Another Helping of Outrage

In the latest chapter of the Brittany Higgins soap opera, we’re served yet another helping of outrage.

The former Liberal staffer, who pocketed a cool $2.4 million from the federal government in 2022, is back in the workforce.

This, despite her earlier claim of being “medically unfit for any form of employment” due to the alleged trauma from an incident in Parliament House.

The payout, we’re told, was to compensate for a ruined political career and the distress of an alleged assault by Bruce Lehrmann—an allegation that’s been mired in controversy, untested in court, and increasingly smells like a political hit job.

So, why have Australian taxpayers footed the bill for what looks like a carefully orchestrated payout?

Let’s unpack this. Higgins’ compensation, settled after a single day of mediation, wasn’t the result of a rigorous legal process.

Over half the sum was for “loss of earnings,” with the rest covering medical expenses, legal costs, and a tidy $400,000 for “hurt, distress, and humiliation.”

Yet here she is, four years later, proudly announcing her new gig at Third Hemisphere, a company conveniently tied to her husband, David Sharaz.

The irony is thicker than a Canberra fog.

If Higgins is now fit to work, what was the basis for the eye-watering sum she received? And why was the deal struck so quickly, without scrutiny or courtroom testing?

The suggestion that this payout wasn’t at arm’s length is impossible to ignore.

Senator Linda Reynolds, Higgins’ former boss, is suing the Commonwealth over the settlement, claiming she was sidelined, denied legal counsel, and never consulted.

Reynolds alleges the process was politicised, with Labor figures leveraging Higgins’ claims to weaponise the #MeToo narrative against the Coalition.

The timing, shortly after Labor’s 2022 election win, raises eyebrows.

Was this a reward for a story that fueled a political firestorm, or a genuine attempt to address a workplace grievance? The lack of transparency screams the former.

Then there’s the question of credibility.

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee, in a defamation case brought by Lehrmann against Channel 10, found that on the balance of probabilities, an assault occurred. But Lehrmann was never criminally convicted, and the criminal trial collapsed due to juror misconduct.

More damningly, Lee’s judgment didn’t align with the dramatic narrative Higgins pushed on The Project, where she described a violent assault. The court found no evidence of force or the extreme details she alleged.

Meanwhile, Reynolds’ defamation case against Higgins and Sharaz hinges on their social media posts, which she claims were defamatory lies.

Sharaz didn’t even contest the case, citing financial constraints, while Higgins’ “truth” defence is looking shakier by the day.

So why are taxpayers on the hook?

This payout reeks of political expediency—a quick settlement to quiet a noisy scandal, with no regard for due process or fairness.

Australians deserve better than funding what looks like a reward for a narrative that’s crumbling under scrutiny.

“You Are Never Too Old To Set Another Goal Or To Dream A New Dream.”
– C.S. Lewis