Tanya Plibersek grilled over Brittany Higgins’ $3 million payout: Sunrise presenter Natalie Barr pressures environment minister

Tanya Plibersek has declined to say whether Brittany Higgins’ $3 million payout should be referred to the anti-corruption commission.

Environment Minister and National MP Barnaby Joyce spoke to Natalie Barr on Channel Seven’s Sunrise Monday morning, where Ms Plibersek dodged questions about the payment.

“I am confident that the payment has been made completely correctly with all the usual checks and balances you would do in such circumstances,” she said.

Barr again tried to get a more detailed answer from the Secretary of the Environment, but she refused to dig any further.

“I’m not going to comment further,” Ms Plibersek said.

Previously, the pair were asked if they felt Mr Lehrmann deserved his own pay after the former Liberal Party staffer said during Sunday’s 7News Spotlight interview that he may never work again due to the allegation against him.

Ms Higgins has accused Mr Lehrmann of raping her in Parliament House after a night out with colleagues in 2019. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation.

“I have no opinion on it and I’m not going to comment on it at all,” Ms Plibersek told Barr bluntly in response to the question.

Barr pressed her and asked, “Not at all?”

“No,” she said.

Mr Joyce responded by speaking out about compensation for Australian war veterans, which he insinuated was more important than ‘two people in Parliament’.

Barr then asked whether Ms. Higgins’ compensation payment should be referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission after former Defense Secretary Linda Reynolds indicated her intention to raise it with the federal ICAC.

Mr Joyce stated that it was ‘completely plausible’ as there were ‘many questions to be answered’ and Ms Reynolds, along with many others, wanted answers.

Ms Plibersek gave only a curt reply to the heated question, with the environment minister brushing aside calls for an inquiry and revealing why Labor already supported the payout.

It comes after Ms Reynolds claimed that Ms Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson had a set her as the “perfect villain” on The Project, when the former staffer first went public with her rape allegations in February 2021.

Senator Reynolds made her explosive claims on 7News Spotlight during her first-ever televised interview about Ms. Higgins’ sexual abuse allegations against Mr. Lehrmann – who was also interviewed.

“I was the perfect villain,” said Ms. Reynolds.

“While none of it—this is the irony of it—none of it was absolutely true.

“Every good story like this needs a villain, how that was set up with Mrs. Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson.”

In March 2019, in the days following the alleged rape, Ms Higgins did meet with Ms Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown.

The meeting was scheduled to address a security breach caused when Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann entered the defense suite in the early hours of the morning – the night of the alleged attack.

Ms Higgins has previously said she revealed her alleged rape to her bosses at that meeting, but Ms Reynolds claims that was not the case at all – saying on Sunday evening she only learned of an alleged assault about an hour ago. week later.

She also said Ms. Higgins never used the word “rape” in their conversations.

Speaking of the interview with The Project, Ms Reynolds said the claims against her ‘hurt’.

“It more than hurt, it completely devastated me, the allegations that were aired about me, you can’t think of anything worse or a worse allegation from any woman that you covered up the rape of a young woman in your own office.”

She said it was worse because, while Mr. Lehrmann was fired after the security breach, she gave Ms. Higgins another chance.

Brittany saw that and then went in and she was rightfully concerned about her job.

“We made it clear that she had acted wrongly, but if she wanted to keep her job, she could.

“I definitely gave her a second chance. She was bright, politically aware, just the person we wanted here.’

Ms Reynolds also referred to a taped conversation between Ms Higgins, her now fiancé David Sharaz, Wilkinson and Channel 10 producer Angus Llewellyn in January 2021 – about two weeks before the episode of The Project aired.

During that five-hour chat, Wilkinson let loose on Ms. Reynolds — referring to her as “that damn woman” and read aloud their private conversations.

Mrs. Reynolds said, “A woman I’ve never met… Where does this hatred come from? It’s visceral… I’ve never met Lisa.”

Mr Lehrmann also said he is considering further legal action after the fallout from the trial – which could be worth around $6 million.

“It’s going to have to be a multi-million dollar claim because I have to consider that I may never work again,” he said.

‘After being smeared and tossed for two or three years now.

‘I am innocent. If we could have had a fair trial and a trial at all, I am fully convinced that it… would have resulted in a not guilty verdict for me.”

He wouldn’t say exactly what amount he was looking for, but when presenter Liam Bartlett suggested about $6 million, Mr. Lehrmann: “Yes.”

Mr Lehrmann is currently suing Channel 10, Lisa Wilkinson and the ABC in a joint defamation claim, which he said he “will not back down”.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer, Steven Whybrow, was also interviewed and spoke mainly about the behavior of ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold.

The Spotlight interview comes almost a week after the findings of a committee of inquiry were handed over by ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr – in the form of a lengthy report of nearly 900 pages.

The inquiry, chaired by former Judge Walter Sofronoff, examined how his trial in the ACT Supreme Court last October was handled by police and Mr Drumgold.

Mr Sofronoff found that the chief prosecutor had “knowingly lied” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and had “lost objectivity and failed to act with honesty and detachment as required by his role”.

Mr Drumgold resigned as ACT Director of Public Prosecutions last week after the inquiry into the handling of Mr Lehrmann’s rape case produced several negative findings against him, which he has refuted.

Mr Whybrow said he believes his client was not given a fair trial, saying the Sofronoff report showed there was ‘a loss of objectivity’ in the case against his client.

“According to the Sofronoff report and my experience, Bruce has not received a fair trial,” said Mr Whybrow.

“Things happened, there was a near, I don’t know how to explain it, but we were against it from the beginning and this case… it was hard.”