AlboDebt

Posted on 15 December, 2022 by C.L.

I’m so old I remember when secret ministering and muzzling women were censurable offences.

This entry was posted in Federal politics, Hypocrisy of the left, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to AlboDebt

C.L. says:

15 December, 2022 at 10:10 am

Payment was a crime:

Linda Reynolds ‘muzzled’ in Brittany Higgins lawsuit defence.

The Albanese government muzzled former Liberal minister Linda Reynolds in her defence against Brittany Higgins’ multimillion-dollar lawsuit, threatening to tear up an agreement to pay her legal fees and any costs awarded unless she agreed not to attend a mediation.

Ms Higgins reached a confidential settlement with the commonwealth, believed to be worth up to $3m, at the mediation on Tuesday over the former staffer’s claims she was not supported by Senator Reynolds or Liberal Party frontbencher Michaelia Cash after the alleged sexual assault by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House.

Senator Reynolds is understood to have been determined to defend herself against Ms Higgins’ allegations but in correspondence obtained by The Australian, the commonwealth’s lawyers told her she could not take part in the mediation.

Senator Reynolds was therefore unable to dispute any of Ms Higgins’ allegations about a failure to support her or properly investigate the incident, some of which were contested at Mr Lehrmann’s trial.

Senator Reynolds gave evidence that Ms Higgins told her during a meeting on April 1, 2019, that she had been very drunk and woke in a state of distress after the incident on March 23, 2019, but did not say she had been sexually assaulted.

Senator Reynolds’ then chief of staff, Fiona Brown, said Ms Higgins told her during a meeting on March 28 – five days after the alleged rape – that she remembered “him (Lehrmann) being on top of me” and on April 1 was offered support and encouraged to speak with police.

Senator Cash told the trial she first learnt of an incident in October 2019 but Ms Higgins disclosed the matter related to an alleged assault only on February 5, 2021.

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty in the trial, which was later aborted because of juror misconduct. He has repeatedly stated his innocence.

The Australian understands Senator Cash was also sent a letter muzzling her and instructing her not to attend the mediation in return for her legal fees being paid by the commonwealth.

Neither Senator Reynolds nor Senator Cash was asked for evidence that contested Ms Higgins’ claims.

The taxpayer-funded settlement was revealed by Ms Higgins’ lawyers in a late-night statement on Tuesday apparently designed to minimise media coverage.

Legal sources have expressed astonishment that such a complex and expensive settlement was resolved in a single sitting.

Senator Reynolds said she was unable to comment on the matter. “I did not participate in the mediation and I have not been informed by the department of the outcome,” she said.

Her lawyers, Clayton Utz, in a letter dated December 9, 2022, accused the government of seeking to hamper her ability to defend herself against Ms Higgins’ claims and of not meeting Legal Services Directions.

“We find it difficult to see how, without any further particularisation of the causes of action that Ms Higgins seeks to rely on and any evidence in support of the same, the commonwealth could possibly be satisfied of the criteria for settlement on the basis of legal principle and practice and ‘a meaningful prospect of liability being established’ in accordance with those directions,” they said.

Clayton Utz partner Ashley Tsacalos noted a provision in the Legal Services Directions that “settlement is not to be effected merely because of the cost of defending what is a spurious claim” and must be on the basis of written advice from the Australian Government Solicitor “that the settlement is in accordance with legal principle and practice”.

It is not known whether the AGS provided such advice.

The commonwealth’s lawyers had also demanded they take control of Senator Reynolds’ defence – even though the commonwealth had previously claimed it was unable to provide legal advice or act for her, forcing her to employ her own legal team.

Dr Tsacalos questioned whether Anthony Albanese, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus or Finance Minister Katie Gallagher had the power to impose conditions under the parliamentary regulations “in circumstances where all have previously made public statements supporting Ms Higgins and her version of events”.

Under the Parliamentary Business Resources Regulations, they were all “involved” in the matter, according to Dr Tsacalos.

He quoted numerous examples from Hansard, including Mr Dreyfus, when opposition legal affairs spokesman, directly citing Ms Higgins’ statement “I was raped inside Parliament House by a colleague and for so long it felt like the people around me did not care what happened because of what it might mean for them”.

The parliamentary regulations forbid such conflicts of interest by those making decisions on legal assistance, he said.

Similarly, Mr Dreyfus ought not to make any decision about controlling the conduct of Senator Reynolds’ defence, Dr Tsacalos said.

“Such decisions and involvement have a direct impact on Senator Reynolds’ ability to mount a proper defence,” he said.

The other potential “approving ministers” to grant legal aid under the parliamentary regulations – the Prime Minister and Ms Gallagher – were equally involved in the case. Ms Gallagher was central in pursuing the saga against the former Morrison government when in opposition.

“Considering the consistent and public position taken by the Prime Minister and other senior members of his government on the claims made by Ms Higgins, it may be impossible to find a minister in the federal government who had not taken a similar position and, therefore, who ought not make any decision … to control the conduct of Senator Reynolds’ defence,” Dr Tsacalos said.

On Monday, Mr Albanese declined to answer questions from the ABC’s Patricia Karvelas about whether it was a conflict of interest for Ms Gallagher to sign off on a settlement, given her earlier engagement on the issue and whether she should recuse herself from any involvement in it.

Mr Dreyfus was contacted for comment.

———————

Exclusive in The Australian by Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice
Pommy Al says:

15 December, 2022 at 10:55 am

Corrupt to the core.
C.L. says:

15 December, 2022 at 11:13 am

Where is Dutton?
He should be referring this to NACC immediately.
Syd Gal says:

15 December, 2022 at 11:23 am

I rang the offices of Mr Dutton and Mr Leeser today about these matters, and the involvement of the Hawker Britton Director.
Lee says:

15 December, 2022 at 11:43 am

Absolutely scandalous.
Rafiki says:

15 December, 2022 at 12:02 pm

Clayton Utz is a big end of town firm that gains a lot of highly remunertive work from the Commonwealth. To their credit, they have (as a good lawyer should) gone in hard for their client. It is to be hoped that other firms act similarly if (perhaps only when) the Labor/Greens policies provoke law suits by big business. Perhaps too the judiciary will take a critical stance against these socialist policies.

On the Higgins claims, we still don’t know the causes of action she relied on. The little revealed suggests that whether or not she was raped was not a fact in issue.

Finly, Reynolds and Cash can use Parliament as a forum to state their versions of events.
Franx says:

15 December, 2022 at 12:15 pm

Unless the basis for the Higgins’s claim is known, anything either Reynolds or Cash might say in parliament cannot really affect Higgins’s claim.
Not Trampis says:

15 December, 2022 at 12:19 pm

err they already have.
Reynolds in particular would have been a disaster being cross examined. A good reason for her not to be at the mediation one would think .It would not be hard for a half competent counsel to show Cash as both shifty and loose with the truth given her past.
Another reason for believing this is crap is that they would have no idea of what higgins would have gotten.
In purely political terms it would be in the ALP’s interests to have both Reynolds and Cash defending themselves in court.
SydGal says:

15 December, 2022 at 12:37 pm

Rafki – but from the limited reporting we had from the trial about evidence from L Reynolds and M Cash – it appears B Higgins was supported at the time she disclosed an alleged sexual assault. If Higgins did not make the assault allegation at the first meeting with Reynolds, then how could Reynolds appropriately respond? And Higgins recording of a phone conversation with M Cash was very odd. M Cash sounded very supportive in the recording but who knows what that was about? The security breach and being found naked in the office? Higgins did text her ex-boyfriend the morning after the alleged incident that she had been “up to her usual shenanigans”.

It seems Higgins was given the choice of where she would like to work in the lead up to/ after the election so that sounds pretty supportive. I’ve also read that part of Rachelle Miller’s $650,000 payout related to alleged bullying by a female staff member in Cash’s office. Wondering if that was the same for Higgins?
Riversutra says:

15 December, 2022 at 1:15 pm

She got 3 mil for highlighting Labors version of how anti woman the Libs are.
This is a cheap 3 mil for helping ensure Labor are in charge of the Treasury benches.
At least Labor looks after their supporters, something the Libs stopped doing long ago.
jupes says:

15 December, 2022 at 1:34 pm

It galls me to be paying for this. I’m with C.L., this needs to go to NACC.
Rockdoctor says:

15 December, 2022 at 1:43 pm

Defy him and under parl privilege if she feels so strongly or is this a case of all huff & no puff again from the libs?
Old Lefty says:

15 December, 2022 at 3:03 pm

Surely the payment for services rendered (an extraordinarily quick one at that) should have come from the ALP’s party coffers rather than the taxpayer.
Entropy says:

15 December, 2022 at 3:38 pm

She got 3 mil for highlighting Labors version of how anti woman the Libs are.
This is a cheap 3 mil for helping ensure Labor are in charge of the Treasury benches.

really cheap for the ALP as they used taxpayer OPM to pay it.
Tel says:

15 December, 2022 at 4:16 pm

Looks one heck of a lot like a political payoff. Labor voters will cheer, because most of them don’t pay much tax.
Boambee John says:

15 December, 2022 at 4:26 pm

Tel says:
15 December, 2022 at 4:16 pm
Looks one heck of a lot like a political payoff. Labor voters will cheer, because most of them don’t pay much tax.

The high end of the Liars, politicians, academics, bureaucrats, “woke” businesses, certainly should be paying a fair bit of tax, but perhaps the ATO bureaucrats help them not to?
C.L. says:

15 December, 2022 at 5:02 pm

It galls me to be paying for this. I’m with C.L., this needs to go to NACC.

Hat-tip to Janet Albrechtsen for that, not me.
For the reasons explained in her latest piece (above), this should be referred to the Commission.

I’m at a complete loss to understand what Peter Dutton is doing with his time. Two of his female colleagues have just been called liars (for all intents and purposes) but he’s apparently OK with that.
Rockdoctor says:

15 December, 2022 at 5:19 pm

Serious question. Can a small party refer this to the NACC? Or even a member of the public?

IMO both women have gone under the bus & Dutton is going to do diddled squat…
Rockdoctor says:

15 December, 2022 at 5:20 pm

Autocorrect grrr
Lee says:

15 December, 2022 at 5:34 pm

I’m at a complete loss to understand what Peter Dutton is doing with his time. Two of his female colleagues have just been called liars (for all intents and purposes) but he’s apparently OK with that.

Seems to be standard procedure for the Libs now, since the precedents set by Morrison and Matthew Guy of never standing by conservatives (even colleagues) or conservative values.

The Liberals deserve electoral oblivion, if only it didn’t leave Australia a one-party state.
Dr Faustus says:

15 December, 2022 at 9:34 pm

The Albanese government muzzled former Liberal minister Linda Reynolds in her defence against Brittany Higgins’ multimillion-dollar lawsuit, threatening to tear up an agreement to pay her legal fees and any costs awarded unless she agreed not to attend a mediation.
[…]

Senator Reynolds is understood to have been determined to defend herself against Ms Higgins’ allegations but in correspondence obtained by The Australian, the commonwealth’s lawyers told her she could not take part in the mediation.

If this is true, the question stands: Why did the Liberal Party not indemnify her for costs, to rebut the principal allegations, but instead hang Reynolds (and presumably Cash) out to dry?

Whatever happened on Reynolds’ couch, this preference payment is nothing other than a OPM-funded political play. The Liberal dim bulbs presumably prefer to close their eyes, clench their buttocks, and take it hard.
No lube. No hope.
Perfidious Albino says:

17 December, 2022 at 5:28 am

Imagine if Higgins turns out to have been Rachelle Millers alleged bully in Senator Cash’s office…