Andrew L. Urban.
Decency deficiency is a parliamentary disease. Symptoms include abysmal behaviour by the Mean Girls and Bastard Boys towards Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown and the refusal to apologise for it, while now grudgingly paying out $1.48 million to Brown after lengthy legal battles, in the continuing Brittany Higgins / Bruce Lehrmann saga.
In a tearful interview with Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice of The Australian (20/8/2026) under the headline: Fiona Brown gets $1.48m payout but no apology for false cover-up claims, Fiona Brown said she felt “vindicated” but the settlement did not compensate for the destruction wrought on her life by the false claims that she mistreated Brittany Higgins and by the failure of her own Liberal Party colleagues to protect her in the aftermath of the scandal.
During her interview with The Australian, Brown broke down in tears several times recounting her attempts to deal with her trauma.
Speaking for the first time since she began her legal battle, Brown said she was “at peace” with the settlement, despite the disparity with the Higgins payout. The respected former public servant settled her dispute with the commonwealth late in July after a 16-month legal battle but the details can only now be revealed, after the lawsuit was formally discontinued. The $1.48m settlement stands in contrast to the commonwealth’s $2.44m settlement with Higgins, awarded without a costly lawsuit after a one day mediation that accepted the young woman’s unchallenged allegations she had been poorly treated by Brown and then-senator Reynolds.
Of the $2.4m, Higgins received $1.48m – the exact amount of Ms Brown’s total compensation – to cover lost earning capacity, following a claim she would be medically unfit for employment for 40 years. Yet Higgins is now working as the executive director of the Vida Fund.
Brown’s $1.48m settlement comprises: $450,000 in general damages for hurt, humiliation and distress, $490,000 for lost future earning capacity and employment opportunities, $40,000 for medical expenses and $500,000 for legal fees. Her lawyers worked much of the time without pay.
“I think it’s fair, but it certainly doesn’t replace what I could have earned, and what I lost,” Brown told The Australian. Brown has never received an apology from Higgins, Wilkinson or the Labor Party “mean girl” figures led by senator Katy Gallagher, but says she doesn’t want one that is meaningless.
a missing Higgins Million
More than $1m of that settlement is yet to be located by Higgins’ appointed trustee in bankruptcy, frustrating attempts by Reynolds, to recover some of the $1m in damages and costs she was awarded in a defamation case against her former staffer after WA Supreme Court judge Paul Tottle found that Ms Higgins was “dishonest” in parts of her account about a political cover-up. Higgins did not appeal that judgment.
Brown, who has been left with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, was estimated by a forensic accountant to have lost $2.7m in past and future earnings.
The lost time clearly weighs on her. “There is more road behind me than ahead of me,” she says. “I didn’t want to spend what remains of it fighting a case to my last breath.”
Brown became a central figure in the scandal that rocked politics after Higgins claimed she had been raped by fellow staffer Bruce Lehrmann, and that Brown and Reynolds failed to help her and tried to cover up the assault. When she applied for compensation, Higgins was never challenged over the allegations she made in private about her treatment by Brown and Reynolds – claims found by both Justice Tottle and Federal Court judge Michael Lee to have been false.
She struggled when asked how she felt towards Higgins now. “I don’t know if I’m ready to talk about it – it’s one of the last frontiers I haven’t crossed yet,” she said. “I haven’t quite got there.
“I don’t wish anyone ill, no matter the hurt they’ve caused me, I wish them well. I think everybody goes through life and they do things that hurt you. You can’t hang on to that. And everyone deserves a chance, a second chance and a third chance. That’s just life. And the only place I can find peace is to try to find understanding.”
Brown is damning of parliament’s failure to protect those who work within it, particularly political staffers.
“Inside the hothouse of parliament … it becomes something closer to a real-life Hunger Games — and ministerial staff are thrust into that arena with almost no rights of their own,” she said.
Brown rejects Senator Gallagher’s recent claim that everything she and Labor did at the time, was appropriate. “I don’t think it was appropriate at all,” she said. “I saw the parliament become a kangaroo court.”
Mean Girls & Bastard Boys
Instead of the public prosecution that Labor launched against her then boss, Reynolds and herself, Brown wondered why Senator Gallagher, now the Minister for Women, and other Labor shadow ministers didn’t go to the then prime minister, or to the presiding officer, or to the secretary of the department. “They would have been appropriate steps,” she said.
There has never been any suggestion from Senator Gallagher or any other minister that they encouraged Higgins to go to the police, instead of launching a public media and political trial. The commonwealth’s settlement with Brown also spared former prime minister Scott Morrison and his senior advisers the embarrassment of a trial over allegations they prevented Brown from responding to Higgins’ allegations and then downgraded her job.
In her Fair Work action against the commonwealth, Brown alleged Morrison had falsely claimed the pair had spoken following a hostile question time during which he was asked whether he had talked to Brown about Higgins. (Brown did not comment on Morrison’s wildly inappropriate and prejudicial parliamentary apology directed to all former parliamentary staff and others who experienced bullying, harassment, and sexual assault, specifically acknowledging the case of Brittany Higgins for “terrible things that happened in Parliament House”.)
In its defence to Brown’s claims, the commonwealth claimed that the prime minister’s engagement with her in this incident was “not in relation to or otherwise in connection with her employment”.
Brown described what she went through as like being caught in a sandstorm. “It comes at you in all different directions, you get disorientated,” she said. “And you get buried in the sand, and the sand gets into every part of you, it gets in your mouth, your ears, every piece of clothing, and years later you’re still shaking it out of your shoe.
“My husband and I had to leave the life we knew and move far away because I no longer felt safe, no longer knew what might happen next.”
Brown said she now had bigger issues to face. Her husband, Ninian, has been fighting an aggressive cancer and heart issues for the past 18 months. “That’s the fight that’s most important to me.”
Welcome to public administration in the 21st Century. Power corrupts and thus those in power must be kept on a very short lease. The wholesale abuse of power during the last 20 years should see the jails overflowing with those who’ve blatantly ignored all Constitutional safeguards and due processes of the law.
Now former PM John Howard is reported as saying: “Mr Howard drew attention to Mr Morrison’s February 2022 national apology to Ms Higgins in parliament, which Ms Brown said in her Fair Work action falsely conveyed that she bore responsibility for Ms Higgins’ ill-treatment. “To many, the inexcusable contradiction in this whole affair was that Brittany Higgins received an apology from the prime minister of the day, yet Fiona Brown, who treated Brittany Higgins with total fairness and discretion, was so brutally and unfairly treated by various members of the Albanese government,” Mr Howard said.
Andrew: Just goes to show – as the old folks say “you never can tell” – best not be making too many moral judgements about the “left or the right” – lest they come back to bite one on the BUM.! Always thought Canberra was a smelly place compared to my little town – Peyton Place- and it’s a can of worms..!
Judicial Consensus vs. Administrative Settlement: The Legal Vindication of Fiona Brown
The formal resolution of former political staffer Fiona Brown’s Fair Work dispute with the Commonwealth brings a significant measure of procedural closure to the litigation stemming from the Brittany Higgins matter. The $1.48 million settlement paid to Ms Brown is more than a financial reconciliation; analysed through a strict legal lens, it represents an administrative correction of a profound systemic failure. This outcome aligns seamlessly with prior findings across multiple judicial jurisdictions, reinforcing a clear legal distinction between politically motivated allegations and verified courtroom facts.
The Core Financial Disclosures
Unlike standard Commonwealth workplace settlements, which are routinely shielded by non-disclosure agreements, Ms Brown explicitly negotiated for the financial terms of her settlement to be placed on the public record. This structural transparency provides an uncompromised breakdown of the recognized damages:
• General Damages: $450,000 for hurt, humiliation, and deep personal distress.
• Economic Loss: $490,000 to compensate for the loss of future earning capacity and professional opportunities.
• Legal and Medical Expenses: $500,000 in legal fees and $40,000 for medical treatment.
From a legal standpoint, the allocation of close to half a million dollars purely for lost economic capacity is an objective acknowledgement by the state of the total, irreversible destruction of a senior public servant’s career.
The Divergence of Due Process: 2022 vs. 2026
The legal significance of Ms Brown’s settlement is best understood when contrasted with the Commonwealth’s handling of Brittany Higgins’ $2.44 million payout in 2022.
Under administrative law principles, proper due process requires that any party facing adverse allegations be given a right of reply. However, during the 2022 expedited one-day mediation, the Commonwealth accepted Ms Higgins’ claims of a political cover-up without testing them in an evidentiary hearing, and notably, without consulting or notifying Ms Brown, the very supervisor accused of the misconduct.
Ms Brown’s subsequent Fair Work action successfully challenged the fairness of this workplace conduct. Her statement of claim outlined how the executive branch effectively gagged her from defending her reputation, rendering her a political scapegoat while simultaneously funding her accuser based on untested assertions. By persisting through a arduous 16-month litigation cycle, Ms Brown forced the Commonwealth to treat her workplace rights with equivalent financial seriousness.
Grounded in Judicial Reality
While the Commonwealth’s settlement does not carry an explicit admission of civil liability, the broader legal landscape has already delivered definitive adjudication on the facts. The assertion that Ms Brown participated in a political cover-up has been thoroughly evaluated and dismissed by the Australian judiciary:
1. The Federal Court Jurisdiction: In the matter of Lehrmann v Network Ten, Justice Michael Lee found on the balance of probabilities that an assault did occur, but explicitly rejected the assertion that Ms Brown or senior government officials acted to conceal or downplay the incident.
2. The Supreme Court Jurisdiction: In separate defamation proceedings within the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Justice Paul Tottle formally ruled that Ms Higgins’ claims of a political cover-up were factually untrue, noting specific elements of dishonesty in her narrative regarding her treatment by Ms Brown.
Because Ms Higgins did not appeal these findings, they stand as the binding judicial record of these events. Consequently, Ms Brown’s 2026 settlement represents an instance where administrative restitution has finally been brought into alignment with the established truth of the courts.
Systemic Implications for Parliamentary Staff
Beyond the individual parties, this case exposes a critical gap in the regulatory and employment frameworks governing ministerial staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act.
As Ms Brown observed, the unique “hothouse” environment of Parliament House frequently leaves staff members structurally exposed when political scandals erupt. When allegations are weaponised in the chamber for partisan advantage, ordinary employment protections can become secondary to political risk management.
The resolution of this matter underscores a vital legal precedent: the Commonwealth owes a strict duty of care as an employer to all its staff. Political convenience does not absolve the state from its obligation to provide safe workplace adjustments, uphold procedural fairness, and shield employees from unlawful reputational harm.
When will David Sharaz be held to account? And when will the rest of Brittany Higgins’ outrageous payout be found and returned to the tax payers?
I’ve got the answer to that one. Never.
Very interesting that Ms Higgins and Ms Brown have been compensated exactly the same amount.
It seems that senior female govt leaders such as Penny Wong and Michelle Rowland (AG) are not commenting today when asked about the payment to Ms Brown.
It’s also interesting to re-read a 2023 story in The Australian about Ms Brown’s treatment during the Canberra criminal trial. She made some complaints regarding evidence given by Ms Higgins and the DPP’s behaviour We know a lot more now because of all the exhibits in the Lehrmann defamation trial on the Federal Court website, the judgment by M Lee and the judgment in Ms L Reynolds WA defamation trial. What happens if witnesses give false and misleading evidence?
In relation to Higgins Statement of Claim, NACC said in a 2025 “Preliminary” Investigation, that it’s not within their jurisdiction: “The preliminary investigation was concerned with the probity and integrity of the process by which the Settlement was reached, and does not involve any conclusion about the validity or otherwise of Ms Higgins’ claims. As has been noted, the Settlement was on the basis of no admission of liability.
Whether Ms Higgins made misrepresentations during the negotiations is not within the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction, as at the relevant time she was not a Commonwealth public official. That question therefore was not and could not be covered by this preliminary investigation.”
***
Higgins DPP threatened me: trial witness
Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice
2 Feb 2023
Extracts below:
A key witness in the Bruce Lehrmann rape trial has accused the prosecutor of threatening and intimidating her as she left the witness box on a morning tea break, and of ignoring her pleas to be recalled to the stand to refute what she alleged was “blatantly false and misleading” evidence by Brittany Higgins.
Former Liberal staffer Fiona Brown says ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC and an associate berated her for providing “inadmissable evidence” and that Mr Drumgold then tried to use her mental health to discredit her as a witness.
In a formal complaint to the ACT Bar Association, Ms Brown alleges that, prior to the trial, Mr Drumgold was so dismissive of her concerns about the potential impact of the upcoming Logies – where TV presenter Lisa Wilkinson’s interview with Ms Higgins was up for an award – that it caused her to break down emotionally during a conference with him.
…
During the trial in the ACT Supreme Court last year Ms Higgins gave evidence that she felt pressured by her chief of staff, Ms Brown, and her boss, Liberal minister Linda Reynolds not to pursue the alleged assault, in the context of a looming federal election.
Ms Brown strongly denied in evidence that she had been anything but supportive of Ms Higgins, saying she and Senator Reynolds had told Ms Higgins she was within her rights to make a police complaint and would be fully supported.
But in her complaint lodged with the ACT Bar Association on December 21 last year, Ms Brown says that midway through giving her evidence she was “berated” by Mr Drumgold and felt “threatened and intimidated as a witness”.
“At 11.16am a morning tea break was declared, as I left the witness box to make my way out of the courtroom, Mr Drumgold and his associate approached me and berated me, stating that I was coming close to providing inadmissable evidence because of the way I was answering the questions,” Ms Brown wrote.
“I felt threatened and intimidated by their approach. The courtroom still had a lot of people in it and I was left humiliated.”
Ms Brown says she returned to the witness box 20 minutes later “shaken by their admonishment of me”. She gave evidence that in a meeting between the pair three days after the alleged rape, Ms Higgins initially denied anything had happened, but two days later volunteered that Mr Lehrmann had been on top of her while they were in Parliament House during the early hours of March 23, 2019.
“I said, ‘Oh. Oh my god,” Ms Brown testified. “I said, ‘Are you all right? Has – has something happened you didn’t want to have happen?’ And she just sort of looks at me and sort of goes like this with her – so I can’t say the word, but she’s shaking her head as a ‘no’.”
During a meeting between Ms Brown, Ms Higgins and Senator Reynolds nine days after the alleged rape, the minister had made it clear Ms Higgins was entitled to make a complaint. “(Ms Higgins) was concerned about how this could impact her career and Senator Reynolds said there would be no impact to her career and that she had our full support,” Ms Brown testified.
Ms Brown testified that she was the one who set up the meeting between Ms Higgins and Australian Federal Police officers in Parliament House in April 2019.
Ms Brown broke down and was excused from court after Mr Lehrmann’s barrister, Steven Whybrow, read a text message to her from Ms Higgins, expressing her gratitude for Ms Brown’s support.
Three days later Ms Brown emailed the DPP’s office and several staff within it to bring to their “urgent attention” what she called “blatantly false and misleading statements” given in evidence that morning by Ms Higgins.
Ms Higgins had told the court that Ms Brown offered to pay her six weeks’ wages to go to the Gold Coast during the election campaign but if she went there would be no prospect of her returning to work after the election.
“That was 100 per cent said,” Ms Higgins testified. “That was a conversation Fiona Brown and I had and that was the tipping point of me going to Perth.”
Ms Brown told the DPP that simply did not happen. “Neither Minister Reynolds or I had the authority to pay any staff member out. And I did not at any time state or suggest this,” Ms Brown says in her email to the DPP.
“I am deeply troubled by this serious misrepresentation in proceedings and I seek to have them corrected or put to me in court,” Ms Brown requests, in the email attached to the Bar Association complaint, and obtained by The Australian. “Can you please advise what happens (in) times like this?”
Ms Brown says she did not receive a response to her request to correct the record. Four days later, in summing up to the jury, Mr Drumgold cast doubt on Ms Brown’s evidence and why she became emotional in the witness box. “What is clear, members of the jury, is that there are strong political and emotional interests in this case and you need to incorporate this when you are assessing the various witnesses,” Mr Drumgold said. “Fiona Brown, for example, was clearly emotionally invested as a witness to the point that her emotions got the better of her.”
…
***