumps to the worst levels on record.
Read more