As Parliament heads into the winter break Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown can sleep comfortably. For those concerned about the safety of women in the workplace, everyone can now see, albeit may not want to admit, that these two women played their part in a saga over an allegation of sexual assault in an exemplary fashion.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
On the other hand, the Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and the others involved in attacking Reynolds for political benefit face a different winter. There'll be a few sleepless nights.
What Labor wanted to depict in 2021 was a minister and chief of staff who had been cold, callous and uncaring.
The image they were out to project was an ugly cover up of an alleged rape to avoid any possible political fallout.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody asked Reynolds or Brown if they had had any experience of these sorts of matters. They didn't care. They decided to attack Reynolds in the Senate. Questioning can, and sometimes should, be robust. It certainly was then.
We now know Ms Higgins was assisted to see the police at Parliament House; that she initially said she didn't want to proceed with a complaint and later decided to do so. She was told of available counselling.
That's not a criticism of her, there's no law about the time period one takes to make that very difficult decision. But it does highlight the layers Reynolds and Brown had to consider in this allegation. They were both aware that this was not their story to tell. Agency and privacy in sexual assault cases belongs to the alleged victim.
Not happy with the results from their attacks in the Senate, Labor continued in estimates. Just about everyone has seen the estimates committee where Gallagher seeks the high ground by spurting out: "No one had any knowledge. How dare you. It's all about protecting yourself."
By her own admission, it was not correct to say to a committee of the Parliament that no one knew anything.
Under a series of questions in the Senate, Gallagher has avoided telling the full story. This is the minister who aggressively reminded Senator Reynolds in that earlier estimates committee: "I have been sitting here for hours. You have responsibilities to the Senate".
When Reynolds responds that she did answer questions, ended up in hospital and is back answering more questions senator Penny Wong goes for a lowball and verbals here with: "So you're the victim, not Ms Higgins?"
Senator Gallagher hasn't revealed the details of the settlement with Ms Higgins or why both of her employers were muscled out of the discussions on that. Odd when you consider that in those estimates hearings she strongly affirmed Parliament's right to know what was going on.
She said: "It has financial implications which, I presume, will be met by the public purse, so I think it's entirely reasonable that the estimates committee is able to get an understanding of this."
Here's the problem for the minister and any who joined her in mounting an attack on Reynolds using the Higgins claims.
People in their offices, maybe not all but some, know what Labor ministers knew and when. They know if what now deceased senator Kimberley Kitching said was true, namely that Labor planned weeks ahead to weaponise the issue politically.
I never met Kitching but her CV is not that of a shrinking violet. When she approached Reynolds in the Senate to, as Reynolds says, tip her off to the plan, she looked liked a woman with purpose.
There would have been groups meeting to sort out who asked which question and in what order. I say ministers plural because the attacks on Reynolds were not planned and perpetrated by Senator Gallagher alone.
She's just the one who Ms Higgins' partner David Sharaz mentions in his texts. So she bears the brunt whilst others, so keen for coverage then, seem camera shy on the issue now.
Having got through this sitting fortnight without revealing much, some may think that as a Labor victory. Not so.
Public servants, their own political staff and journalists all saw the questioning of Reynolds in the Senate and in estimates. They remember the "how dare you" the "nobody knew anything", and "you have responsibilities to the Senate".
They've read the transcripts of Sharaz, Lisa Wilkinson and Higgins seemingly plotting and like everyone else formed their own view. If it matches public opinion, my guess is they now regard Labor's attacks on Reynolds not as about Ms Higgins but about just using her to advance their own political agenda.
READ MORE:
The transcripts, to many people, remove any high ground Labor sought to give itself. And then they saw the obfuscation in the last fortnight.
As time goes, on the Labor ministers will be dealing with these people and vice versa. The ministers know that privately each of them, senior and junior public servants, staff and media has formed a view about what Labor did at the time and the answers that were given this sitting fortnight.
They know that a decision to weaponise the Higgins matter in Parliament brought her far more pressure and publicity than would have come from the Wilkinson interview alone and far more than she could handle. And ministers have to sit and work with them knowing just how negative that view probably is.
Labor had no idea at the time that the transcripts would be released.
Equally, they can't be sure what's around the corner in this sorry saga. None of that makes for a good night's sleep.
- Amanda Vanstone is a former Howard government minister and a fortnightly columnist.
Amanda Vanstone
Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She writes fortnightly for ACM.
Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She writes fortnightly for ACM.
