Speaker 1: Already and this is the daily This is.
Speaker 2: The Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday,
Speaker 1: the fourteenth of August. I'm zara, i'm emma wa. Senator
Speaker 1: Linda Reynolds is suing former Liberal staff for Britney Higgins
Speaker 1: for defamation. Now. It's the latest in a very long
Speaker 1: string of lawsuits that have been unfolding since Higgins first
Speaker 1: came out publicly with allegations against her former colleague Bruce Lherman.
Speaker 1: In today's deep Dive, we're going to explain why a
Speaker 1: senator is suing her former staffa the case has heard
Speaker 1: so far, and what could happen next. But first, m
Speaker 1: what's making headlines.
Speaker 2: Wage growth has outpaced inflation rising prices for the third
Speaker 2: consecutive quarter, according to new national data. The latest Wage
Speaker 2: Price Index from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows annual
Speaker 2: wages grew by four point one percent over the year
Speaker 2: to June, ahead of the current rate of inflation, which
Speaker 2: is three point eight percent. This suggests more Australians are
Speaker 2: seeing an increase in their real wage, which is how
Speaker 2: much their pay has increased compared to rising prices, but
Speaker 2: wage growth is predicted to slow over the next year
Speaker 2: as the government and Reserve Bank continue efforts to lower inflation.
Speaker 2: Wages for workers in the private sector row zero point
Speaker 2: seven percent in the three months to June, the equal
Speaker 2: lowest quarterly rise for the sector since December twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: The federal government will introduce legislation aimed at strengthening Robodet
Speaker 1: investigations and holding current and former public service leaders to account.
Speaker 1: Robodet was an unlawful automated debt collection system that was
Speaker 1: designed to recover funds from welfare recipients. Under a government
Speaker 1: proposal announced this week, the Australian Public Service Commissioner would
Speaker 1: be given additional powers to investigate senior officials involved in robodet.
Speaker 1: Public Service Minister Katie Gallahas said the bill will give
Speaker 1: the Commissioner unambiguous power to investigate former agency heads.
Speaker 2: The Court of Arbitration for Sport won't consider new evidence
Speaker 2: relating to an Olympic bronze medal dispute. USA Gymnastics has
Speaker 2: announced US gymnast Jordan Chiles originally placed fifth in the
Speaker 2: women's floor final, but her score was revised up to
Speaker 2: third after her coach appealed it. The Court of Arbitration
Speaker 2: and Independent Global body ruled in favor of a complaint
Speaker 2: from two Romanian gymnasts, who argued the appeal was submitted
Speaker 2: outside the required time frame. USA Gymnastics submitted video evidence
Speaker 2: urging the court to reconsider, but the CIS has refused
Speaker 2: to do so. US officials said they would pursue every
Speaker 2: possible avenue and appeal process to let Chiles keep her medal.
Speaker 2: This could include appealing to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, where
Speaker 2: the cas IS based.
Speaker 1: And today's good news. In a first of its kind discovery,
Speaker 1: scientists have found water on the surface of Mars, bringing
Speaker 1: them a step closer to understanding the planet's past. A
Speaker 1: pocket of liquid with large volumes of water was found
Speaker 1: up to twenty kilometers deep in the rocky outer crust
Speaker 1: of the planet, where it's believed to have been for
Speaker 1: more than three billion years. Scientists have found water on
Speaker 1: Mars before, but it was previously in a frozen or
Speaker 1: vapor state. Just a quick heads up that this deep
Speaker 1: dive does deal with matters including sexual violence, so if
Speaker 1: you're not in the right head frame to listen to
Speaker 1: this today, feel free to jump back on tomorrow now.
Speaker 1: And we have spoken many times about Britney Higgins on
Speaker 1: this podcast before. Those episodes were mostly around at first
Speaker 1: the criminal case against Bruce Lherman that was later dropped,
Speaker 1: and then Lehman's defamation case against Network ten that he lost.
Speaker 1: But today we're talking about a different case, and that
Speaker 1: is because a new case has been brought by WA
Speaker 1: Senator Linda Reynolds. Linda Reynolds is suing her former staff
Speaker 1: for Britney Higgins for defamation.
Speaker 2: All right, so lots to unpack there, and I think
Speaker 2: off the bat Worth acknowledging that this is a really
Speaker 2: complicated one. So before we talk about this latest case,
Speaker 2: for the sake of all of us who might be
Speaker 2: feeling a little bit lost, can you run us through
Speaker 2: some of the background and how we got here.
Speaker 1: Yes. So, in twenty twenty one, Britney Higgins publicly alleged
Speaker 1: that she had been raped by at that point an
Speaker 1: unnamed co worker in Parliament House. That coworker turned out
Speaker 1: to be Bruce Lherman, and Lhman's criminal trial later failed
Speaker 1: due to dura misconduct. A retrial was eventually abandoned due
Speaker 1: to concerns about Higgins's mental health. So that was the
Speaker 1: criminal elements of the case that was kind of put
Speaker 1: on hold, never really to be revisited. But then you
Speaker 1: might remember more recently that Lehman launched a defamation case
Speaker 1: in the federal court. So this was a civil case.
Speaker 1: He was claiming that he was identifiable in the initial
Speaker 1: coverage of Higgins's allegation, so he was suggesting that he
Speaker 1: had been defamed.
Speaker 2: And that was in a series of interviews with Higgins
Speaker 2: relating to the allegations.
Speaker 1: It was and that was a really long case. There
Speaker 1: were many twists and turns. I think we did two
Speaker 1: or three episodes on it. Ultimately, the judge in that
Speaker 1: civil case found that it was more likely than not
Speaker 1: and that's the threshold that had to be met that
Speaker 1: Lehman raped Higgins, and therefore Lehman lost that case. You
Speaker 1: might remember Justice Lee, who was presiding over the case.
Speaker 1: He told Lerman that having escaped the lions Den, he
Speaker 1: made the mistake of going back for his hat. That's
Speaker 1: the case. Just to jog people's memory. Lehman, who maintains
Speaker 1: his innocence, has since lodged an appeal. So criminal case
Speaker 1: they weren't continuing civil case. There was an outcome, but
Speaker 1: Bruce Lherman is now appealing. Now we have another case.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that civil defamation case wrapped in April, or
Speaker 2: for now wrapped in April, and I think many of
Speaker 2: us might have presumed that that was going to be
Speaker 2: the last time this story would be in the headlines.
Speaker 2: As you mentioned, the criminal proceedings were abandoned, the defamation
Speaker 2: case seemed to have been wrapped up. But now this
Speaker 2: story has taken another turn. We have a third player
Speaker 2: entering the story. At this point, YE talk to me
Speaker 2: about Linda Reynolds and this case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, as I said at the top, Linda Reynolds
Speaker 1: is suing Britney Higgins for defamation and that's over some
Speaker 1: of Higgins's social media posts, and we'll go into what
Speaker 1: those posts are a little later, but before we do,
Speaker 1: I think that it's just a very important context to
Speaker 1: explain the relationship between the two women, because I had
Speaker 1: almost forgotten Linda Reynolds was the boss of Britney Higgins
Speaker 1: when Higgins alleges that she was raped. Importantly, it was
Speaker 1: also in Linda Reynolds's office that Britney Higgins alleges that
Speaker 1: the rape occurred.
Speaker 2: After Britney Higgins went public with those allegations, I remember
Speaker 2: there being criticism about Reynold's handling of the alleged incident
Speaker 2: at the time, particularly Higgins criticizing Reynolds in a few
Speaker 2: social media posts. Ye does that tie into these proceedings?
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So those are the social media posts that
Speaker 1: Reynolds is basing this defamation case on. So there are
Speaker 1: a number of posts, and I'm not going to kind
Speaker 1: of read them word for word, but essentially at a
Speaker 1: high level. In one of those posts, Higgins alleged that
Speaker 1: Reynolds continues to harass her through the media. In another one,
Speaker 1: which was an Instagram story, Higgins shared an article that
Speaker 1: had been written about Reynolds and added text on top
Speaker 1: of it on the Instagram story that said, instead of
Speaker 1: solving the problem, there are people who would prefer to
Speaker 1: just silence victims.
Speaker 2: Okay, So with that in mind, Linda Reynolds is then
Speaker 2: arguing that these social media posts have tarnished her reputation.
Speaker 2: Is that the crux of.
Speaker 1: It exactly, That's the essence of what a defamation case is.
Speaker 1: And so this trial has now begun it's before the
Speaker 1: WA Supreme Court at the moment. I will just add
Speaker 1: that there were attempts to settle it out of court,
Speaker 1: but all of those attempts failed, so it's made its
Speaker 1: way into court. After Luhman's failed defamation case in April,
Speaker 1: Higgins did issue a statement apologizing to Reynolds. It said,
Speaker 1: I hope we can resolve our differences with a better
Speaker 1: understanding of each other's experience. However, Reynolds didn't back down.
Speaker 1: She said at the time that she was continuing with
Speaker 1: a legal challenge to clear her name.
Speaker 2: Also, probably worth flagging here that Linda Reynolds is a
Speaker 2: federal senator, so in her capacity as Britney Higgins boss
Speaker 2: when Higgins was a Liberal staffer, we're talking about Linda
Speaker 2: Reynolds being a senator. Reynolds has indicated she will not
Speaker 2: seek re election yet next year, so she will be
Speaker 2: stepping away from politics in the near future.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 2: This case has been going on for a little while
Speaker 2: now in the WA Supreme Court. As you mentioned, what
Speaker 2: have we heard from Linda Reynolds and her lawyers? What
Speaker 2: have they been arguing?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, there's been a lot to be frank and
Speaker 1: I think that sometimes in the reporting of not just
Speaker 1: this defamation case, but the two other cases that have
Speaker 1: come before it, there has been a tendency to cover
Speaker 1: every single detail, and I think that that says actually
Speaker 1: to confuse a bit, So I do just want to
Speaker 1: keep it really high level here. Essentially, Reynolds's case is
Speaker 1: predicated on this idea that she believes the Britney Higgins
Speaker 1: and her now husband David Scharraz had a plan to
Speaker 1: publicly bring down Linda Reynolds and the government that she
Speaker 1: was a part of, and she's saying that these social
Speaker 1: media posts really just built that narrative. Reynolds has expressed
Speaker 1: to the court that she, and I'm going to quote here,
Speaker 1: felt like one of those punching clowns at the fairground.
Speaker 1: You get punched down and punched down again, and you
Speaker 1: have to get up smiling. The court heard that Reynolds's
Speaker 1: health deteriorated quite dramatically after Britney Higgins's allegations were first
Speaker 1: made public. She said that she was in pain from
Speaker 1: a heart condition, she wasn't sleeping, and that at one
Speaker 1: point she had to leave the Senate chamber she was
Speaker 1: having a breakdown and sobbing uncontrollably. She was then hospitalized
Speaker 1: and this was reported at the time. She then proceeded
Speaker 1: to take three weeks away from her job. She said
Speaker 1: that she has put her house on the line, everything
Speaker 1: she's worked for forty years, putting everything on the line
Speaker 1: to be able to be here and tell the truth.
Speaker 1: So she is really here, suggesting that the effect of
Speaker 1: Britney Higgins's allegations about the way that she handled the
Speaker 1: situation had really seeped into all parts of her life,
Speaker 1: not just her professional life. We had also heard from
Speaker 1: Reynolds's partner who testified in the case. He said, the
Speaker 1: whole saga has had an immeasurable impact on Linda, on myself,
Speaker 1: It's affected every part of our life.
Speaker 2: And so central to Reynolds's case then is this idea
Speaker 2: that the saga has impacted her physically, mentally, in every
Speaker 2: aspect of her life. And also this es that Higgins
Speaker 2: and Schiraz had a calculated plan to bring her down
Speaker 2: to damage her reputation exactly. And I saw headlines yesterday
Speaker 2: about former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and this case. What
Speaker 2: was that about?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So yesterday former PM Scott Morrison was asked to
Speaker 1: give evidence in this case. So he testified, and he
Speaker 1: appeared via videolink, and he told the court that he
Speaker 1: believed that he had witnessed the quote weaponizing of the
Speaker 1: issue for political purposes to discredit Senator Reynolds, the government
Speaker 1: and by extension myself. Very strong language there from the
Speaker 1: former Prime Minister.
Speaker 2: Who was of course leader at the time of the alleged.
Speaker 1: Rape exactly, and this was something that really ended up
Speaker 1: defining his prime ministership and in some ways really determining
Speaker 1: the election. And so when he was asked about when
Speaker 1: he found out about Higgins's allegations, which again was this
Speaker 1: really big point in the process, he said to the court,
Speaker 1: and I'm quoting here, as events transpired, Senator Reynolds chose
Speaker 1: not to tell me out of respect for the confidence
Speaker 1: that she had entered with miss Higgins. He also told
Speaker 1: the court that Reynolds couldn't continue in her defense portfolio
Speaker 1: because of health concerns, and that those health concerns were
Speaker 1: related to the allegations and the fallout that followed. He said,
Speaker 1: in reference to her cardiac condition. For a period there,
Speaker 1: we were very concerned that this could be a fatal
Speaker 1: outcome for her there he's referring to Senator Reynolds.
Speaker 2: So some quite strong evidence from Scott Morrison. So we've
Speaker 2: spoken about Linda Reynolds and why she has brought this
Speaker 2: case against Britney Higgins, but what about higgins defense, How
Speaker 2: has she responded and what have her legal team said.
Speaker 1: Yes, so Britney Higgins as lawyers are partly relying on
Speaker 1: the truth defense, and the truth defense is essentially that
Speaker 1: you can't defame someone if the content of what you're
Speaker 1: saying is true. So essentially, in this case, it will
Speaker 1: require lawyers to prove higgins comments were substantially true, including
Speaker 1: that Linda Reynolds failed to provide adequate support or harassed her.
Speaker 2: And so we've seen an example of this kind of
Speaker 2: defense play out with the Lerman defamation case exactly, so
Speaker 2: that he claimed he had been defamed, but that Network
Speaker 2: ten argued he hadn't been defamed because the comments in
Speaker 2: question were true. That they argued that he had raped
Speaker 2: Britney Higgins and therefore aligning him with that offense was
Speaker 2: not defamatory.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And so that's what Higgins as lawyers are
Speaker 1: in part trying to do here, suggesting that Linda Reynolds
Speaker 1: was not supportive had continued to engage in a certain
Speaker 1: way with Higgins and her partner. But Britney Higgins hasn't
Speaker 1: had the opportunity yet to give evidence that is coming
Speaker 1: later this month, so we haven't heard directly from her
Speaker 1: in this case. One of her lawyers did say to
Speaker 1: the court though, that the defamation proceedings are retraumatizing her
Speaker 1: and there has been some conversation about whether a case
Speaker 1: like this should be pursued by a senator against her
Speaker 1: former staffer. And you know, both women have come under
Speaker 1: significant financial stress as a result of this.
Speaker 2: And we also know significant emotional distress based on Reynold's hospitalization, Higgins'
Speaker 2: own hospitalization and her personal struggles that she has detailed.
Speaker 2: So it certainly doesn't feel like there are really any
Speaker 2: winners in this one, But we know that Britney Higgins
Speaker 2: is expected to give evidence later this month. Proceedings are
Speaker 2: expected to continue to September, and then who knows how
Speaker 2: long a judgment could take before we get a final
Speaker 2: decision on this. Regardless, we will stay across it and
Speaker 2: keep you updated on the daily ODS. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for listening to today's episode of The Daily Ods.
Speaker 2: If this one brought up any issues for you, you
Speaker 2: can contact one eight hundred. Respect will pop some links
Speaker 2: to further resources in our show notes. We'll be back
Speaker 2: with another episode tomorrow. Until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 1: Bugelung Calcoton woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 1: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 1: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Speaker 1: Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 1: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.