Brittany Higgins $3million payout: 2GB’s Ben Fordham demands more transparency

Ben Fordham has asked two pressing questions about the million dollar payout Brittany Higgins received, saying the secrecy surrounding the decision “stinks”.

The 2GB host is calling on the government to confirm the dollar amount of the settlement — believed to be up to $3 million — and to clarify Treasury Secretary Senator Gallagher’s involvement in the whole affair.

Ms Higgins received the money after a one-day mediation in December 2022 after she filed a civil suit against her former employers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash – and the Commonwealth – over the handling of her sexual assault allegations during her time as a parliamentary assistant.

The man she accused, Bruce Lehrmann, strongly denied the allegations and the charges against him were dropped after the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.

On Thursday morning, Fordham said: “We will never know for sure what happened that night in the House of Parliament in the Secretary of State’s office.

“We know that Bruce lied to his girlfriend about what he was up to, but he has always denied attacking Brittany Higgins and detectives… had questions about Brittany’s credibility. They described her as evasive.

“So why did she get $3 million?”

Fordham also questioned Senator Gallagher’s role in the settlement, noting that it was her department that approved the payout.

When Senator Gallagher was in opposition, he grilled the Coalition over the handling of Ms. Higgins’ complaints.

Audio later emerged from Mrs Higgins’ interview with Lisa Wilkinson and the project in which her boyfriend, David Sharaz, described a ‘friend’ within Labor who was willing to ‘investigate and get on with it’.

“So sit week, story comes out, they have to answer questions in question time, it’s a mess for them,” he said. That friend was later identified as Senator Gallagher.

Calling for more transparency, Fordham noted: ‘This is the same Katy Gallagher the government had heavily pursued… The same Katy Gallagher who had tipped David Sharaz for the bombshell interview saying ‘something big was coming'” , the same Katy Gallagher who had a private phone call with Brittany after the allegations.”

“Katy Gallagher hit Linda Reynolds with question after question…isn’t that a conflict of interest?”

“If none of that stinks, I think you’ve lost your sense of smell.”

Fordham commented that he doesn’t believe in “blaming the players,” but “blaming the game.”

Senator Gallagher has repeatedly maintained that it was the finance department that made the payment, not her personally as minister.

Ms Higgins has long maintained that she ‘loved’ the Liberal Party and hoped that by coming forward she would help push through reform.

The Liberal Party has been dogged for years by a perceived women’s issue, regarded as one of the main issues that bogged the party as it stumbled into the last election.

“I loved my party, I loved the Liberal party,” Ms Higgins said in court. ‘It sounds absurd. I didn’t necessarily want to hurt them. I wanted to reform this issue.’

Ms Higgins lodged a complaint with the police and also went to the media with her allegations, a decision she told the court she ‘supported’.

‘I’ve tried both ways. I thought: I will speak to the media about this, I will do my service by leaving and talking to the media, and I will also talk to the police,” she said.

In addition to the criminal case, Ms. Higgins filed a civil suit against her former employers. While the criminal suit was dropped, the payout she received was in response to the civil suit.

Both the Labor government and the opposition refuse to be publicly involved in questions about the payout, citing the ongoing investigation by retired judge Walter Sofronoff into the DPP’s investigation and prosecution of Mr Lehrmann.

The mediation lasted just one day and the final settlement was never disclosed, but reports suggest it could be as much as $3 million.

Ms. Higgins claims that the actual payout is significantly lower.

Chris Merritt, vice president of the Rule of Law Institute and legal affairs officer for The Australian, said: “It is difficult to see how the Higgins settlement complies with longstanding rules governing how the federal government is supposed to deal with monetary claims.

“It’s also hard to see how those responsible for this settlement couldn’t understand that spending taxpayers’ money in violation of those rules could arouse the interest of regulators, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission.”

Mr. Merritt argued that there were only two ways for Mrs. Higgins to get a payout of more than $100,000.

First, a legal professional would have to state that the settlement reflected the claim as having a “meaningful prospect of success in a court of law.”

Alternatively, the Attorney General could step in to rule that customary precedent should not apply in this case, as it would be an “exceptional circumstance.”

It is not clear which route the mediation has taken.

During the mediation hearing, Ms. Higgins’ boss, Linda Reynolds, was told she was not allowed to attend the hearing or provide any evidence.

She claimed she was told the government would come back on an insurance policy to pay her legal fees if she attended the hearing.

Scott Morrison has also been repeatedly criticized for apologizing to Ms Higgins on the floor of Parliament when the court proceedings were not yet concluded.

‘I’m sorry. We are sorry,” Mr Morrison told Parliament. “I’m sorry Mrs. Higgins for the terrible things that have happened here. And the place that should have been a place of safety and contribution turned out to be a nightmare.

“But I’m sorry for much more than that, for all those who came before Mrs. Higgins and endured the same thing.”

Mr Morrison was later forced to clarify that his apology had nothing to do with the criminal charges in court following backlash from the accused’s lawyer.

The apology was described as worrying and hypocritical as so many complainants had not received similar treatment before Ms Higgins.