Table of Contents
According to her testimony, Brittany Higgins now employs a legal babysitter, “so I can’t do anything dumb”. Whoever the poor soul is, they’ve got their work cut out for them. On her last day of cross examination, Higgins publicly confirmed what had so far been confidential: that she trousered $2.3 million at the taxpayer’s expense in her compo settlement. Further, Higgins stated that it was because, “the commonwealth admitted that they breached their duty of care”.
Both statements may well have had her babysitter lawyer slapping their head in frustration.
The national anti-corruption watchdog is now examining a complaint by former Liberal minister Linda Reynolds against Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus over his handling of the $2.3 million compensation payment made to Brittany Higgins, to determine if an investigation should be launched.
The development comes as lawyers question claims made by Ms Higgins that the Commonwealth had admitted it breached its duty of care to her when it paid the multimillion-dollar settlement.
Except, the whole point of paying someone go-away money is that you don’t admit any liability because you want it to go away.
Several lawyers approached by the Australian said it was highly unusual for a party such as the Commonwealth to admit liability in circumstances where it was seeking to prevent a potential litigant bringing a claim for personal injuries.
As always, the Albanese government is hoping that if they just ignore the mounting questions over the payout, people will stop asking.
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is refusing to answer questions, claiming that the terms of the settlement are confidential. Well, not any more, they’re not. In any case, there’s no reason Dreyfus can’t answer whether or not he was involved in the settlement, nor why Higgins’ former boss, Senator Linda Reynolds was effectively barred from putting her side of the story to the tribunal.
Mr Dreyfus threatened to tear up an agreement to cover Senator Reynolds’ legal fees in the dispute if she turned up at the mediation, meaning that Ms Higgins’ claims of mistreatment in Senator Reynolds’ office were not contested.
But there’s more than one way to legally skin a cat.
Senator Reynolds lodged her submission to the National Anti-Corruption Commission after issuing a public statement in June highlighting her concerns about the “unusually swift” mediation and Mr Dreyfus’s role in the process.
The NACC has the power to investigate any conduct by a minister that constitutes a breach of public trust or an abuse of their office. The Commission declined to answer questions from the Australian.
Any investigation will not just entangle Dreyfus, but finance minister Katy Gallagher and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Especially the fact that Gallagher was a friend of Higgins’ boyfriend, David Sharaz. She not only attended Sharaz’s first wedding, but he openly boasted about his ‘old friend’ and her involvement in weaponising the rape allegations.
[Text] messages revealed Ms Higgins’ partner David Sharaz was in contact with Mr Albanese, and that both Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz had dozens of interactions with various other Labor MPs, some before Ms Higgins went public with her rape allegations
The Australian
Meanwhile, Higgins may have wrapped up her testimony in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation action, but the circus is rolling on at a fine ol’ pace.
Brittany Higgins’ ex-boyfriend Ben Dillaway thought it was “quite strange” when Ms Higgins told him she had “brought the party back to Parliament House” on the night of the alleged rape […]
Mr Dillaway said he asked Ms Higgins who came back to Parliament House, what happened, and how long they were there, but said she was “acting cagey”.
“Like, she didn’t want to tell me what had happened and abruptly ended the telephone call,” he said.
Presumably, she didn’t want to tell him she’d gone on a drinking date with a dude she’d met on Bumble but ditched him to hang out with Lehrmann and his friends.
While Higgins claims to have been “10/10 drunk” on arriving at Parliament House, others are not so sure.
Security guard Mark Fairweather says he would have refused Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann entry to Parliament House if he believed they were “heavily intoxicated”.
Mr Fairweather said he saw Ms Higgins “stumble a little bit with her shoes” on the way into Parliament House when required to take them off for the metal detector, but deemed them sober enough to enter.
He said he would otherwise refuse entry due to concerns for their duty of care or because they may “smash up the suite or something.”
It was another security guard who found Higgins snoozed out on her boss’ couch.
Parliament House security guard Nikola Anderson […] said she entered the ministerial suite around 4.20am to conduct a welfare check, and found Ms Higgins “completely naked” on the couch in Senator Reynolds’ suite.
Ms Anderson said Ms Higgins’ make-up “appeared to be intact”, and her dress and shoes were on the floor beside her.
“It looked like it had been taken off and thrown on the floor,” she said.
Ms Anderson said she believed Ms Higgins was “intoxicated” when she arrived at Parliament House with Bruce Lehrmann, but could not stipulate how drunk she was.
The Australian
The only thing that’s certain right now is that Australians have 2.3 million reasons for the corruption watchdog to investigate.
