Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, July thirty, twenty twenty six. A new blood
Speaker 1: test for Alzheimer's disease and it promises to detect the
Speaker 1: condition twenty years before symptoms emerge. Australia's recorded a two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty percent increase in reported anti Semitic incidents
Speaker 1: in the past two and a half years, the biggest
Speaker 1: surge of any country with a significant Jewish population. Those
Speaker 1: stories alive right now at the Australian dot com dot au.
Speaker 1: It's more than seven years since Brittany Higgins was raped
Speaker 1: inside Federal Parliament, but the reverberations of that event continue now.
Speaker 1: Higgins boss at the time, has won a payout from
Speaker 1: the Commonwealth after she accused them of breaching her workplace
Speaker 1: right and effectively blaming her. So what does it all
Speaker 1: mean for everyone else who works in the emotionally charged
Speaker 1: and hr free political bubble. Stephen Rice is here in
Speaker 1: just a moment. I wasn't a person who'd just gone
Speaker 1: through a life changing traumatic event.
Speaker 2: I was a political problem.
Speaker 3: The worst thing you can say to a woman she
Speaker 3: brought plus another woman's rape.
Speaker 1: Stephen rice is The Australian's New South Wales editor and
Speaker 1: for years now he's been covering the saga triggered by
Speaker 1: Britney Higgins allegation of rape against Bruce Lamb and a
Speaker 1: claim that was found in the Federal Court to be
Speaker 1: true on the balance of probabilities. Ricey this case has
Speaker 1: damaged the careers of almost everyone who's come into contact
Speaker 1: with it, and the person whose story is probably the
Speaker 1: most compelling and touching I think is Fiona Brown. She
Speaker 1: was the chief of staff to Linda Reynolds, the minister
Speaker 1: when this allegation was first raised. There's been a big
Speaker 1: development in Fiona Brown's case against the Commonwealth.
Speaker 4: What's happened well, Fioda Brown had sued the Commonwealth over
Speaker 4: her treatment by the government and the government she was
Speaker 4: talking about it was the Morrison government because Fiona Brown
Speaker 4: felt that she had not been properly supported by Scott
Speaker 4: Morrison or any of his senior ministers while she was
Speaker 4: being attacked for these false allegations that she and Linda
Speaker 4: Reynolds were somehow responsible for not taking care of Brittany
Speaker 4: after she'd made these allegations and all that they'd been
Speaker 4: involved in a cover up of the whole thing for
Speaker 4: political purposes. At that point, she could quite rightly have
Speaker 4: expected that the government, her employer would step in and
Speaker 4: protect her, and instead, according to her, they did nothing
Speaker 4: of the sort. And so she's taken this action. She
Speaker 4: filed it eight months ago. It took the the government
Speaker 4: six months to even mount a defense, and it's a
Speaker 4: very flimsy defense, and last week the government agreed to
Speaker 4: settle with her.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty three, Stephen Rice and Janet al Bretson
Speaker 1: interviewed Fiona Brown about her story. You'll hear snippets of
Speaker 1: that conversation throughout this episode.
Speaker 3: You have is your name.
Speaker 5: That's what you're come in with, is what you go
Speaker 5: out with. You fight for your name.
Speaker 3: So that's what I did.
Speaker 1: This was heading for trial. It would have been a
Speaker 1: ripping trial, rising because we would have got Morrison to
Speaker 1: give evidence as well as other people. Are you slightly disappointed?
Speaker 4: I'm very happy for Fiona Brown that she's achieved a settlement.
Speaker 4: I don't know what it is, but hoping it's a
Speaker 4: decent settlement. But yes, to be perfectly honest, it would
Speaker 4: have been I think very revealing to have had Scott
Speaker 4: Morrison and his most senior advisors in the witness box
Speaker 4: giving evidence about the way that they conducted that whole episode.
Speaker 4: Don't forget there was a conflagration going on at around
Speaker 4: the time that Britney Higgins' allegations were revealed. The Morrison
Speaker 4: government was hugely under fire for allegedly not caring about women.
Speaker 4: We cannot trust this place, not while it operates like
Speaker 4: a shameful boy's only locker room. And this blew up
Speaker 4: as the prime example of the way that Morrison and
Speaker 4: his merry men didn't care about women in Parliament, women
Speaker 4: in general, but specifically about Britney Higgins. And of course
Speaker 4: the Prime Minister walked into Parliament and made a national
Speaker 4: apology about what had happened to her.
Speaker 2: I am sorry, we are sorry. I'm sorry to miss
Speaker 2: Higgins for the terrible things that took place here and
Speaker 2: the place that should have been a place of safety
Speaker 2: and contribution turned out to be a nightmare.
Speaker 4: And Fiona Brown, quite rightly, I think, felt that parts
Speaker 4: of this speech implied that she hadn't taken proper care
Speaker 4: of Britney Higgins. In fact, Fiona was the one who
Speaker 4: led Brittany by the hand down to the Police Office
Speaker 4: in Parliament to report this. So at least two judges
Speaker 4: now have expressed the view that there was no cover up,
Speaker 4: that both Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown treated Brittney Higgins
Speaker 4: with the utmost care.
Speaker 1: Here's what Federal Court Justice Michael Lee said about that.
Speaker 6: Despite the expression implied criticism of her, Miss Brown went
Speaker 6: out of her way to reassure Miss Higgins and supported
Speaker 6: her and assisted her in contacting the police. As missus
Speaker 6: Brown her self put it, she did her professional best
Speaker 6: with what was given to her.
Speaker 4: So I think for these purposes for fionder Brown, it's
Speaker 4: great that she's come to the settlement.
Speaker 1: Her allegation against Scott Morrison, apart from a general feeling
Speaker 1: that she was excluded and that she was made to
Speaker 1: feel like a hindrance or a paying for the government,
Speaker 1: was that Morrison came past her desk after speaking in
Speaker 1: Parliament about this issue while he was under far from
Speaker 1: labor and said to her we've spoken, haven't we. What
Speaker 1: did that mean?
Speaker 4: Well, he was trying to imply after the fact that
Speaker 4: the two of them had spoken about the Brittney Higgins
Speaker 4: case because he just told Parliament that they had. She
Speaker 4: says that didn't happen. Not only did it not happen,
Speaker 4: but this was the first time after the whole thing
Speaker 4: broke that the Prime Minister had spoken to her at all.
Speaker 4: So she was shocked and I think bewildered, frightened when
Speaker 4: suddenly Morrison appears out of the blue and says, we've spoken,
Speaker 4: haven't we. And it would have been interesting to have
Speaker 4: heard Scott Morrison's recollection of that event on the witness
Speaker 4: stand I and he's publicly said that he doesn't remember
Speaker 4: the conversation that way, but he's also not willing to
Speaker 4: challenge Fiona Brown's version of it.
Speaker 1: Fiona Brown depicts that inner circle of the Morrison government
Speaker 1: as kind of the boys club closing ranks, and that
Speaker 1: she certainly felt very excluded. There's such an interesting kind
Speaker 1: of circularity to that, isn't there. Because Britney higgins allegation,
Speaker 1: which has been found by the Federal Court and the
Speaker 1: WA Supreme Court not to be made out on the facts,
Speaker 1: was that this was a misogynistic government that had actively
Speaker 1: concealed her rape. Fiona Brown makes a similar accusation of
Speaker 1: sort of sexism and of old school tie. I don't
Speaker 1: know fear of women, but coming from a very different
Speaker 1: point of view, doesn't she Where do we end up?
Speaker 5: How do you think about that? Look?
Speaker 4: For me, I think the principal harm done to Fiona
Speaker 4: Brown was done because the government found itself in the
Speaker 4: middle of this maelstrom.
Speaker 5: The me Too movement had reached its peak.
Speaker 4: The government was desperate to appear to be friendly towards
Speaker 4: women and well disposed towards these kinds of claims of
Speaker 4: sexual harassment, sexual assault. So I think those were the
Speaker 4: issues more at play. But yes, it did certainly seemed,
Speaker 4: and I think quite legitimately to founder Brown may have
Speaker 4: looked very much like a boys club at work.
Speaker 3: She made me in that program with the Project, more
Speaker 3: of the villain than Bruce Lehman. I was framed as
Speaker 3: the perpetrator in that interview.
Speaker 1: Fiona Brown was not the person I think that she
Speaker 1: was initially depicted as in that original Project story. She
Speaker 1: was not this sort of hard edged political operative hollow
Speaker 1: man for one of a better phrase. She was new
Speaker 1: to chief of staffing as her first job as a
Speaker 1: chief of staff, Linda Reynolds was kind of making her
Speaker 1: way up in the ministry, but was also not part
Speaker 1: of the kind of inner circle of kind evil liberal
Speaker 1: operative zo they were about to be. And I think
Speaker 1: if you manage people, the bind that Linda Reynolds and
Speaker 1: Fiona Brown found themselves in feels very real. A young
Speaker 1: person comes to you and says, something awful has happened,
Speaker 1: but I don't want to go to the police. I
Speaker 1: don't want there to be any more fuss about this.
Speaker 1: I'm moving on. Please don't make me make this into
Speaker 1: a big deal. Despite that, Fiona Brown did take her
Speaker 1: down to the police office Linda Reynolds. According to Fionda
Speaker 1: Brown in their federal court when she gave evidence there,
Speaker 1: Linda Reynolds was trying to order Fiona Brown to go
Speaker 1: to the police herself one stage, even if Brittany didn't
Speaker 1: want to go. What do you think you manage.
Speaker 5: People too right? For he?
Speaker 1: I mean, has it? Do you feel some of that
Speaker 1: dilemma that they were in?
Speaker 4: Oh? Absolutely, I mean nothing like this had ever happened,
Speaker 4: not only to them, nothing like this had ever happened
Speaker 4: to Parliament before. And here were these two women trying
Speaker 4: to do their best and to me it was a
Speaker 4: classic situation. On one side, Look, if she's saying that
Speaker 4: she's been secretly assaulted, we have to make her go
Speaker 4: to the police about it. And on the other side, no,
Speaker 4: she's got to have some agency herself in whether she
Speaker 4: goes to the police. It was a very difficult situation
Speaker 4: for both of them to be in, and certainly as
Speaker 4: far as Justice Lee, who examined this minutely in the
Speaker 4: federal court case that Bruce Leman had bought and lost,
Speaker 4: just as Lee found that both those women had acted
Speaker 4: in the best way that they could under the circumstances
Speaker 4: that they found themselves in at that time.
Speaker 1: Coming up, Will all this make any difference to politics.
Speaker 1: I think political staffers live by the assumption that they
Speaker 1: don't have the same workplace protections that the rest of
Speaker 1: us do. They are working in a sector where their
Speaker 1: bosses could get resolved at any time for kind of
Speaker 1: any reason if the prime Minister or the premier thinks
Speaker 1: they're a liability while they're out, and there's no unfair
Speaker 1: dismissile claims for politicians. That has kind of any assumption
Speaker 1: for political staffers too, that you could be punted at
Speaker 1: any moment, and bad luck if that happens to you.
Speaker 1: They all lose their jobs when an election is called,
Speaker 1: and then they just have to hope that they get
Speaker 1: reemployed if the government gets re elected. What is this settlement?
Speaker 1: How does this change our perception of where the political
Speaker 1: staffers do have some rights as employees.
Speaker 4: Well, unfortunately it didn't go to court, so there's no precedent.
Speaker 4: And again it would have been an interesting case because
Speaker 4: one of the claims that the Commonwealth makes in its
Speaker 4: defense against Fiona Brown is that the Prime Minister is
Speaker 4: entitled to make political decisions and have political conversations with
Speaker 4: his staff that aren't workplace conversations.
Speaker 5: Now, I find that absurd.
Speaker 4: If a Prime Minister comes along to one of his
Speaker 4: vulnerable staff, senior staff in the workplace and says, we've spoken, haven't.
Speaker 5: We about a workplace issue?
Speaker 4: I don't think that the Commonwealth is entitled to claim
Speaker 4: that that's not a workplace issue. But it did. That's
Speaker 4: what it says in its defense. It's extraordinary.
Speaker 1: It's kind of saying, well, the Prime Minister is not
Speaker 1: the Seoh he's not really the boss. That's kind of
Speaker 1: the argument.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but maybe he's not the ultimate boss. Maybe he
Speaker 4: doesn't pay her himself, but he was her manager. He
Speaker 4: was the person that she reported to in this political,
Speaker 4: come administrative, come public service position.
Speaker 1: Linda Reynolds has also feels extremely hard done by. She's
Speaker 1: very aggrieved and she's and she spent a huge amount
Speaker 1: of money on a deformation action which she won, but
Speaker 1: who knows whether her bills will get paid because Britney
Speaker 1: Higgins has now gone bankrupt. Brittany Higgins had been ordered
Speaker 1: to pay eighty percent of Miss Reynolds's legal costs. She
Speaker 1: will now be required to hand over her estate to
Speaker 1: an appointed trustee. So what's the former Senator Reynolds's case
Speaker 1: against the Commonwealth now and where does that go?
Speaker 4: Well, her case against the Commonwealth is slightly different from
Speaker 4: Fiona Brown's, So Linda Reynolds's issue was really about the
Speaker 4: two point four million dollars that the Albanese government handed
Speaker 4: over to Britney Higgins without so much as a question
Speaker 4: ian Apart from the very short time frames that were
Speaker 4: involved in that case. They literally relied on Britney Higgins
Speaker 4: to tell them what had happened. So Linda Reynolds is
Speaker 4: claiming that the government breached its fiduciary duty towards her
Speaker 4: and that by awarding Britney Higgins this two point four
Speaker 4: million dollars, it was essentially saying she was right and
Speaker 4: that then Senator Reynolds had been involved in something that
Speaker 4: shouldn't have occurred.
Speaker 1: Well, that might result in a settlement. Suddenly, to Rice,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't be surprised either.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining me. Stephen Rice is The Australian's new
Speaker 1: South Wales editor. You can read all our journalism anytime
Speaker 1: at the Australian dot com dot au