Albanese Refuses Comment on Higgins Settlement Despite Court Findings on Rape, Cover-Up Claims
This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.
Today’s Article is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Wednesday repeatedly declined to address recent court findings in the Brittany Higgins case despite persistent media questioning, maintaining “I had no role in that as Prime Minister, and that’s entirely appropriate” when asked whether the Commonwealth settlement should have been more rigorous given judges’ determinations regarding cover-up allegations.
During a media availability at HMAS Stirling naval base, Albanese faced sustained questioning about judicial findings in defamation cases involving Higgins, former Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds, and former ministerial staffer Fiona Brown.
The exchange grew tense as journalists pressed the Prime Minister on whether he accepts recent Supreme Court and Federal Court findings that “there’s no political cover-up for Brittany Higgins,” with Albanese deflecting repeatedly before a journalist noted a separate judicial finding.
Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.
Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.
Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.
The Judicial Findings
“A judge found that on the basis of probability a rape occurred,” the journalist stated. “A rape occurred. That is what a judge found on the balance of probability in a ministerial office in Parliament House. I think that’s a pretty big issue.”
When the journalist attempted to distinguish between the rape finding and cover-up allegations, asking “But isn’t it separate to the allegations of a cover-up?”, Albanese responded: “I think that is a pretty big issue.”
The Prime Minister then deflected: “You can keep asking the same question and you’ll get the same answer. Because it’s not a question aimed at politics. This is not a political decision by me as Prime Minister. And that is entirely appropriate that that be the case.”
Settlement Process Questions
Journalists specifically questioned whether the Commonwealth’s settlement with Higgins—reportedly worth several million dollars—should have been subject to more rigorous scrutiny given subsequent judicial findings regarding the cover-up allegations.
“Should the payout to Brittany Higgins have been more rigorous to protect the reputations of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown?” one journalist asked.
Albanese maintained firm boundaries: “Those things are hands-off from the government. I had no role in that as Prime Minister, and that’s entirely appropriate.”
Arms-Length Processes
The Prime Minister repeatedly emphasized that settlement decisions occurred through arms-length processes independent of political direction.
“I’m kind of commenting on legal matters,” Albanese initially responded when first questioned, before a journalist interjected “But it’s not a legal matter.”
Later in the exchange, Albanese reinforced: “It’s an independent body. We have a range of processes in place that are at arm’s length from party politics.”
Labor Senators Question
When asked whether Labor senators “who led the charge of a Liberal Party cover-up over the Higgins case” should apologize to the Senate given court findings, Albanese rejected the premise.
“That’s not right. I don’t accept that characterisation,” he said.
Pressed on what specifically he rejected about the characterization, Albanese simply repeated: “I don’t accept that characterisation.”
Legal Complexity
The Higgins case involves multiple overlapping legal proceedings with different standards of proof and findings:
A criminal trial for alleged rape collapsed due to juror misconduct, with no conviction recorded
Civil proceedings where judges assessed evidence on balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt
Defamation cases examining specific claims about workplace response and alleged cover-up
Commonwealth settlement negotiations occurring separately from judicial proceedings
Albanese’s refusal to comment reflects the legal complexity and potential for government statements to influence ongoing or future proceedings.
Political Sensitivity
The case remains intensely politically sensitive, having dominated federal politics during the final year of the Morrison Coalition government and contributing to broader workplace culture debates within Parliament House.
Liberal Senator Reynolds has pursued defamation actions against Higgins and has been publicly critical of how the matter was handled by various parties, including media organizations.
Former ministerial staffer Fiona Brown, who worked in Reynolds’ office when the alleged assault occurred, has similarly sought to protect her reputation through legal processes.
Constitutional Principles
Albanese’s position reflects constitutional separation between government ministers and legal settlement processes, particularly when settlements involve potential or ongoing litigation.
Ministers commenting on settlement adequacy or processes could create perceptions of political interference in legal matters, potentially exposing the Commonwealth to additional litigation or complicating existing proceedings.
The Attorney-General’s Department typically handles major Commonwealth settlements through internal processes designed to assess legal risk, evidentiary strength, and potential costs of protracted litigation versus settlement.
Previous Government Actions
The Morrison Coalition government faced extensive criticism over its handling of Higgins’ allegations when they became public in 2021, with multiple inquiries examining workplace culture, complaint handling processes, and ministerial accountability.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison commissioned investigations and implemented some reforms, though critics argued responses were inadequate and politically motivated.
The settlement with Higgins occurred under the Albanese Labor government after the 2022 election, removing direct Morrison government involvement from the final resolution.
Media Frustration
The media availability exchange demonstrated journalist frustration with Albanese’s refusal to engage substantively on the matter, with one reporter noting “We’ve been hearing those concerns sort of for a few years now” regarding various aspects of the case.
Another journalist pressed: “You can keep asking the same question and you’ll get the same answer,” Albanese acknowledged, before the reporter completed the thought noting the question wasn’t “aimed at politics.”
Rape Finding Significance
The judicial finding that rape occurred “on the balance of probability in a ministerial office in Parliament House” carries substantial weight regardless of criminal trial outcome.
Civil findings on balance of probabilities (more likely than not, or greater than 50% probability) differ from criminal standards requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, but nonetheless represent judicial assessment of evidence and witness credibility.
The finding underscores the severity of alleged workplace safety failures within Parliament House and raises ongoing questions about institutional culture and accountability mechanisms.
Cover-Up Allegations
Court findings regarding alleged cover-up claims appear to have determined insufficient evidence supported allegations of coordinated political suppression, though this did not negate findings about the underlying assault allegations.
This creates a complex public narrative where judicial processes validated certain claims while rejecting others, making simplified political commentary fraught with potential inaccuracy or mischaracterization.
Labor’s Previous Position
Labor senators and MPs extensively criticized the Morrison government’s handling of Higgins’ allegations while in opposition, using parliamentary proceedings and public statements to question workplace safety, complaint processes, and ministerial accountability.
Whether those criticisms specifically alleged coordinated “cover-up” versus general mishandling and inadequate response remains subject to interpretation and examination of specific statements made during the period.
Ongoing Sensitivity
Albanese’s steadfast refusal to comment Wednesday indicates the government views the matter as continuing to carry significant legal and political risk despite passage of time since initial allegations.
The Prime Minister’s discipline in declining engagement—even when pressed repeatedly—suggests clear political and legal advice to maintain strict boundaries between government and legal processes.
What Wasn’t Said
Notably, Albanese did not:
Defend the settlement amount or process as appropriate
Criticize judicial findings on either rape or cover-up allegations
Commit to reviewing settlement procedures
Address broader workplace culture reforms in Parliament House
Respond to questions about specific Labor senators’ previous statements
The comprehensive avoidance suggests risk assessment that any substantive engagement could create new vulnerabilities or complexities.
Precedent for Future Cases
The government’s handling of the Higgins settlement may establish precedents for future Commonwealth workplace incident responses, particularly regarding arms-length processes and ministerial non-involvement.
Whether the approach represents best practice for balancing legal risk management with accountability remains subject to ongoing debate, with critics arguing some governmental response beyond strict legal processes may be warranted for major workplace safety failures.
Sustaining Mencari Requires Your Support
Independent journalism costs money. Help us continue delivering in-depth investigations and unfiltered commentary on the world's real stories. Your financial contribution enables thorough investigative work and thoughtful analysis, all supported by a dedicated community committed to accuracy and transparency.
Subscribe today to unlock our full archive of investigative reporting and fearless analysis. Subscribing to independent media outlets represents more than just information consumption—it embodies a commitment to factual reporting.
As well as knowing you’re keeping Mencari (Australia) alive, you’ll also get:
Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve
Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.
Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting The Evening Post (Australia)
Catch up on some of Mencari’s recent stories:
It only takes a minute to help us investigate fearlessly and expose lies and wrongdoing to hold power accountable. Thanks!