One thing anti-corruption investigation into Brittany Higgins' $2.4m payout didn't reveal
There's been a great volume of ill-informed, misleading garbage flying around about the $2.4 million compensation payout to Brittany Higgins for a long time.
This morning, the National Anti-Corruption Watchdog took out the trash.
What did the long-running corruption investigation into the Albanese Government's decision to award the payout find after years of demands that it investigate?
'There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official,'' the NACC found.
'There is therefore no corruption issue.'
In other words, claims that the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus or the Albanese Government acted improperly were unfounded.
Of course, citizens remain free to question the size of the payout, or argue that Senator Linda Reynolds, who was not present at the mediation despite her requests to attend, should have been granted greater taxpayer-funded rights to legally dispute the claim.
As an aside, the Albanese Government did agree for taxpayers to pay for her lawyers to refer Brittany Higgins' payout to the NACC.
Senator Reynolds' legal team is also arguing in the Federal Court that she was forced to run a defamation action in WA against Ms Higgins because of the Commonwealth's conduct in relation to the payout.
But there was no evidence, according to the NACC, of corruption or improper behaviour in the decision to award Ms Higgins the compensation in 2022.
'Documents produced showed that decisions made in relation to the settlement were based on advice from independent external solicitors and experienced senior and junior counsel,'' the statement said.
'Initial advice was received during the period of the Liberal-National Coalition government, before the May 2022 election.
'There was no material difference in the updated legal advice later provided to the new Labor government. Nor was there any identifiable difference in approach to the matter before and after the change in government.
'There was no inappropriate intervention in the process by or on behalf of any minister. The then Attorney-General approved the settlement in accordance with the Departmental advice.'
Mediation in one day 'unexceptional'
According to the NACC, The Commonwealth engaged in mediation consistent with Departmental advice that was informed by legal advice,'' the statement says.
'That the mediation conference itself was concluded within a day is unexceptional,'' the NACC said.
'It was the culmination of a process which took approximately 12 months. None of this is unusual for a non-litigated personal injury claim.
'A critical consideration during the settlement process was avoiding ongoing trauma to Ms Higgins.'
Settlement amount
'The settlement amount was less than the maximum amount recommended by the external independent legal advice,'' the statement says.
'There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official.
'To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government. There is therefore no corruption issue.'
What the NACC didn't say
And in the thousands of words written on this saga it's worth noting something the NACC did not mention when shooting down the conspiracy theories.
The Morrison Government engaged in the exact same process when it agreed to payout $600,000 to former cabinet minister Alan Tudge's former press secretary and ex-lover Rachelle Miller in 2022.
He wasn't interviewed. He was never asked about her claims as part of the final payout negotiations and he wasn't invited to the mediation.
And that's the point. These settlements are not a finding of fact. They are not about making admissions about what did or did not occur.
You can criticise the process by all means, but you can't say the Morrison Government didn't do the same.
They are not a workplace investigation - not that many of them are much better.
They are essentially 'go away' money that the government pays to people when it makes an informed decision that their claim could cost millions more if it is litigated.
Payment made on no admission basis
To understand the $2.4 million payout to Ms Higgins, it is important to understand a few things that are often forgotten in the thousands of words written on the matter.
First, the claim was not solely based on the alleged rape. She alleged the two Liberal Senators exacerbated a 'toxic and harmful' working environment, subjected her to 'victimisation, ostracism' and pressured her not to discuss the assault.
Her former employers, Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash, utterly reject those claims and do not concede for a moment they are true.
Nor does news.com.au assert they are true, only that they were made in a legal document subsequently published by the Federal Court.
Crucially, neither did the Albanese Government despite making the payment.
In making the settlement the government made 'no admissions'. It's hard to understand for the layperson, but the best way to describe it is 'go away' money.
It's probably not surprising however that many people would assume a pay out of such magnitude meant something had gone wrong or that the government was admitting they did something wrong.
In other words, the government's lawyers and insurers are making a judgment call about the likelihood of a successful case, how much damages would be paid and crucially how much the legals would cost.
Inevitably, in fighting a case like this, it could cost taxpayers millions more than the payout alone.
But the payout was never a finding of fact on those claims.
Brittany Higgins herself was rebuked by Justice Lee in the defamation case for not understanding this and what the deed actually said.
Linda Reynolds suing Brittany Higgins
It's abundantly clear however that Ms Higgins' former employer, Linda Reynolds remains aggrieved and affronted by the process.
She's now suing Ms Higgins for defamation over some social media posts in WA. The trial concluded in September but there's no judgment on that matter yet.
In a statement released today, Ms Reynolds said she was bitterly disappointed with the decision.
'My primary concern has always been how the Commonwealth could possibly settle unsubstantiated and statute barred claims made against me, alleging egregious conduct on my part without taking a single statement from me or speaking to me at all,' Senator Reynolds said.
'The effect of the conditions was that I had no personal legal representation at the mediation and no opportunity to defend the serious and baseless allegations against me.'
In her third day of witness testimony in her defamation case against Ms Higgins last year, she slammed Attorney General Mark Dreyfus over his handling of the former Liberal staffer's Commonwealth compensation claim.
She accused him of trying to 'freeze' her out of the settlement process and said Mr Dreyfus denied her a chance to address Ms Higgins' criticism of the Senator's conduct in the wake of the alleged Lehrmann rape.
'I was utterly outraged because this was going to be finally my opportunity to defend against these allegations … which in my mind were utterly defendable,' she told the court.
'To be told my defence would be no defence, as you can see here, I was not to attend the mediation and not to make public comments about the mediation or the civil claims against me … I was outraged.'
'I could see immediately what the Attorney-General was trying to do, which is why I referred it to the National Anti-Corruption Commission,' she said.
Ms Higgins's lawyer Rachael Young SC later told the court that Ms Higgins was 'the survivor of a serious crime which has affected every aspect of her life, including serious impacts on her mental health'.
In the WA Supreme Court, the barrister said Senator Reynolds had disputed the merit of Ms Higgins's $2.4 million Commonwealth compensation payment and leaked details of that settlement to a newspaper, despite being told it was confidential information.
'The senator engaged in a course of conduct to disrupt and undermine the credibility and reliability of her former employee,' Ms Young said.
'That's why we say it's harassment.'
That suggestion was fiercely denied by Ms Reynolds in the proceedings, with her legal team telling court she had kept her promise not to attack Ms Higgins at a great cost to her physical and mental health.
Ms Higgins received a $2.445m settlement in December 2022 – more than three years after she was allegedly raped by her then colleague, Bruce Lehrmann, in March 2019 in Linda Reynolds' ministerial suite.
Mr Lehrmann has always denied that there was any sexual contact, consensual or otherwise. Justice Michael Lee, on a civil basis in a defamation trial, disagreed.
Will the NACC finding and these other inconvenient facts prompt Ms Higgins pitchfork-waving critics to consider their conduct? No chance.
It will be time to shoot the messenger: the NACC.
For critics of Ms Higgins and the Albanese Government who noisily demanded this be investigated for years, it is however a case of be careful what you wish for.
The judgment is in and it's not pretty for those insisting that there was some vast conspiracy connected in the payout.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
25 minutes ago
- ABC News
Council Watch head fights intervention order bid from Victorian mayor
The head of a local government advocacy organisation is in court this week for an intervention order hearing over allegations of harassment. An inner-city Melbourne mayor is seeking a protection order against Dean Hurlston, who runs the Council Watch organisation, over allegations of ongoing harassment. Stonnington Mayor Melina Sehr told a civil contest hearing in the Melbourne Magistrates Court she had endured six years of targeted harassment from Mr Hurlston. In April, Cr Sehr was granted an interim order against Mr Hurlston. She is now seeking a full personal safety intervention order (PSIO). A PSIO protects an individual from unwanted behaviour, including physical and mental harm. An interim order can be made until an application for a final order is determined. Mr Hurlston is not facing criminal charges and denies he is a safety threat to Cr Sehr. Giving evidence on Monday, Cr Sehr referred to a 486-page document containing social media posts, comments, texts, and emails from Mr Hurlston, Council Watch, and other users engaging with the content that she told the court had humiliated, harassed, mocked and intimidated her. Cr Sehr alleged Mr Hurlston's "unrelenting stream of mockery, belittlement and abuse" began in 2019, after Stonnington council's decision to build a series of netball courts near his home. She told the court that by 2022, 85 per cent of all posts on the Council Watch and Stonnington Council Watch pages referred to her. The hearing, which is expected to go for four days, continues.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Serious harm': ‘Cooker' podcaster hit with defamation trial
An well-known Aussie conspiracy theorist, who allegedly falsely accused a religious order member of 'drinking human blood', is set to face a major defamation trial over the claims. This week, the NSW District Court heard how David Michael Graham, known online as 'Guru,' made a series of statements about David Bottrill, an Australian man who is a part of the Ordo Templi Orientis Australia. The claims were made during three podcasts live streamed on X. In the podcasts, Mr Graham falsely stated that Mr Bottrill drank human blood and was the leader of a cult which 'concerned itself with child abuse', the court heard. On Friday, District Court Judge Judith Gibson handed down a decision in the case, finding that Mr Bottrill had established 'serious harm' to his reputation and that the defamation case should proceed to trial. As part of the decision, Judge Gibson outlined how Mr Graham was colloquially known as a 'cooker'. 'They eschew the term 'sovereign citizen' (first matter complained of, 15:40 minutes) but accept they are called 'cooker' websites,' Judge Gibson stated in her decision. 'This is not a complimentary term. 'It is used by their opponents because their lengthy and one-sided commentary system by Guru-approved contributors leads to listeners' brains being 'cooked'.' Judge Gibson said the podcasts were posted to Mr Graham's X site entitled 'Guru n Crew' where 'lengthy daily podcasts' were uploaded 'warning about the coming apocalypse caused by inept governments, a corrupt legal system and misconduct by those of whom were in positions of power'. Also named in the proceedings was Mrs Cathryn Gale Gibson, who was a co-host on the podcast. The court that Ms Gibson, who was self-represented throughout the case, used AI to write her defence submissions. Judge Gibson said that the AI submissions drew upon previous cases that did not actually exist. 'It should be stated that it is not to the credit of the second defendant that she put false AI-generated material before the court, and it must not happen again,' Judge Gibson said. Guru's run in with Ben Fordham In handing down her decision, Judge Gibson made reference to a number of incidents which had put Mr Graham into the 'public spotlight'. The court heard how in March 2023, a Wollongong surf club was forced to shut down a nippers carnival after Mr Graham called on his followers to storm the surf club over their Pride Rainbow Beaches initiative. The court also heard how Mr Graham had also been sentenced for harassing journalist Ben Fordham in 2023 – for which he was sentenced to a 12-month court order and fined $2000. Judge Gibson said both these incidents have brought Mr Graham into the 'wider community' meaning his allegations against Mr Bottrill held greater weight. The defamation case will next appear on September 4.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Iran is da bomb': Vandals target historic Melbourne synagogue
An iconic Melbourne religious institution has been vandalised twice in a day. The heritage-listed Melbourne Hebrew Congregation synagogue was targeted by vandals on Sunday. One piece of graffiti read 'Iran is da bomb' inscribed in a mushroom cloud, alongside another piece of vandalism that said 'free Palestine'. 'It is believed a wall of the Toorak Road premises was graffitied by an unknown person sometime on Sunday afternoon,' a police spokesman said. 'That was removed but unknown offenders again graffitied the building sometime on Sunday evening.' The original graffitied message also said 'free Palestine'. 'There is absolutely no place at all in our society for anti-Semitic or hate-based symbols and behaviour,' the police spokesman said. Police want anyone with information to come forward. Rabbi Shlomo Nathanson told the Herald Sun: 'We're just frustrated and exhausted by all of this and we hope that is shared by members outside Jewish community'. 'We feel this to be an attack on the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation and it is unacceptable. 'While this is an offence to the Jewish community, it is our hope that people say 'not on my watch, not in my Australia',' the Rabbi said. The Premier labelled the graffiti 'disgraceful' and 'senseless'. 'It is just so vitally important that we do not allow conflict and violence overseas to divide us here in Melbourne and Victoria,' Jacinta Allan said. The Melbourne Hebrew Congregation is a monumental temple on the high-traffic corner of Toorak Road and St Kilda Road, about 2km south of the CBD. The building was constructed between 1928 and 1930. The synagogue is heritage-listed for its historical, aesthetic and social significance. The graffiti referencing Iran was written about 12 hours after the US bombed Iranian facilities, which are suspected of being used to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons.
