Brittany Higgins’ former chief of staff, Fiona Brown, has told court she feared she would be fired over Linda Reynold’s demand that she contact police without Ms Higgins’ consent, but she refused because it would have been “morally and ethically wrong”.
Ms Brown delivered bombshell evidence on Tuesday that members of the Morrison government were “trying to protect themselves” – not Ms Higgins – when they ordered her to report the matter to police. But she also insisted there was “no cover-up”.
She told the Federal Court Senator Reynolds, who was a government minister at the time, wanted “it” reported but asked for it to be “low key”.
“What did you understand that meant?’’ the barrister asked.
“Well, it didn’t make sense to me, because there was – I don’t know how you can go to a police station and make something like that low key,’’ Ms Brown said.
“It made no sense to me. I don’t know what she meant.”
Ms Brown said she was working in a regional town.
“So I would have been going to a regional police station. I’m walking up and saying, ‘G’day, here I am.’ I mean, there were two 23-year-olds here at stake. You just can’t walk into a cop shop and do something like that.”
Ms Brown was asked whether she told Ms Reynolds: “If you think it should be reported, go do it yourself?”
“I think I do recall saying something like that, and the conversations did get a little heated,’’ Ms Brown replied.
Ms Brown revealed on Tuesday that she feared losing her job after defying orders from two ministers – Ms Reynolds and Alex Hawke – to make a police report.
Ms Reynolds has previously stated that Ms Higgins never made an explicit rape allegation, and also that she did not know there was a sexual element before she held an April 1, 2019 meeting with Ms Higgins.
But on Tuesday Ms Brown said she did tell Ms Reynolds that Ms Higgins remembered Mr Lehrmann “on top of her” before the April 1 meeting – prompting Ms Reynolds to become so concerned that she wanted it reported to the police, whether or not Ms Higgins wanted to make a complaint.
In one text exchange she noted that Mr Hawke, then the Special Minister of State, was “hot to trot” to report it to police.
“And you refused … because you said: ‘It was morally and ethically wrong, and it was up to the person, and it was disempowering?’’ Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, asked.
“Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
“And you say the discussion was heated?’’ the barrister asked.
“Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
The former chief of staff gave evidence on Tuesday with the livestream cut after her legal team argued it could damage her mental health.
In evidence heard by Justice Michael Lee, she told the Federal Court that she was so concerned about the demands that she make a report without Ms Higgins’ consent that she contacted the Department of Finance executive Lauren Barons, who confirmed to her she could not do so.
“Ms Higgins needed to have her agency and it was her right to make a police report. Barons agreed with my view and said I could not do that,’’ her notes state.
Ministers protecting themselves
Ms Brown told the Federal Court her exchanges on the issue became “heated”.
Ms Reynolds – who previously told the ACT Supreme Court she did not know of a rape allegation – was insistent that Ms Brown attend a police station to report the incident.
Speaking on the Spotlight program this year, Senator Reynolds said she now accepts that Ms Brown did tell her of a possible sexual element, which she did not recall at the trial.
But Ms Brown insisted it wasn’t clear-cut that an alleged crime may have been committed.
One possibility was that “two 23-year-olds” had consensual sex in the office.
“Ms Higgins had had a recollection and (Ms Reynolds) felt that, based on that, even without a complaint, even without a straight-out accusation, she felt I should take it down to the police and say that these two people came in after hours and they were drunk and the female had a recollection,’’ Ms Brown said.
“To me, I needed more than that, and I didn’t have the right. It was Ms Higgins’ right.”
“Putting aside the right, you perfectly understood in these heated conversations on the afternoon of Friday, 29 March that, as far as the minister was concerned, she understood, and she said to you, ‘An allegation of a crime has been made by Ms Higgins that needs to be reported to the police?’’’ Ms Chrysanthou asked.
“No. No,’’ Ms Brown replied.
At 3.20pm that day, the Special Minister of State’s chief of staff Reg Chamberlain called Ms Brown again.
“And says to you again that Minister Hawke wanted the matter reported to the AFP because the ministers are the lawmakers?’’ the barrister asked.
“Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
“What was your understanding of why he would emphasise to you that Alex Hawke, as a minister, wanted the matter reported to the AFP ‘as Ministers are the lawmakers’? What did that mean to you?’’ the barrister asked.
“That he felt that it was best that it went to the police and there was no consideration of Ms Higgins. There was consideration for themselves, but not for Ms Higgins,’’ Ms Brown said.
“So you were concerned that this was, in fact, covering themselves; that’s all they were worried about?’’ the barrister asked.
“Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
“And that was the reason you were engaging in heated conversations that afternoon, and directions both from Minister Reynolds and Minister Hawke through his chief of staff to report the matter to the AFP?”
“Yes, it was,’’ Ms Brown said.
“You understood that the reason why Minister Reynolds and Minister Hawke, through his chief of staff, were directing you to report the matter to the AFP was not because they cared about Ms Higgins but because they were worried about covering themselves, so they could say they did something that afternoon?’’ Ms Chrysanthou continued.
“Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
“You insisted to the point by the afternoon that you thought you might be fired because you were refusing to follow the minister’s directions, two ministers’ directions?’’ Ms Chrythansou said.
“Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
After she worked for Ms Reynolds, Ms Brown joined Scott Morrison’s office after the 2019 election, where she worked until 2022.
During re-examination by Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister, she rejected any suggestion of a systemic cover-up.
“You’re aware, subsequently, the allegation is that there was attempts to suppress and discourage Ms Higgins from making any complaint?” the barrister asked.
“I am aware. Yes,’’ Ms Brown replied.
She said that suggestion was incorrect.
“The story wasn’t about the politicians,’’ she said.
“The story was about two staff members and no one would want to have their staff reported on.
“You know, from my experience from this, you know, the support – the support mechanisms for someone in my situation isn’t there.
“These were two 23-year-olds and, you know, and there was no cover-up. There was no cover-up”
People ‘always gossip in parliament’
Ms Brown agreed Ms Higgins had been told: “People always gossip in Parliament House and it was important that Ms Higgins not engage in it.”
“And the reason is Ms Higgins said something like she was concerned everyone knew about it and people were talking about it?’’ she was asked.
“No,’’ Ms Brown responded.
Ms Chrysanthou: “And she was concerned people had seen the CCTV?”
Ms Brown said her remark about gossip was to the effect of “we’ve all been subject to gossip and nonsense, it’s Parliament House”.
Ms Brown said she asked Ms Higgins that day whether she wanted to speak to police and they came to the office.
“The police actually came up to our office and when they arrived they looked kind of cop like, I can’t remember if they were uniformed or just had guns. I thought that was not good,’’ Ms Brown said.
“I asked if I could walk to their office, can I walk with you so we know where it’s at, they said yes.
“I said I’ll be back in a tick, went up and got Ms Higgins, are you happy for me to walk you? She said yes, we had a chat on the way, I offered to stay, attend or pick her up afterwards and she didn’t want any of that.”
Justice Michael Lee interjected: “You had your third meeting with Ms Higgins. You knew the information previously had been vague to you. Young people intoxicated, coming back to an office, drinking whisky, someone ended up naked. You also know by the end of the third meeting that … Ms Higgins has said to you: ‘I remember him being on top of me.’
“Did you have a view one way or another as to whether or not it was likely, let’s leave aside the question of rape … (they) had been engaged in some sort of sexual activity?”
“It was possible,’’ Ms Brown replied.
“You couldn’t rule anything in, you couldn’t rule anything out, but she was going to speak to her dad about the possibility of reporting something that could be a criminal act?” Justice Lee said.
Ms Brown: “Yes, I understand that.”