Bandt is a shameless huckster.

And an antisemitic Nazi.

Quite amazing how the green left has gone the full iron cross plus oak leaves and cluster in the last couple months.

PS. Britnah felt comfortable being a bit creative regarding the Deed of Release, because someone assured her it would never see the light of day.

And, IANAL, but in other biz using multiple experts can leave yuge gaps which you’d assumed the experts would have warned you about since you paid them all big $$$.

But one expert is not responsible for the others & vv.

Dover, the hamsters might need some more of BL’s coke.
They’re slowing down again.

Just wait until the NACC starts seeing the communications between all parties regarding the settlement.

…and the WhatsApp and Telegram chat logs

plus the Discord server chats

Leave no parlour uninterrupted!

I wonder how BH will feel when the ALP machine throws her under the bus.
If she thinks the sisterhood will stand firm, she’s in for a lesson or ten.
That ALP machine will steam roll her.

Just wait until the NACC starts seeing the communications between all parties regarding the settlement.

…and the WhatsApp and Telegram chat logs

plus the Discord server chats

Leave no parlour uninterrupted!

Signal and Proton emails, also. Paranoia can affect peoples thinking, so I’m told.

Ramaswamy: Transgenderism Is Mental Health Disorder

I’m starting to like the guy

Why return to the office at such a late hour for a legover ? Why not go home or somewhere more discreet ? Bruce had been warned about unauthorised access so it seems rash. Was it helped along by some kind of weird workplace dominant/ submissive thing ?

From the various statements and media exercises the facts seem to be that Bri needed a new job because resignations while Bru could have helped her with a new job. Except his job was ending too. Odd how some of Bri colleagues knew this and yet Bri didn’t … all part of the tragic downfalle of a fayre maiden and gallant staffyr because fatal flawes & scheming overlordes in a tyme of grate peril.

‘This is the worst bill ever’: Labor passes ‘economy-wrecking’ same job same pay bill

small steps to one job one pay

..but Brinny had a good reason to tell of the payout, because the more she got, the more guilty Lehrmann and the Libs were.

johanna

Dec 7, 2023 6:06 PM
No woman would prostitute themselves for 20cents a time. A majority would for $1Million.

Sez who?

Jeez, Johanna, at least hold out for a dollar.

Harvard president says school will punish calls for Jewish genocide in apparent backtrack from congressional testimony

Harvard’s president insisted the Ivy League school would punish calls for genocide against Jews on campus – an apparent backtrack from congressional testimony where she repeatedly refused to explicitly denounce antisemitic behavior at the university.

“There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students,” President Pauline Gay said in a statement on Harvard’s official X account Wednesday.

“I have sought to confront hate while preserving free expression,” she said. “Speech that incites violence, threatens safety, or violates Harvard’s policies against bullying and harassment is unacceptable.”

The testimony drew criticism as high up as the White House.

“It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” White House senior communications adviser and deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement.

Only Reason She is in The Position is DEI – “Black & Usless” – Perfect Qualifications

No woman would prostitute themselves for 20cents a time. A majority would for $1Million.

I’d go as far as to say that if a million bucks is fair dinkum on the table, a lot of blokes are also on the market.

It would depend. If Taylor Swift begged for a shag and offered a million (US) dollars, I would think about it. If it were knickerless, I’d knock her back.

It’s her face and legs mostly, but the subsequent rape charges and legal issues would also be a consideration.

feelthebern
Dec 7, 2023 8:25 PM
I wonder how BH will feel when the ALP machine throws her under the bus.
If she thinks the sisterhood will stand firm, she’s in for a lesson or ten.
That ALP machine will steam roll her.

The Mean Girls only ever saw value in her as a weapon to use against the Lieborals.

Now that the heat is being turned up, and she has served her purpose, they will dump her like a used franger.

Rockdoctor

Dec 7, 2023 6:08 PM
FFS panic buying already and Jasper is still 1320km NE of Cairns. Woolworths Burdell, water, noodles and any non perishables stripped bare. Poo tickets still available LOL ?

And there will be no thanks given to those who have already months ago put in supplies of ‘poo tickets’ food, lamps, batteries, perhaps a genset and rainwater tanks.
Those who are NOT contributing to the panic buying in other words, but who will be expected to ‘share’ when things get a bit short.

Roger I read that as “you don’t need to be a genius to know right from Wong”. Suppose its the same thing really.

Law Prof Seems to Suggest Real Issue With Terrorists Raping Israeli Women Is Israel Fought Back

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the horrific terrorist attacks that Hamas carried out against innocent civilians in Israel, it’s that the world is full of awful, deplorable, and disgusting people, the vast majority of whom happen to fall on the left side of the political spectrum.

I somewhat already believed this, but the pro-Palestinian crowd, which is really pro-Hamas, constantly shouting anti-Semitic slogans calling for the genocide of the Jews pretty much confirmed my suspicions.

I didn’t think people could possibly be more gross than essentially being modern-day Nazis, but then along comes Assistant Professor Heidi Matthews, a law professor for York University’s Osgoode Law School. Matthews seemed to suggest that, while it was bad to see Hamas terrorists raping Jewish women, what’s worse is that Israel used these horrific crimes to justify striking back at them.

We truly do live in a clown world, folks.

The Old Testament Scriptures say in Genesis 1:26-28 and Isaiah 5:20, “Woe to those that call evil good, and good evil,” as a warning of God’s judgment on those who would align themselves with wickedness and label it a good thing or refuse to condemn atrocious acts of sin.

The left has made this their default stance concerning the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Matthews published a post on X/Twitter Tuesday that demonstrates this mindset:

Is wartime sexual violence a horrific crime? YES, with no mistake. But sex exceptionalism is also traditionally used to whip up support for entire military campaigns — we see Israel and the U.S. doing this now to justify a prolonged disproportionate air and ground war.

— Heidi Matthews (@Heidi__Matthews) December 5, 2023

I’m not a genius or a professor at a fancy law school, but I might have a theory that explains why countries use the idea of raping their female citizens as justification for engaging in an armed conflict with foreign raiders.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because the act of raping someone just because of their nationality or religious affiliation is, you know, morally evil and wrong.

This was an attack on the entire nation. Israel is absolutely justified in going to war over its women being assaulted by terrorist invaders. What kind of morally bankrupt moron would dare to suggest otherwise?

Here’s more from the Daily Wire:

Matthews went on to explain her position further, arguing that because people have a tendency to see violent crimes against women — particularly those of a sexual nature — as more reprehensible than other violent crimes, governments funneled that outrage into support for bloody and brutal military campaigns against the offenders.

“Sex exceptionalism underwrites the idea that sexual violence crimes are worse than others, and therefore justify harsher retaliation (here, via war). This goes back to the essentialist idea that rape is a fate worse than death. None of this is new,” the professor stated.

Yes, I do believe she is. This person is in charge of teaching people how to engage with the legal system.

Terrifying.

Delta A:
Christmas Creek signage – partway between Longreach and Barcy – will be getting a makeover from me next Monday.

From the BoM site at 256km display.
Not. one. white. pixel.
Where’s my bloody rain, you pack of bastards?
Have the Joos stolen it along with my sock?

Nice post P.
Speaking of Rose Hill, different groups of members are using this for different outcomes.
Today there have been emails, texts & whatsapp’s from a handful of people.
One bloke is a serial ATC board member applicant who I can see using this as part of his next campaign.
All are anti the sell off.
The idea that this is a done deal would be a little premature.

IT..

I suggest BL and team accepted 150k from ABC on the following basis:

1) Refusing to accept a settlement does have an effect on what you’re going to get even in a win. So if you turn down 150k, but spend $1m (on the defendant’s) on getting to a $1.5m settlement…. you may end up with less than 1.150m and need to pay your own costs. Maybe not. Maybe even probably not, but it’s a risk.
2) The ABC has unlimited resources. They’re just going to keep charging the tax payer. Channel 10 has to pay for the lawyers at some stage.
3) Unless you’re Elon Musk, you can’t really run multiple claims at the one time… best settle the hard ones (backed by unlimited money) and push the easier ones (because point 2).

H B Bear

Dec 7, 2023 7:22 PM
The Bru/Bri thing looks to be expanding its blast radius as more comes to light.
The mark of any good scandal. “What’s this thread?”

The blast radius ended up with the Morrison Administration going tits up.
You are now looking at the fallout pattern and those who were soooo confident the wind was going the other way.

CL
Yes, that’s one point of inconsistency, and your comment is apposite. Maybe there’s more to it because Lee J indicated that the facts of inconsistency had substantial probative value.
But my comment is directed to the question of how the deed got into the hands of the judge and the parties. Higgins’ evidence led to the “call” for the deed, and once produced to Lee J, he addressed the next question of its admissibility.

Their beautiful twin children have now completed three years at uni. My grandaughter has completed her Business degree at Notre Dame Broadway and my grandson has one year to go at the Con because he is doing two degrees.

Quality stock, P!

Lying in the witness box about the amount of the settlement and claiming a non-existent admission of liability isn’t damaging?

Saying something that’s incorrect in testimony isn’t the same thing as lying.

That’s for the judge to determine.

Seriously.

The sooner Brih-nee gets obliterated in a civil court, with a much lower standard of proof than required in a criminal trial (in which she also failed) and makes the traditional fall from public life to the point where she accepts a role in ‘I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Out of Here’ the better all of us will be.

Winston Smith
Dec 7, 2023 8:06 PM

“I demand you dox yourself so I can write shitty reviews about your business.”
You’re not exactly subtle, JC are you? How about you put up your business address?

I can see where you are coming from, but if I had something legit to sell or have a business relying on traveling customers I’d be happy to give out information.

Recent example, book deal on the cat happy people all round.

Would be nice to meet fellow ‘Cats’ to boot.

I tried posting a link from Kiwi Farms on the anticar movement on Reddit, I can’t stand these nuts, but the link was too sweary.

It’s okay. KiwiFarms is too mean, I say that sincerely, it is just too harsh.

It’s pretty funny though. Google lies and refuses to acknowledge that KiwiFarms is still live and has its own servers. If you don’t DDG KiwiFarms, you’d assume they were taken offline a few months ago.

Here’s some good links as an intro to this bizarre cult of lycra clad weirdoes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/y5r1pd/the_growth_of_the_anticar_movement_is_very/

Ive seen on Reddit the growth of the subreddit r/f**kcars and it’s deeply troubling. Jordan has talked at length about the importance of automobiles and how they are a symbol of freedom. Many people of my generation don’t even have a driver’s license and want cars off the road. To me this is the Peter Pan syndrome that Jordan has discussed, many young men would prefer to go around on overgrown children’s toys like electric scooters and bicycles then to become a man and earn a driver’s license and car as a ritual into adult hood. Additionally, many young people are becoming subservient to the state and want the state to provide transportation through the use of buses and trains. This is alarming if you’ve been following the WEF. It would be a disaster to let the government control where you can or can’t go.

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/wunt64/anticar_people_are_delusional/

There seems to be a sentiment on Reddit that cities would be designed so much differently if cars never existed. I read so many posts that make it seem as though cities would be designed around walkers or bicyclists, depending on the sub, as though carriages and trolleys never existed. It wasn’t safer back then for pedestrians either, just look at the origins of the name of the Dodgers baseball team. They were the Brooklyn Trolly Dodgers!

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/r17ic4/the_f**k_cars_movement_is_just_as_stupid_and/

‘ve seen a lot of people online pushing this anti-car shit for a long time. Cars are an essential part of most people’s lives. They revolutionized transportation. Anyone can go anywhere when they want. I want to go across town? I can be there in 20 minutes. I need groceries? I can load up a week’s worth at the store a few minutes from home. Everything is within reach. It’s unprecedented mobility that people really take for granted. The anti car stuff I’ve seen is pushing to ban cars in cities, reduce interstates or get rid of them altogether, lower speed limits to unbearable levels, and do everything we can to discourage cars. They think that all this is fine, that public transport can pick up the bill. Public transport will never, and I mean never, replace personal transport in America. No matter how good you make it, unless it comes literally to my door and to my destination, it isn’t worth it. Yes I live in suburbs, something that these people despise because of how spread out things are. These people fail to understand why suburbs exist. People moved out to get houses cheaper, to get large yards their kids can play in, but to still be close to neighbors and have community if they wanted. I love suburban living(as long as every house doesn’t look the same). There’s trees, nature all around, plenty of ponds and parks, and yet anything I need is a 5-10 minute drive away. It’s worth it to live out here and commute to work, otherwise people wouldn’t do it. If you ban cars in cities you can’t commute to work. You are forced to use Americas attempt at public transport, which no matter how well executed it is would still be worse than commuting myself. The only use I can see for public transport in my situation is if it was faster than the traffic in commuting, like taking commuter rail. That being said this still makes actually getting to your place of work a pain once you arrive. To all you proponents of walking or biking I raise you this. What do you do on a rainy day, a blisteringly hot day, or a sub zero day? It sounds miserable to attempt a commute in these conditions on bike or on foot. How would it look to come in covered in sweat after biking a few miles at 110 out?

The thing is I don’t even disagree with some of the points these people make. One term that gets thrown around is a strode and I agree they are terrible. For the uninitiated stroads are those big highways that also have a ton of businesses right off of it. This isn’t an ideal design, and it’s quite dangerous to have that many cars pulling in and out. Their solution is terrible. Yeah it sounds great to demolish it all and build a walkable town center. How much is that going to cost? How are you going to convince best buy, target, michaels, and hobby lobby to all tear down and rebuild? It’s impractical. Making these businesses walkable is impractical. The best solution is to just limit entrances and exits to the highway. People don’t want to walk to best buy. How are you going to get a tv home? There’s a major cultural difference between suburb and city. Suburbans buy stuff in bulk. Groceries once every two weeks. It saves time, and is easier thanks to cars. No one here would actively chose to go to the store more frequently at the expense of a car like people in cities do.

The next argument made is cars are dirty and the roads are needed for green space. I agree partially. Gas powered cars in mass do pollute, it’s quite bad. Buy electric, buy hydrogen. It’s cheaper and better for the world(I still like my gas sports cars tho). Some roads can be shut so people downtown can walk and bike more. Don’t get me wrong I understand it’s essential for people downtown to walk or bike. I would never ever chose that life, or to live in such close proximity with other people, but that’s their choice. Some roads can be shut down because less intersections is actually a good thing for traffic too. It gets out of hand when they demand all roads be shut. We still need roads so people can commute downtown. Underground parking is huge to have.

As for reducing interstates and how more lanes doesn’t work. Looking at LA I can see that’s the case though intuitively it doesn’t make sense. That doesn’t mean we need to bulldoze interstates. We need alternate routes, and they don’t even have to be interstates. Having more ways to get from a to b is much better than a huge mega highway. As for interstates being removed from downtown areas, some cases need it. Isn’t any need to come in to the very city center on an interstate tbh.

Cars are great for another reason I haven’t mentioned. Road trips. They’re so fun and it’s a great way to see the world at your own pace.

In summary tho, the premise to get rid of cars is idiotic. Why would we get rid of something so great. Yes downtowns need to be built more friendly for it’s residents, but it must be built to coexist with the car not ban it. Cars are fantastic for personal choice and if I sound like a privileged American so be it. I enjoy this privilege a lot. Collective transport is a no go. I’d rather drive 15 minutes extra in traffic than have to sit with other people on some bus or train that takes an extra 30 logistically to deal with. So yeah, make cities better for you or whatever but leave my suburbs alone. Accept the necessity of the car for a lot of purposes, and understand we all need to make an effort to work together to improve our world instead of arguing something so stupid.

Edit: I also know people may mention Europe. Europe is Europe. It existed before the car and all their cities and towns are walkable. In my opinion I’d never live there because people live so close together. America can’t be like Europe because we’d have to rebuild it from the ground up.

I love the pictures they do of a tightly packed bunch of bike riders ” compared to the same number of people driving cars”.

93.2% of bike lanes are unused for most of the day.
I’ve made a point when waiting for a bus in Filth ( formerly Perth) to count the number of treadly riders while I wait. SFA, less if you include the ones riding on the footpath anyway.

It’s like me building an intergalactic landing pad, because everyone knows the only reason we haven’t got intergalactic visitors is because we haven’t made a pad for them to use.

Someday a person will calculate the economic wastage of bike lanes. They will then be cancelled and their work destroyed.

Salvatore, Iron Publican
Dec 8, 2023 12:50 AM

if you think customers would be repulsed by actually meeting you or seeing the business, that’s your problem.

Those words were yours Gabor.

Yes they are, and with the 2 minutes customary hindsight of mine I shouldn’t have used them.
Apologies.

But if you are apolitical in your business, you shouldn’t have to worry about upsetting new or existing customers, I agree on that wholeheartedly.

Case is collapsing fast!

Brittany Higgins was paid a second taxpayer-funded sum in addition to her $2.4million compensation payment from the Federal government, Daily Mail Australia can reveal.

Documents released by the Federal Court for Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson last night show Ms Higgins received a ‘modest’ sum of financial assistance from the ACT Victims of Crime Commission.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12836669/Brittany-Higgins-second-compensation-payment.html

She seems to make a lot of “innocent slip-ups”, or stuff is done in her name whilst she is pissed, on valium, having a panic attack or generally out to lunch.

From Sancho overnight.
Multiple versions.
Multiple time lines.
All that was needed was the barest minimum of scrutiny.
But no, the ScoMo Derangement Syndrome was too intoxicating.

feelthebern
Dec 8, 2023 4:56 AM

From Top Ender’s link to the Daily Mail, they outline the BH deed for the punters in a clear manner.

What a tangled web!

In today’s OZ a bit long — Janet Albrechtsen & Stephen Rice — lay out the Stinking Shitshow: Just goes to show how potato-nosed barge-arsed dimwits can be the ruin of a nation, particularly when used by political hyenas:

Brittany Higgins bombshell: $2.4m payout based entirely on her own evidence
The deed of settlement ­between Brittany Higgins and the ­commonwealth was released on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: Justin Lloyd
The deed of settlement ­between Brittany Higgins and the ­commonwealth was released on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: Justin Lloyd
By JANET ALBRECHTSEN
COLUMNIST
and STEPHEN RICE
NSW EDITOR
5:44AM DECEMBER 8, 2023
The Albanese government paid Brittany Higgins more than $2.4m compensation in a settlement that relied entirely upon the ­former Liberal staffer’s version of events, despite contrary versions from key witnesses who were excluded from a single-day mediation of her claim.

Lawyers described both the amount and the speed of the settlement – finalised just days after Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial was abandoned in the ACT ­Supreme Court – as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”.

The deed of settlement ­between Ms Higgins and the ­commonwealth was released on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson over Ms Higgins’ ­allegation on The Project that she was raped by him in Parliament House in 2019, after her lawyers successfully asked that personal medical information be excluded.

Justice Michael Lee, presiding over the trial, had earlier stated there was “a disparity between the evidence (Ms Higgins) gave in these proceedings and the truth of the matter”, which made the settlement deed “substantially ­relevant”.

Brittany Higgins’ compensation

$400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation
$1,480,000 as a capital payment for loss of earning capacity
$220,000 for medical and like expenses arising from the alleged sexual assault
$100,000 for past and future domestic assistance
$245,000 to cover legal costs
TOTAL: $2,445,000

WHAT THE COMMONWEALTH SIGNED OFF

Without any admissions of liability, the parties have agreed to resolve all claims by Ms Higgins against the beneficiaries (apart from) … Bruce Lehrmann; Senator Linda Reynolds and Senator Michaelia Cash.

The document shows that the commonwealth did not admit it had breached its duty of care to Ms Higgins when it paid her the multimillion-dollar settlement, contrary to claims she made to the court earlier this week.

The document reveals that the federal government ensured it was released from any future claims by Ms Higgins but left former Liberal ministers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash open to further legal action by the former staffer, a carve-out clause that was not fully communicated to either of the two senators.

Ms Higgins testified on Tuesday that “the commonwealth ­admitted that they breached their duty of care and that they didn’t go through proper processes, so that’s actually why they ­settled with me”.

However, the deed of settlement – dated December 13, 2022 – expressly states that the parties have agreed to resolve all claims between them “without any ­admissions of liability”.

The one-day mediation took place 10 days after ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane ­Drumgold announced he would not be proceeding with a retrial of rape charges against Mr Lehrmann due to Ms Higgins’ fragile mental health.

The deed shows that the total amount paid to Ms Higgins was $2.445m, not $2.3m as the former staffer stated in the Federal Court on Tuesday.

Ms Higgins received $1.48m for loss of earning capacity for 40 years; $400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation; $220,000 for medical expenses; $100,000 for “past and future domestic assistance”; and $245,000 for legal costs.

Although Ms Higgins’ salary at the time was less than $78,000, her lawyers argued she “had a reasonable expectation of being promoted regularly and to eventually pursue her own political career” but had now “been diagnosed as medically unfit for any form of ­employment and has been given a very poor prognosis for future ­employment.”

There is no indication of who made the assessment that Ms Higgins could not work for 40 years, or the basis upon which the claim was made.

Ms Higgins was awarded $400,000 because her “hurt, ­distress and humiliation has been exacerbated as result of the ­manner in which the individual ­respondents (Scott Morrison, Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash) behaved at the time of the assault and during the subsequent handling of the matter, as well as a result of the toxic and harmful ­culture and work environment that (Ms Higgins) was subjected to,” her lawyers state.

In relation to the awarding of $100,000 for domestic assistance – for which Ms Higgins had originally sought $200,000 “by way of buffer” – her lawyers state: “She continues to require significant ­assistance from her family to ­perform domestic tasks and it is uncertain at what point this requirement will subside, if at all.”

It appears from the documents tendered on Thursday that the only statements of fact considered in the mediation were those ­prepared by Ms Higgins and her legal team.

The documents contain no ­reference to the disputes raised over many of those claims in Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial two months before.

In the particulars of liability ­attached to the document, Ms Higgins claims that Yaron Finkelstein, the principal private secretary to then-prime minister Scott Morrison, was “a regular presence in Minister Reynolds’ ­office advising (Reynolds’ chief of staff) Fiona Brown on how to deal with (Ms Higgins) in light of the sexual assault by Mr Lehrmann”.

The document claims that Mr Finkelstein “did not seek (Ms Higgins’) views about what remedies or outcomes she wanted”.

The Australian has been told that Mr Finkelstein had never been in Senator Reynolds’ office or Fiona Brown’s office and had no contact with Ms Brown or Senator Reynolds about these matters, as claimed by Ms Higgins in the particulars of liability.

Further, The Australian has been told that Mr Finkelstein had no involvement in the incident and had not heard about the two junior staffers. He was only involved in the upcoming election, not staffing issues.

The particulars of liability make a number of allegations against Ms Higgins’ former bosses, senators Reynolds and Cash, including sex discrimination and victimisation.

The particulars claim: “Minister Reynolds did not engage with (Ms Higgins) at all during the election campaign. She avoided (Ms Higgins) and made clear that she did not want (Ms Higgins) attending events with her.”

However photographs presented at the defamation hearing show Ms Higgins sitting next to Senator Reynolds at the minister’s birthday party during this period, wearing the white dress she was wearing when she was allegedly raped, and celebrating with her at a Liberal Party election event.

Senators Reynolds and Cash were both muzzled from attending the mediation with Ms Higgins, and therefore from negotiating the terms of any potential settlement, in return for their legal fees being paid by the commonwealth, meaning both senators, in whose offices Ms Higgins worked, were excluded from providing evidence in response to Ms Higgins’ claims of mistreatment by them.

The settlement states that “Ms Higgins releases the beneficiaries, except for Senator Reynolds and Senator Cash from all claims relating in any way to the ­circumstances”.

The pair are released from claims relating to the circumstances “except for any actions of Senator Reynolds or Senator Cash that do not relate to the ­performance of their ministerial duties”.

Critically, the deed defines ­“circumstances” to exclude: ­Senator Reynolds’ “lying cow” allegation; “courtroom conduct” outlined in a separate complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission; and “leaking” of information also detailed in that same AHRC complaint.

Ms Higgins specifically preserved her ability to take further legal actions against senators Reynolds and Cash in relation to matters which Ms Higgins considered potentially worth litigating.

Lawyers contacted by The Australian say they believe such a partial release, which specifically enabled Ms Higgins to take a ­second bite at the litigation cherry, despite being paid more than $2.4m, was most unusual.

They say Senator Reynolds was entitled to ask if this was done to extract further political advantage or to damage the senator ­personally.

Senator Reynolds’s lawyer, Ashley Tsacalos at Clayton Utz, requested a copy of the settlement from the commonwealth’s lawyers, HBL Ebsworth, on December 21 last year, a week after the deed was signed.

The senator never received a copy. Instead, she was told that the terms were confidential.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has declined to answer questions from The Australian about the settlement, saying only: “The parties have agreed that the terms of the settlement be confidential. All claims against the commonwealth are handled in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2017.”

On February 7 this year, the commonwealth’s lawyers refused to respond to a series of questions in a seven-page letter from ­Senator Reynolds’ lawyers about the application of the Legal ­Services Directions to any settlement with Ms Higgins, and about political conflicts around the ­involvement of Mr Dreyfus and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher.

“Ms Higgins’ claims have now been resolved; a release and ­indemnity apply to your client in ­relation to the claims; and your ­client has been informed of the ­application and scope of the release and indemnity in our letter of 16 December 2022,” HWL Ebsworth wrote.

In that earlier letter from HWL Ebsworth – three days after the deed was signed by the commonwealth and Ms Higgins – the ­lawyers advised Senator Reynolds’ lawyer that the release from future claims did not cover “any actions that do not relate to the performance or non-performance of your client’s ministerial duties.”

The letter did not advise ­Senator Reynolds that the release also excluded her “lying cow” allegation and the matters that were the subject of a separate complaint to the AHRC.

Senator Reynolds’ lawyers have accused the Albanese 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 … 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,” Dr Tsacalos said in his letter to the commonwealth’s lawyers, dated December 9 last year.

The Clayton Utz partner 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.

Dr Tsacalos questioned whether Anthony Albanese, Mr Dreyfus or Senator Gallagher had the power to impose conditions on Senator Reynolds 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 he was 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 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 Senator Gallagher – were equally involved in the case.

Senator 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.

After The Australian first reported these matters, Mr Albanese was asked whether there was a conflict of interest if Senator Gallagher signed off on the ­settlement, given her earlier ­engagement on the issue and whether she should have recused herself from any involvement in it. The Prime Minister refused to comment. Senator Gallagher has vehemently denied being involved in decisions over the Higgins settlement.

The particulars of liability in the deed of settlement repeat, without challenge, Ms Higgins’ claim she told Ms Brown, on the Tuesday after the incident that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Lehrmann. Ms Brown has vehemently denied that Ms Higgins told her about the alleged assault in the immediate days after.

In a document attached to the deed titled “Events complained about”, Ms Higgins claims that “Ms Brown made it clear by her words and demeanour that the events of 22/23 March 2019 must be put to one side and that (Ms Higgins) needed to remain silent about the sexual assault, in order to keep her job/career … In that context, (Ms Higgins) felt she had no choice but to abandon pursuit of the complaint of sexual assault with the AFP.”

Ms Brown, in interviews with The Australian, said that when Ms Higgins did finally make it clear that some kind of assault had occurred, Ms Brown offered to personally take her to the AFP office in Parliament House so she could report it.

Ms Brown has asked to be ­excused from appearing at the trial on medical grounds, but ­Justice Lee has asked for further medical evidence before making a decision.

On Thursday The Australian revealed that the National Anti-Corruption Commission was now examining a complaint by Senator Reynolds against Mr Dreyfus over his handling of the Higgins settlement, to determine if an investigation should be launched. 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.

Tintarella di Luna
Dec 8, 2023 5:59 AM

In today’s OZ a bit long

I am without speech.
And this is the government ruling over us.

We are lost, best learn to pray.
Not a bad idea in any case.

Elect Labor these days and you get misguided ideology and vindictive incompetence driving the bus, probably over a cliff.

Please know we’re fighting for you.

From Adam Bandt’s letter seeking members and donations saying hot boiling is upon us and financially he knows things are tough but …

What he doesn’t say is that everything he stands for is making things tougher and will have no impact whatsoever on the climate.

They’re suffering in their jocks, those bwave warriors.

I hope the IDF has obtained some DNA samples. Just to be sure.

Silly ignorant woman, how many Jews were stripped of their various European country citizenships in the 1930s and rendered stateless?

Those with weak heritage can’t understand what heritage means for others.
The flibberty-gibbert generation.

Calli-

Evidence is mostly elective in Aus law courses. Yes, there is some coverage of process, but depending on the exam questions (and subject selections), I can certainly see it being possible to get even a good mark without much understanding of specific rules. Bar exam is another question of course, but you don’t need one of them for politics.

Similarly with admission of liability. Quite possible to get a passing mark in the relevant subjects while only knowing the theory when specifically asked a leading exam question and not really understanding the application.