A confidential document has revealed the reasons why Brittany Higgins claimed more than $2.5 million in federal government compensation.
News.com.au revealed late last year that Ms Higgins’ lawyer was set to hold talks with the federal government over a million-dollar compensation claim in the wake of the dramatic collapse of Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial.
Mr Lehrmann has been accused of raping Ms Higgins but when the trial collapsed charges against him were dropped. He was never convicted and maintains his innocence.
At the time sources said the compensation claim could top $3 million which would cover lost earnings, future earnings and at-home support for Ms Higgins, who had not worked full-time since she went public with her account of an alleged incident at Parliament House.
Ms Higgins has previously stated that the amount she settled for was less than $3 million.
The Australian further reported on Thursday that Ms Higgins had claimed up to 40 years’ worth of economic loss as a factor in the statement of claim for $2.5 million in compensation from the government.
It was provided to the respondents in March 2022, around nine months before the final mediation talks over the claim in December.
“The claimant had a reasonable expectation of being promoted regularly and to eventually pursue her own political career, before suffering from the injuries and disabilities,” the document states.
Ms Higgins was “diagnosed as medically unfit for any form of employment, and has been given a very poor prognosis for future employment” according to the document which calculated a $2,521,314.40 economic loss.
As of March 29 last year, Ms Higgins had “not been engaged in any form of employment” since February 8, 2021, except for one day, after she resigned from her political staffer role.
“The claimant further claims for the likelihood that she would have succeeded in either progressing in the public service, politics or in the private sector and would have been remunerated at increasing rates,” the draft claim reads.
“If the matter proceeds, the claimant will obtain a forensic accounting report, but anticipates that this part of the claim for future economic loss will be in order of at least an additional $1,000,000.”
The three respondents named in the legal correspondence were former employer Senator Linda Reynolds, Liberal frontbencher Michaelia Cash and the Commonwealth.
But an official claim was never filed while parties prepared to enter into mediation talks.
Originally, the document was also sent to former PM Scott Morrison before he was dropped as a respondent.
Ms Higgins was being represented in the personal injury matter by Noor Blumer, a founding partner of Blumers Lawyer who has practised as a personal injury lawyer since 1992.
Gallagher under fire over ‘conflict of interest claim’
In parliament, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said on Wednesday that she never declared a conflict of interest in relation to a multimillion-dollar compensation payout to Brittany Higgins because it “never crossed her desk.”
Senator Gallagher has been grilled for a second day over a tip off she received from Ms Higgins’ boyfriend David Sharaz before the story broke and her relationship with the couple.
Senator Gallagher revealed she was “shocked” and “stunned” by the claim a Liberal staffer had been raped by a colleague in a ministerial office.
But asked whether she subsequently declared a conflict of interest given her close contact and the fact her own department was responsible for administering the payout she said there was never any need because the negotiation was kept at arm’s length.
“If it had come to me, I would have declared a conflict but it didn‘t. It didn’t cross my desk,’’ Senator Gallagher said.
“I did not get a brief. (But) I had no role. And no briefing from the Department of Finance.”
Senator Michaelia Cash then asked Senator Gallagher if she spoke to the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in relation to the matter.
Senator Gallagher said she had not had contact but would take the question in relation to her office on notice to seek further information.
“I certainly had no contact, no contact with the Attorney-General,” Senator Gallagher replied.
“Again, just for the purposes of being absolutely clear to the Senate, I will take other aspects of that on notice because that would require me going and speaking with other people, but from my point of view, no.”
Senator Gallagher asked the Coalition to consider the impact of the current debate on victims of sexual abuse and people considering making a complaint.
“I was given information from a young woman who made a serious allegation about something horrific that had happened to her in this workplace,” she said.
As Liberal MPs interjected “Allegedly!” she then rephrased her response.
“Allegedly I accept that,‘’ she said.
In the Senate, Liberal Senator Marise Payne continued to grill her over her refusal to say whether Mr Sharaz provided her with a full transcript of Ms Higgins’ interview with The Project before the interview aired.
“She had asked me to keep that information confidential. Which I did,” she said.
She confirmed she did not receive any other tip offs from others including the media before the story went to air.
“It was a serious allegation. I was shocked by it. I was stunned. I couldn’t believe that something like that allegedly had occurred in this place a couple of years earlier. I was shocked by it. And I was shocked by how upset this young woman seemed to be.”
“The timing of this story becoming public, the decisions about Ms Higgins’ story and how she wanted to tell it, had absolutely nothing to do with me. Absolutely nothing. Well, the implication is in that question is I was involved and I wasn’t.
“I want to remind people here today, just what the message this chamber is sending out to every other woman that might want to stand up.
“I would say that this chamber should think about how this debate and the ongoing coverage of it, is impacting on all the women out there who we are with one mouth saying, ‘stand up and tell your story and we will support you’ and in the other tongue using the other Minister ‘If you dare to do it, we will come for you’.”