🧵THREAD: Did the Department of Parliamentary Services crisis manage the Brittany Higgin’s rape incident? 
WARNING: This THREAD discusses sexual assault and may be distressing to some readers. If you are need of support, please contact 1800 respect or Lifeline on 131 114.
The following information is the result of over 12 months research into the rape of Brittany Higgins at Parliament House, in the early hours of Saturday morning the 23 March 2019.
Within this thread are links to the Timeline of Key events and the rich media version of this investigation with reference links, embedded videos and images.
I would like to thank all those people who have contributed to this work, especially one of my dearest friends who helped compile and write the story.
You are the salt of the earth. 🙏
Within this thread are links to the Timeline of Key events and the rich media version of this investigation with reference links, embedded videos and images.
I would like to thank all those people who have contributed to this work, especially one of my dearest friends who helped compile and write the story.
You are the salt of the earth. 🙏
The full story is laid out below into 14 parts.
Here is a link to the detailed investigation
hardenuppete.medium.com/3b394c3507df
And here is a link to the Timeline of Key Events
bit.ly/48vAGcW
Here is a link to the detailed investigation
hardenuppete.medium.com/3b394c3507df
And here is a link to the Timeline of Key Events
bit.ly/48vAGcW
Part 1:
They say in life that nothing is ever simple, nothing is ever straightforward, black or white. There are only small fragments to piece together and various shades of grey.
Such is the case with the story of Brittany Higgins and those crucial mysterious hours and days immediately after her rape in Parliament House. It’s a short window of time, with small, critical details that have been overshadowed by the larger story of the horrific rape itself, the aftermath of it and the larger allegation of a “political cover-up”.
The problem is, the term cover-up means many different things to different people. Does it mean a group of people, motivated by partisan politics, conspired and colluded to deliberately hide the issue of Ms Higgin’s rape? Does it mean that actions to contain the scandal on the eve of the 2019 election were driven by the idea that it would be bad for the Morrison government’s coming campaign? Does it mean a mastermind coordinated it all? Or could our cover-up, more simply mean that a few individuals, many of them not politicians at all, worked to contain, minimise and clean-up the problem of a young woman found naked in Parliament House that fateful morning?
Was it in fact, a clean-up? And by that we don’t mean, the out-of-hours cleaner who was called in for an “urgent clean” of Minister Reynold’s office at 4pm that Saturday. Nor the other on-staff cleaner who arrived at Minister Reynold’s office on Monday morning to again clean the same office, (that had not been used since 4pm Saturday).
We don’t mean those cleaners because the real cleaners in the hours and days after Brittany Higgin’s rape - the silent staffers, the unnamed MPs, the senior Dept of Parliamentary Services people who worked to sanitise and minimise the entire incident – those cleaners never even picked up a scrubbing brush.
And that one big Bad Guy you’re all looking for, that one individual villain who stands there at the end of the tv show being accused of masterminding the whole thing? They don’t exist either. Instead, it was a small collection of key people who worked together to clean-up the problem and also, to spread the responsibility and the blame.
The softly, softly cover-up around Brittany Higgin’s rape, the clean-up, was all done bit by bit, crumb by crumb. It was all done in shades of grey.
They say in life that nothing is ever simple, nothing is ever straightforward, black or white. There are only small fragments to piece together and various shades of grey.
Such is the case with the story of Brittany Higgins and those crucial mysterious hours and days immediately after her rape in Parliament House. It’s a short window of time, with small, critical details that have been overshadowed by the larger story of the horrific rape itself, the aftermath of it and the larger allegation of a “political cover-up”.
The problem is, the term cover-up means many different things to different people. Does it mean a group of people, motivated by partisan politics, conspired and colluded to deliberately hide the issue of Ms Higgin’s rape? Does it mean that actions to contain the scandal on the eve of the 2019 election were driven by the idea that it would be bad for the Morrison government’s coming campaign? Does it mean a mastermind coordinated it all? Or could our cover-up, more simply mean that a few individuals, many of them not politicians at all, worked to contain, minimise and clean-up the problem of a young woman found naked in Parliament House that fateful morning?
Was it in fact, a clean-up? And by that we don’t mean, the out-of-hours cleaner who was called in for an “urgent clean” of Minister Reynold’s office at 4pm that Saturday. Nor the other on-staff cleaner who arrived at Minister Reynold’s office on Monday morning to again clean the same office, (that had not been used since 4pm Saturday).
We don’t mean those cleaners because the real cleaners in the hours and days after Brittany Higgin’s rape - the silent staffers, the unnamed MPs, the senior Dept of Parliamentary Services people who worked to sanitise and minimise the entire incident – those cleaners never even picked up a scrubbing brush.
And that one big Bad Guy you’re all looking for, that one individual villain who stands there at the end of the tv show being accused of masterminding the whole thing? They don’t exist either. Instead, it was a small collection of key people who worked together to clean-up the problem and also, to spread the responsibility and the blame.
The softly, softly cover-up around Brittany Higgin’s rape, the clean-up, was all done bit by bit, crumb by crumb. It was all done in shades of grey.
Part 2:
There are four golden rules for working for politicians and working in the public service:
1 - always keep quiet
2 - always spread responsibility and blame
3 - always seek permission and direction further up the chain
4 - always cover your own arse
Nowhere are those rules better practiced, more highly observed, than in the secretive federal department known as the Department of Parliamentary Services, (DPS).
psnews.com.au/secretive-depa…
In 2019, the DPS was headed up by Mr Rob Stefanic, a man who only just this month found himself on sudden immediate leave from his position after a series of NACC raids at Parliament House on his department. (We are not implying this raid was in any way connected to the Lehrmann Higgins issue).
theguardian.com/australia-news…
The important point we need to follow here is this - the culture in the Dept of Parliamentary Services (DPS) was, and is, well known as a culture of silence and covering things up. The working environment was often described by staff as “toxic”. That has been well documented in DPS internal workplace reviews and subsequent media coverage.
abc.net.au/news/2024-05-2…
The DPS head, Rob Stefanic, who was once the president of his university’s law student’s society and who’d previously held a similar position as head of NSW Parliamentary Services, was a man experienced in keeping things quiet and minimising damage. In an Estimates session in 2018, Stefanic was asked by Senator Kimberley Kitching about a security incident involving an unknown white-powder substance at Parliament House that was allegedly handled incorrectly and became the subject of a Comcare complaint.
buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/w…
Senator Kitching went on to reveal that the AFP had no knowledge of the incident at all, even though they are stationed inside Parliament House. She also revealed that the AFP had informed her that it was one of many instances where the AFP had not been informed of incidents in Parliament House that should have involved them. We can only wonder what other incidents Senator Kitching and the AFP were referring to.
aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_…
Minimising incidents and helping them disappear was an integral part of running Parliament House. It was at the core of Mr Stefanic’s job: ensure the integrity of Parliament House, keep it out of the headlines, make sure the goings-on in Parliament House stay inside Parliament House. Rule number 1.
There are four golden rules for working for politicians and working in the public service:
1 - always keep quiet
2 - always spread responsibility and blame
3 - always seek permission and direction further up the chain
4 - always cover your own arse
Nowhere are those rules better practiced, more highly observed, than in the secretive federal department known as the Department of Parliamentary Services, (DPS).
psnews.com.au/secretive-depa…
In 2019, the DPS was headed up by Mr Rob Stefanic, a man who only just this month found himself on sudden immediate leave from his position after a series of NACC raids at Parliament House on his department. (We are not implying this raid was in any way connected to the Lehrmann Higgins issue).
theguardian.com/australia-news…
The important point we need to follow here is this - the culture in the Dept of Parliamentary Services (DPS) was, and is, well known as a culture of silence and covering things up. The working environment was often described by staff as “toxic”. That has been well documented in DPS internal workplace reviews and subsequent media coverage.
abc.net.au/news/2024-05-2…
The DPS head, Rob Stefanic, who was once the president of his university’s law student’s society and who’d previously held a similar position as head of NSW Parliamentary Services, was a man experienced in keeping things quiet and minimising damage. In an Estimates session in 2018, Stefanic was asked by Senator Kimberley Kitching about a security incident involving an unknown white-powder substance at Parliament House that was allegedly handled incorrectly and became the subject of a Comcare complaint.
buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/w…
Senator Kitching went on to reveal that the AFP had no knowledge of the incident at all, even though they are stationed inside Parliament House. She also revealed that the AFP had informed her that it was one of many instances where the AFP had not been informed of incidents in Parliament House that should have involved them. We can only wonder what other incidents Senator Kitching and the AFP were referring to.
aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_…
Minimising incidents and helping them disappear was an integral part of running Parliament House. It was at the core of Mr Stefanic’s job: ensure the integrity of Parliament House, keep it out of the headlines, make sure the goings-on in Parliament House stay inside Parliament House. Rule number 1.
Part 3:
There is a lot that’s already well known about the Higgins-Lehrmann incident, but there’s also a lot that has been skimmed over and never publicly examined.
We know this much. Bruce Lehrmann arrived at Parliament House’s ministerial entrance with an intoxicated Brittany Higgins in tow at approx. 1.40am Sat March 23, 2019. The pair were processed and let in by two experienced parliamentary security officers, Mark Fairweather and Nikola Anderson and, as neither of them had their passes, made to show positive ID and sign themselves in. They were then brought to the Minister’s suite and let in.
Both Lehrmann and Higgins had the appropriate security clearances as Ministerial staffers and were therefore allowed in Parliament House at any time of day or night and also, were allowed to access their Minister’s office at any time. That’s what the Dept of Parliamentary Services that managed Parliament House allowed ministerial staffers to do. The parliament security staff were simply following the rules. Officer Anderson did notice however that Higgins seemed “intoxicated” and had a “stain on her dress”, but as security had no authority to interfere with ministerial staffers going about their business. Ms Anderson was powerless to do anything. Small fragments.
fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/…
Butler is in Wollongong at the time and receives the call outlining the situation at approx. 7.15am.
Peter Butler is also a man with vast experience in NSW policing and security management, and he tells the security Team Leader to go to check on the female’s welfare. This request comes in that phone call at 7.15am. That “welfare check” (and you’ll see the term ‘welfare’ used a lot about Brittany Higgins during this time) that welfare check did not take place until 9.15 am, approx. 2 hours later. Small fragments.
Why? Nobody knows, but it appears in those next hours there was one thing that did happen - a flurry of arse-covering and indecision and pushing the issue further up the chain by DPS staff.
More energy in the next few hours was put into finding out exactly what to do and who to speak to, and who should make a decision about what, than was put into speaking to the semi-conscious female naked in the foetal position in the office and ascertaining exactly what had happened and if she needed assistance. In other words, actually checking on her welfare.
There is a lot that’s already well known about the Higgins-Lehrmann incident, but there’s also a lot that has been skimmed over and never publicly examined.
We know this much. Bruce Lehrmann arrived at Parliament House’s ministerial entrance with an intoxicated Brittany Higgins in tow at approx. 1.40am Sat March 23, 2019. The pair were processed and let in by two experienced parliamentary security officers, Mark Fairweather and Nikola Anderson and, as neither of them had their passes, made to show positive ID and sign themselves in. They were then brought to the Minister’s suite and let in.
Both Lehrmann and Higgins had the appropriate security clearances as Ministerial staffers and were therefore allowed in Parliament House at any time of day or night and also, were allowed to access their Minister’s office at any time. That’s what the Dept of Parliamentary Services that managed Parliament House allowed ministerial staffers to do. The parliament security staff were simply following the rules. Officer Anderson did notice however that Higgins seemed “intoxicated” and had a “stain on her dress”, but as security had no authority to interfere with ministerial staffers going about their business. Ms Anderson was powerless to do anything. Small fragments.
fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/…
Butler is in Wollongong at the time and receives the call outlining the situation at approx. 7.15am.
Peter Butler is also a man with vast experience in NSW policing and security management, and he tells the security Team Leader to go to check on the female’s welfare. This request comes in that phone call at 7.15am. That “welfare check” (and you’ll see the term ‘welfare’ used a lot about Brittany Higgins during this time) that welfare check did not take place until 9.15 am, approx. 2 hours later. Small fragments.
Why? Nobody knows, but it appears in those next hours there was one thing that did happen - a flurry of arse-covering and indecision and pushing the issue further up the chain by DPS staff.
More energy in the next few hours was put into finding out exactly what to do and who to speak to, and who should make a decision about what, than was put into speaking to the semi-conscious female naked in the foetal position in the office and ascertaining exactly what had happened and if she needed assistance. In other words, actually checking on her welfare.
Part 4:
Peter Butler later told journalist Samantha Maiden that he’d instructed DPS staff several times that morning to call the police.
news.com.au/national/forme…
Butler said he instructed DPS managers to contact the AFP and secure the room. Of note here is the fact that the Australian Federal Police are on-site in Parliament House 24 hours a day. Contacting the police at that time, as their boss Peter Butler instructed, would have been a matter of any senior security officer involved, simply walking downstairs to the AFP office. (Peter Butler later resigned over the way DPS had handled the entire issue.)
news.com.au/national/polit…
In his interview with Sam Maiden, Peter Butler states that he also raised concerns about the cleaning of the suite that day.
“And again, I did reiterate to “Jane Doe” that they should be engaging with the AFP to handle the matter. I then received a number of phone calls requesting how to have the minister’s suite cleaned. And I advised against cleaning the suite.
“I suggested that if something’s gone wrong, without knowing what the actual circumstances were, but something just wasn’t right. That they shouldn’t touch anything in the suite, and then leave up to the AFP to make those determinations.”
Why didn’t they do this? We can only guess it was because somebody else much more senior in DPS management was overriding Butler at the same time, perhaps instructing security not to contact police, perhaps telling them to just wait on a minute. Keep it under wraps. Keep it quiet. The Dept of Parliamentary Services didn’t want any serious outsiders like the police involved because they didn’t want the story to spread.
They needed to contain the situation. See Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4. And remember - shades of grey.
Peter Butler later told journalist Samantha Maiden that he’d instructed DPS staff several times that morning to call the police.
news.com.au/national/forme…
Butler said he instructed DPS managers to contact the AFP and secure the room. Of note here is the fact that the Australian Federal Police are on-site in Parliament House 24 hours a day. Contacting the police at that time, as their boss Peter Butler instructed, would have been a matter of any senior security officer involved, simply walking downstairs to the AFP office. (Peter Butler later resigned over the way DPS had handled the entire issue.)
news.com.au/national/polit…
In his interview with Sam Maiden, Peter Butler states that he also raised concerns about the cleaning of the suite that day.
“And again, I did reiterate to “Jane Doe” that they should be engaging with the AFP to handle the matter. I then received a number of phone calls requesting how to have the minister’s suite cleaned. And I advised against cleaning the suite.
“I suggested that if something’s gone wrong, without knowing what the actual circumstances were, but something just wasn’t right. That they shouldn’t touch anything in the suite, and then leave up to the AFP to make those determinations.”
Why didn’t they do this? We can only guess it was because somebody else much more senior in DPS management was overriding Butler at the same time, perhaps instructing security not to contact police, perhaps telling them to just wait on a minute. Keep it under wraps. Keep it quiet. The Dept of Parliamentary Services didn’t want any serious outsiders like the police involved because they didn’t want the story to spread.
They needed to contain the situation. See Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4. And remember - shades of grey.
Part 5:
From there, the story becomes much more frenetic. We can only rely on assorted records from the criminal trial, the now debunked Sofronoff inquiry, the defamation trial and media reports. We only have what has been written down. We don’t know every detail of who called who or who said what, we only know that by the frenzy of texts and phone calls that morning, it is clear that alarm bells were ringing with the people involved.
It's interesting to note at this point, that nobody has said anything about a “security breach”. No mention is made in any records at that point about a “breach of security.” We can be fairly certain that was the case too, because Parliament House and DPS have very strict written protocols around security and official breaches of security and if that had at all been the case, a series of prescribed actions would have had to happen there and then, which include calling the Australian Federal Police and securing the premises. That was never done. So we know the incident wasn’t classified as an official security breach – then.
But at approx. 8.33am, Peter Butler reports the matter to a DPS manager, Leanne Tunningley. Ms Tunningley had only recently (no exact date) been made a DPS acting senior manager in a management reshuffle decided on and organised by Rob Stefanic that month. After her 8.33am phone call from Peter Butler, Tunningley immediately calls the very new to her role too, Acting Deputy Secretary of DPS, Cate Saunders. (See Rules 2 & 3) In the DPS hierarchy, Ms Saunder’s new role made her the new 2iC, second in charge. It made her directly underneath her boss, Rob Stefanic.
So new is Saunders to this newly created position of Acting Deputy Secretary (a position that Rob Stefanic had created), that the Parliament House security staff when chatting to her later that morning, don’t even know who Saunders is. There is no public record of when Ms Saunders officially started her position as DPS Acting Dep Secretary.
We are aware of an all-staff email Rob Stefanic sent out on March 18, 2019 advising DPS staff of what he was intending to do with his upcoming management reshuffle and the creation of a new Deputy Secretary position, but we could find no specific starting date for Ms Saunders. Ms Saunders LinkedIn profile says she started that position in April 2019, which is incorrect because the records show Ms Saunders calling herself the Acting Deputy Secretary in a conversation with PH security guards the morning of the Brittany Higgin’s incident on Sat March 23, 2019.
Did Ms Saunders plunge into her role as DPS Acting Deputy Secretary that fateful morning a bit earlier than Mr Stefanic originally intended?
Nobody really knows.
From there, the story becomes much more frenetic. We can only rely on assorted records from the criminal trial, the now debunked Sofronoff inquiry, the defamation trial and media reports. We only have what has been written down. We don’t know every detail of who called who or who said what, we only know that by the frenzy of texts and phone calls that morning, it is clear that alarm bells were ringing with the people involved.
It's interesting to note at this point, that nobody has said anything about a “security breach”. No mention is made in any records at that point about a “breach of security.” We can be fairly certain that was the case too, because Parliament House and DPS have very strict written protocols around security and official breaches of security and if that had at all been the case, a series of prescribed actions would have had to happen there and then, which include calling the Australian Federal Police and securing the premises. That was never done. So we know the incident wasn’t classified as an official security breach – then.
But at approx. 8.33am, Peter Butler reports the matter to a DPS manager, Leanne Tunningley. Ms Tunningley had only recently (no exact date) been made a DPS acting senior manager in a management reshuffle decided on and organised by Rob Stefanic that month. After her 8.33am phone call from Peter Butler, Tunningley immediately calls the very new to her role too, Acting Deputy Secretary of DPS, Cate Saunders. (See Rules 2 & 3) In the DPS hierarchy, Ms Saunder’s new role made her the new 2iC, second in charge. It made her directly underneath her boss, Rob Stefanic.
So new is Saunders to this newly created position of Acting Deputy Secretary (a position that Rob Stefanic had created), that the Parliament House security staff when chatting to her later that morning, don’t even know who Saunders is. There is no public record of when Ms Saunders officially started her position as DPS Acting Dep Secretary.
We are aware of an all-staff email Rob Stefanic sent out on March 18, 2019 advising DPS staff of what he was intending to do with his upcoming management reshuffle and the creation of a new Deputy Secretary position, but we could find no specific starting date for Ms Saunders. Ms Saunders LinkedIn profile says she started that position in April 2019, which is incorrect because the records show Ms Saunders calling herself the Acting Deputy Secretary in a conversation with PH security guards the morning of the Brittany Higgin’s incident on Sat March 23, 2019.
Did Ms Saunders plunge into her role as DPS Acting Deputy Secretary that fateful morning a bit earlier than Mr Stefanic originally intended?
Nobody really knows.
Part 6:
During the call 8.30-8.45am call between Saunders and Tunningley, they both decide to go to Parliament House in person. Why? Remember, all of these people will later say in their statements that they had no reason to think that anything was drastically wrong at that time or suspect a crime had occurred. Essentially, they were dealing with a situation of two staffers who’d had a drink in an office after-hours - something that happened at Parliament House all the time. Or they were dealing with a staffer who’d fallen asleep on the couch, something else that was not uncommon at Parliament House either. Yet two senior DPS managers urgently came into PH early on Saturday morning because . . .? Because why? Because a staffer was sleeping in an office? Because the staffer was naked?
Why were so many people, so many senior people, so worried? We’re not implying criminality here of course, simply pointing out that a lot of DPS people seemed very worried.
In the meantime, Brittany Higgins still lies naked and alone in the Minister’s office. She has had no medical assessment. No ambulance has been called. An ambulance would attract attention. It would mean outsiders would know, and the golden rule of Dept of Parliamentary Services was to contain the issue and keep it quiet. Nobody in DPS wanted an ambulance rolling up or police rolling up. The issue had to be contained. Shades of grey.
At 9.06 am Cate Saunders rings her DPS boss, Rob Stefanic, leaving a message about the situation. He calls her back at 9.14 am. Why was the head of the DPS, a man in charge of over 1000 staff, telephoned early Saturday morning about essentially, a ministerial staffer asleep in an office? Peter Butler has stated that in the meantime, he had made a number of calls during that time telling people to contact the police, (he does not specify exactly to who, but we can assume at least one of them might have been to his boss Rob Stefanic). The police are not called. His pleas are ignored. Follow Rule 1.
During the 9.14am call between Saunders and Stefanic, the pair discuss whether an ambulance should be called. But they do not call one. Neither Saunders nor Stefanic are at Parliament House at this time, neither of them have any solid reports of anything other than a second-hand account from a security guard who stated that Higgins opened her eyes and turned over. That’s it. They know she arrived drunk with a male who was sober, the male has since hurriedly left the building, they know the female is naked and alone and that nobody has undertaken any form of medical check of her and yet both of these two individuals take it upon themselves not to call for an ambulance, not to check thoroughly on the welfare of the female.
Why? See Rules 1 to 4.
You’ll recall that at 7.15 am, Butler has ordered his security staff there on the ground at Parliament House to conduct another welfare check on the female. This was not done until 2 hours later at 9.15 am. Why? What happened in those 2 hours that nobody did so? Nobody knows from 4.15am onwards what state the female is in, yet nobody checks until 5 hours later at 9.15 am? Again, shades of grey.
The welfare check at 9.15am is simply a female security officer (and a male officer) knocking on the closed door of the Minister’s office and asking the female if she is ok. Brittany replies through the closed door that she is. That is the end of the “welfare check”.
Interestingly, four days later at 11.145am, Lauren Barons from Ministerial & Parliamentary Services, (the HR section that oversees parliamentary staff) rings Reynold’s Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown. Barons informs Fiona Brown of the incident, which is the first Brown has heard of it, and states that, “She [Brittany] was offered an ambulance and medical assistance which she declined.” Neither Barons or Brown would have made something like that up, they had no reason to. Ms Barons was briefed on the incident by DPS. What did DPS say to her that had Barons believing that an “ambulance and medical assistance had been offered” but “declined”?
Who in DPS massaged the story over the weekend to make it look as if DPS had done everything they could for Brittany’s welfare, instead of virtually nothing? Shades of grey.
Moving on. At approx. 10.03am, Brittany leaves the building. At exactly 10.07am, Leanne Tunningley and Cate Saunders coincidentally arrive together, just 5 or so minutes after Brittany’s departure. How they both managed to time their arrival almost immediately after Brittany finally exiting the building is anybody’s guess, but a cynical person might even suggest they were hanging around waiting for her to leave, especially given they’d agreed back in their 8.30am phone call to go to Parliament House themselves.
In the Master Chronology of events compiled by Lehrmann’s defence team, they refer to the report of Vivienne Thom who notes in her report that Tunningley and Saunders, “arrived at APH to follow up on the welfare of the female on the advice of the Secretary”. It’s important to note that Dr Thom, a favourite of various governments in compiling reports, conducted her report before Brittany’s allegations became public in February 2021 and before the criminal trial, the Sofronoff inquiry, the defamation trial or any other forum where new information has come to light.
What isn’t clear from Dr Thom, is exactly what sort of follow up on the female’s welfare these two managers conducted, other than taking on board the information the security guards had given them about their brief exchange with the female through a closed door. That appears to be the extent of their “follow up” on the female’s welfare.
During the call 8.30-8.45am call between Saunders and Tunningley, they both decide to go to Parliament House in person. Why? Remember, all of these people will later say in their statements that they had no reason to think that anything was drastically wrong at that time or suspect a crime had occurred. Essentially, they were dealing with a situation of two staffers who’d had a drink in an office after-hours - something that happened at Parliament House all the time. Or they were dealing with a staffer who’d fallen asleep on the couch, something else that was not uncommon at Parliament House either. Yet two senior DPS managers urgently came into PH early on Saturday morning because . . .? Because why? Because a staffer was sleeping in an office? Because the staffer was naked?
Why were so many people, so many senior people, so worried? We’re not implying criminality here of course, simply pointing out that a lot of DPS people seemed very worried.
In the meantime, Brittany Higgins still lies naked and alone in the Minister’s office. She has had no medical assessment. No ambulance has been called. An ambulance would attract attention. It would mean outsiders would know, and the golden rule of Dept of Parliamentary Services was to contain the issue and keep it quiet. Nobody in DPS wanted an ambulance rolling up or police rolling up. The issue had to be contained. Shades of grey.
At 9.06 am Cate Saunders rings her DPS boss, Rob Stefanic, leaving a message about the situation. He calls her back at 9.14 am. Why was the head of the DPS, a man in charge of over 1000 staff, telephoned early Saturday morning about essentially, a ministerial staffer asleep in an office? Peter Butler has stated that in the meantime, he had made a number of calls during that time telling people to contact the police, (he does not specify exactly to who, but we can assume at least one of them might have been to his boss Rob Stefanic). The police are not called. His pleas are ignored. Follow Rule 1.
During the 9.14am call between Saunders and Stefanic, the pair discuss whether an ambulance should be called. But they do not call one. Neither Saunders nor Stefanic are at Parliament House at this time, neither of them have any solid reports of anything other than a second-hand account from a security guard who stated that Higgins opened her eyes and turned over. That’s it. They know she arrived drunk with a male who was sober, the male has since hurriedly left the building, they know the female is naked and alone and that nobody has undertaken any form of medical check of her and yet both of these two individuals take it upon themselves not to call for an ambulance, not to check thoroughly on the welfare of the female.
Why? See Rules 1 to 4.
You’ll recall that at 7.15 am, Butler has ordered his security staff there on the ground at Parliament House to conduct another welfare check on the female. This was not done until 2 hours later at 9.15 am. Why? What happened in those 2 hours that nobody did so? Nobody knows from 4.15am onwards what state the female is in, yet nobody checks until 5 hours later at 9.15 am? Again, shades of grey.
The welfare check at 9.15am is simply a female security officer (and a male officer) knocking on the closed door of the Minister’s office and asking the female if she is ok. Brittany replies through the closed door that she is. That is the end of the “welfare check”.
Interestingly, four days later at 11.145am, Lauren Barons from Ministerial & Parliamentary Services, (the HR section that oversees parliamentary staff) rings Reynold’s Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown. Barons informs Fiona Brown of the incident, which is the first Brown has heard of it, and states that, “She [Brittany] was offered an ambulance and medical assistance which she declined.” Neither Barons or Brown would have made something like that up, they had no reason to. Ms Barons was briefed on the incident by DPS. What did DPS say to her that had Barons believing that an “ambulance and medical assistance had been offered” but “declined”?
Who in DPS massaged the story over the weekend to make it look as if DPS had done everything they could for Brittany’s welfare, instead of virtually nothing? Shades of grey.
Moving on. At approx. 10.03am, Brittany leaves the building. At exactly 10.07am, Leanne Tunningley and Cate Saunders coincidentally arrive together, just 5 or so minutes after Brittany’s departure. How they both managed to time their arrival almost immediately after Brittany finally exiting the building is anybody’s guess, but a cynical person might even suggest they were hanging around waiting for her to leave, especially given they’d agreed back in their 8.30am phone call to go to Parliament House themselves.
In the Master Chronology of events compiled by Lehrmann’s defence team, they refer to the report of Vivienne Thom who notes in her report that Tunningley and Saunders, “arrived at APH to follow up on the welfare of the female on the advice of the Secretary”. It’s important to note that Dr Thom, a favourite of various governments in compiling reports, conducted her report before Brittany’s allegations became public in February 2021 and before the criminal trial, the Sofronoff inquiry, the defamation trial or any other forum where new information has come to light.
What isn’t clear from Dr Thom, is exactly what sort of follow up on the female’s welfare these two managers conducted, other than taking on board the information the security guards had given them about their brief exchange with the female through a closed door. That appears to be the extent of their “follow up” on the female’s welfare.
Part 7:
At around this point, both Tunningley and Saunders are told the female’s name from the sign-in book and the fact that she is a staffer for Defence Minister Linda Reynolds. They, and others, now know who the female is. They would go on to remember her name forever – Brittany Higgins.
However, now knowing her identity and who she works for and the sensitivity of what is happening – neither of these two women or their boss, Rob Stefanic, contacts the minister’s Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown, the person officially in charge of the minister’s staff. Nobody contacts Brittany herself to check on her. The DPS managers have a much bigger task at hand - not the welfare of the woman they now know the identity of - but the cleaning of the minister’s office.
To do this, they must have the permission of Dept of Finance, and the person to contact was Stephen Frost. The reason they required permission was not the minimal budget cost involved, but the fact that they required after-hours access to a minister’s office as well as allegedly, a cleaner who had the security clearance to do so.
So how did Tunningley and Saunders contact Stephen Frost? They didn’t appear to have his mobile number, but that was an easy fix. Both Tunningley and Saunders were aware that Peter Butler had spoken to Frost that morning, so their colleague Peter Butler would naturally be the one to provide Frost’s contact details. There was however, one sticky issue - Peter Butler had repeatedly advised them not to have the office cleaned and to call the police.
And that is how we find our two senior DPS managers, Tunningley and Saunders, downstairs at Parliament House having a conversation with a rank-and-file security guard asking him to supply them with Stephen Frost’s mobile number. The guard is so bewildered by this that he radios his boss, who explains who the women are and gives him permission to hand over Frost’s mobile number. (Page 29 in link)
fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/…
At around this point, both Tunningley and Saunders are told the female’s name from the sign-in book and the fact that she is a staffer for Defence Minister Linda Reynolds. They, and others, now know who the female is. They would go on to remember her name forever – Brittany Higgins.
However, now knowing her identity and who she works for and the sensitivity of what is happening – neither of these two women or their boss, Rob Stefanic, contacts the minister’s Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown, the person officially in charge of the minister’s staff. Nobody contacts Brittany herself to check on her. The DPS managers have a much bigger task at hand - not the welfare of the woman they now know the identity of - but the cleaning of the minister’s office.
To do this, they must have the permission of Dept of Finance, and the person to contact was Stephen Frost. The reason they required permission was not the minimal budget cost involved, but the fact that they required after-hours access to a minister’s office as well as allegedly, a cleaner who had the security clearance to do so.
So how did Tunningley and Saunders contact Stephen Frost? They didn’t appear to have his mobile number, but that was an easy fix. Both Tunningley and Saunders were aware that Peter Butler had spoken to Frost that morning, so their colleague Peter Butler would naturally be the one to provide Frost’s contact details. There was however, one sticky issue - Peter Butler had repeatedly advised them not to have the office cleaned and to call the police.
And that is how we find our two senior DPS managers, Tunningley and Saunders, downstairs at Parliament House having a conversation with a rank-and-file security guard asking him to supply them with Stephen Frost’s mobile number. The guard is so bewildered by this that he radios his boss, who explains who the women are and gives him permission to hand over Frost’s mobile number. (Page 29 in link)
fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/…
Part 8:
From 10.45am the records of who was talking to whom and who was doing what, go quiet. We don’t know if Tunningley and Saunders were workshopping with their boss Stefanic what to do, or who they were talking to or what they were planning, but it is clear that from 12.15 pm onwards, action is afoot.
At this point, it’s important to note the specific use of a few exact words. Lawyers do this all the time. What we have about 12.40 pm onwards is, on the face of it, Dept of Finance’s Stephen Frost, authorising the cleaning of the minister’s office.
There’s that word – authorising. Almost all media reports of the issue have repeated the line that Dept of Finance authorised the office cleaning. And they did, Frost authorised it. But as you can see from the timeline and the morning’s behaviour, that does not mean that Stephen Frost thought of the office cleaning, it doesn’t mean the idea of the office cleaning originated from him. Remember, Stephen Frost was not in the building that day and was relying purely on the advice and information of the two managers on the ground in PH, Tunningley and Saunders, (and possibly Stefanic, we don’t know).
There is a difference between authorising the cleaning, compared to suggesting and/or thinking of the cleaning.
We also know the cleaning itself was organised by DPS’s Building Services Asst Sec, Fiona Knight, because her job included oversight of the PH cleaners, but that does not in any way mean Ms Knight thought of cleaning the office. She merely organised it.
What appears to have happened is that after a period of time after 10.30am, at around 12.15pm, Tunningley and Saunders are asking a security guard for the mobile number of Finance’s Stephen Frost. They finish their conversation with the guards at around 12.20pm. Approximately 20 minutes after the time where the two women are seeking to call Stephen Frost, Frost - who is not in the building - has miraculously had the thought all on his own that the minister’s office needs urgent cleaning. Frost contacts Peter Butler at 12.40 pm to tell him about an office clean, (this is according to the report of Dr Thom).
At 12.56pm, Tunningley contacts Fiona Knight and asks her to organise an after-hours cleaner urgently and says there has been a “party” and there could be “vomit”. This is the first record of this escalation from an office that appears to be in order, to one where a party has taken place. Bit by bit, shades of grey.
At 1.02pm, Tunningley sends an email to Frost where she says “further to our conversation” clearly indicating that the two have just been chatting on the phone. She tells Frost to please put the office cleaning permission through to her via email, presumably so Tunningley has a paper trail.
Frost follows up 3 minutes later at 1.05pm with a very brief email that states, “…… Please accept this reply email as a request for the clean in suite M1-23. I approve access into the suite. Kind regards…..”.
It may be possible to read too much into it, but Frost’s brief, sparse email indicates somebody who is not closely involved in the specifics of the issue, isn’t too concerned with the details and is simply supplying the written authorisation as requested.
From 10.45am the records of who was talking to whom and who was doing what, go quiet. We don’t know if Tunningley and Saunders were workshopping with their boss Stefanic what to do, or who they were talking to or what they were planning, but it is clear that from 12.15 pm onwards, action is afoot.
At this point, it’s important to note the specific use of a few exact words. Lawyers do this all the time. What we have about 12.40 pm onwards is, on the face of it, Dept of Finance’s Stephen Frost, authorising the cleaning of the minister’s office.
There’s that word – authorising. Almost all media reports of the issue have repeated the line that Dept of Finance authorised the office cleaning. And they did, Frost authorised it. But as you can see from the timeline and the morning’s behaviour, that does not mean that Stephen Frost thought of the office cleaning, it doesn’t mean the idea of the office cleaning originated from him. Remember, Stephen Frost was not in the building that day and was relying purely on the advice and information of the two managers on the ground in PH, Tunningley and Saunders, (and possibly Stefanic, we don’t know).
There is a difference between authorising the cleaning, compared to suggesting and/or thinking of the cleaning.
We also know the cleaning itself was organised by DPS’s Building Services Asst Sec, Fiona Knight, because her job included oversight of the PH cleaners, but that does not in any way mean Ms Knight thought of cleaning the office. She merely organised it.
What appears to have happened is that after a period of time after 10.30am, at around 12.15pm, Tunningley and Saunders are asking a security guard for the mobile number of Finance’s Stephen Frost. They finish their conversation with the guards at around 12.20pm. Approximately 20 minutes after the time where the two women are seeking to call Stephen Frost, Frost - who is not in the building - has miraculously had the thought all on his own that the minister’s office needs urgent cleaning. Frost contacts Peter Butler at 12.40 pm to tell him about an office clean, (this is according to the report of Dr Thom).
At 12.56pm, Tunningley contacts Fiona Knight and asks her to organise an after-hours cleaner urgently and says there has been a “party” and there could be “vomit”. This is the first record of this escalation from an office that appears to be in order, to one where a party has taken place. Bit by bit, shades of grey.
At 1.02pm, Tunningley sends an email to Frost where she says “further to our conversation” clearly indicating that the two have just been chatting on the phone. She tells Frost to please put the office cleaning permission through to her via email, presumably so Tunningley has a paper trail.
Frost follows up 3 minutes later at 1.05pm with a very brief email that states, “…… Please accept this reply email as a request for the clean in suite M1-23. I approve access into the suite. Kind regards…..”.
It may be possible to read too much into it, but Frost’s brief, sparse email indicates somebody who is not closely involved in the specifics of the issue, isn’t too concerned with the details and is simply supplying the written authorisation as requested.
Part 9:
Three hours later at approx. 4pm that day, parliamentary staff cleaner Carlos Ramos enters the minister’s office to clean it. He sees nothing to clean. He is so taken aback by the fact that there’s nothing to clean, no mess anywhere at all, that around 4.15pm he contacts his boss Vanessa Penska to double check he’s in the right office. She tells him he is.
Ramos has also been told that there was “a party” in the office and that there may be “vomit” and that he should “look for condoms”. How did the story morph into this? Where did the idea that some messy party with vomit and condoms come from? Somehow the story has grown wilder.
Was the story beefed up by DPS management there that day so they could get an urgent, after-hours clean authorised? After all, saying that two staffers were in an office, and nothing seemed to be out of place wouldn’t exactly cut it to get the Dept of Finance authorisation needed. We don’t know where the story came from, only that it had been exaggerated by somebody.
Little pieces, small fragments.
Three hours later at approx. 4pm that day, parliamentary staff cleaner Carlos Ramos enters the minister’s office to clean it. He sees nothing to clean. He is so taken aback by the fact that there’s nothing to clean, no mess anywhere at all, that around 4.15pm he contacts his boss Vanessa Penska to double check he’s in the right office. She tells him he is.
Ramos has also been told that there was “a party” in the office and that there may be “vomit” and that he should “look for condoms”. How did the story morph into this? Where did the idea that some messy party with vomit and condoms come from? Somehow the story has grown wilder.
Was the story beefed up by DPS management there that day so they could get an urgent, after-hours clean authorised? After all, saying that two staffers were in an office, and nothing seemed to be out of place wouldn’t exactly cut it to get the Dept of Finance authorisation needed. We don’t know where the story came from, only that it had been exaggerated by somebody.
Little pieces, small fragments.
Part 10:
From there the timeline goes slightly dark. We know from her defamation trial affidavit, that Fiona Brown noticed a cleaner in the minister’s office early that Monday morning. Ms Brown noticed it but didn’t think too much of it. Unbeknown to her, several DPS managers, including Stefanic, Saunders, Tunningley and Butler were all aware of what had happened in that office, and yet nobody from DPS had contacted the minister or their Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown about it.
This is an unbelievable breach of protocol and one that angered both Brown and Linda Reynolds as we later found out in both Lehrmann trials and media reports. Brown was not informed of any of the goings-on with the office and staff under her charge until 11.45 am Tuesday March 26, 2019, four days after the incident. Why not?
Why did Rob Stefanic not immediately inform the Minister and the minister’s Chief of Staff on Saturday, the day that it happened? Why were The Cleaners keeping information the Minister had every right to know, from her and her Chief? Were they organising the story with somebody further up the chain? What authority did Rob Stefanic act with to not immediately advise the Minister of Defence, Linda Reynolds and her Chief, Fiona Brown of what had gone on in her office? Nobody has answered that question.
One thing we do know is that by Tuesday midday, the incident was now being referred to as a “security incident”. How did it get reclassified as that? Lehrmann and Higgins were in the office with full security clearance, the security guards would not have let them in otherwise.
Nikola Anderson said in her ABC interview that she knew nothing of an alleged “security incident”.
youtube.com/watch?v=h-H0f5…
Nor is there any other mention of that classification being used that day.
But by Tuesday, it was being spoken of as a “breach of security”. Was this label given to the issue by DPS and/or Finance so the incident had an extra shield over it and could then not be commented on as it related to “security”?
We’ll never know.
From there the timeline goes slightly dark. We know from her defamation trial affidavit, that Fiona Brown noticed a cleaner in the minister’s office early that Monday morning. Ms Brown noticed it but didn’t think too much of it. Unbeknown to her, several DPS managers, including Stefanic, Saunders, Tunningley and Butler were all aware of what had happened in that office, and yet nobody from DPS had contacted the minister or their Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown about it.
This is an unbelievable breach of protocol and one that angered both Brown and Linda Reynolds as we later found out in both Lehrmann trials and media reports. Brown was not informed of any of the goings-on with the office and staff under her charge until 11.45 am Tuesday March 26, 2019, four days after the incident. Why not?
Why did Rob Stefanic not immediately inform the Minister and the minister’s Chief of Staff on Saturday, the day that it happened? Why were The Cleaners keeping information the Minister had every right to know, from her and her Chief? Were they organising the story with somebody further up the chain? What authority did Rob Stefanic act with to not immediately advise the Minister of Defence, Linda Reynolds and her Chief, Fiona Brown of what had gone on in her office? Nobody has answered that question.
One thing we do know is that by Tuesday midday, the incident was now being referred to as a “security incident”. How did it get reclassified as that? Lehrmann and Higgins were in the office with full security clearance, the security guards would not have let them in otherwise.
Nikola Anderson said in her ABC interview that she knew nothing of an alleged “security incident”.
youtube.com/watch?v=h-H0f5…
Nor is there any other mention of that classification being used that day.
But by Tuesday, it was being spoken of as a “breach of security”. Was this label given to the issue by DPS and/or Finance so the incident had an extra shield over it and could then not be commented on as it related to “security”?
We’ll never know.
Part 11:
What happened in the days from there have been the subject of much scrutiny. One thing to reiterate though is that Brittany Higgins left Parliament House alone at approx. 10am that Saturday morning and was not officially communicated with about anything until approximately 1.30pm Tuesday March 26thm, 2019, when Fiona Brown called her into her office.
As far as Brittany was concerned, she knew nothing of the drama that had been happening around her, but that had never included her. She was coping with it all alone, not aware that anybody else in control even knew all the details.
When the AFP came to see Brittany at the Minister’s suite office on Wednesday March 27, she discovered to her confusion, that the AFP officers were already aware of the incident. Why had nobody spoken to her? How did the AFP officers know? Those AFP officers knew on Wednesday because DPS had told them. But DPS hadn’t passed on the information on Saturday when it mattered, only 5 days later, and even then, we are not sure exactly what DPS said.
Adding further to Brittany’s belief that she was being quietly side-lined, was the fact that once the incident complaint had progressed to the AFP’s sexual assault unit, the AFP subsequently informed her that DPS were refusing to hand over any CCTV footage of the incident. In fact, this refusal, authorised by Rob Stefanic, went on for many months. The then head of the AFP Andrew Colvin was so enraged was by DPS’s lack of cooperation, that he wrote a formal complaint to the head of the House of Reps and the President of the Senate about the way the AFP had been sidelined by DPS. However, was the fact that their DPS head had been stymieing the police’s request really such startling news to those two Parliament leaders?
In addition to this, Rob Stefanic also delayed the handing over of his incident report into the issue to the AFP. So much so, that eventually a senior AFP officer - two weeks after they had been repeatedly asking for the report - threatened to take the matter further. We know Stefanic compiled an incident report and handed it over to Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown in person on Wednesday March 27. So we know there actually was a report in existence, ready to go. Why the stonewalling by Stefanic? What was the purpose of all of this obfuscation?
See Rule 1. Also see Rule 3.
It’s difficult to believe that Stefanic delayed handing over these important details to the police without checking further up the hierarchy chain. Stefanic answered directly to the House Speaker, Tony Smith and the Senate President, Scott Ryan - both then Liberal party MPs. Scott Ryan claims he found out about the issue on Wednesday March 27, Tony Smith says he found out on April 8, 2019. Did Stefanic stonewall the police’s requests with the full knowledge and authority of his two bosses, in particular Scott Ryan? Or did Stefanic, a man with over 20 years in parliamentary services under his belt, decide to follow this line of action all by himself?
We will never know.
What happened in the days from there have been the subject of much scrutiny. One thing to reiterate though is that Brittany Higgins left Parliament House alone at approx. 10am that Saturday morning and was not officially communicated with about anything until approximately 1.30pm Tuesday March 26thm, 2019, when Fiona Brown called her into her office.
As far as Brittany was concerned, she knew nothing of the drama that had been happening around her, but that had never included her. She was coping with it all alone, not aware that anybody else in control even knew all the details.
When the AFP came to see Brittany at the Minister’s suite office on Wednesday March 27, she discovered to her confusion, that the AFP officers were already aware of the incident. Why had nobody spoken to her? How did the AFP officers know? Those AFP officers knew on Wednesday because DPS had told them. But DPS hadn’t passed on the information on Saturday when it mattered, only 5 days later, and even then, we are not sure exactly what DPS said.
Adding further to Brittany’s belief that she was being quietly side-lined, was the fact that once the incident complaint had progressed to the AFP’s sexual assault unit, the AFP subsequently informed her that DPS were refusing to hand over any CCTV footage of the incident. In fact, this refusal, authorised by Rob Stefanic, went on for many months. The then head of the AFP Andrew Colvin was so enraged was by DPS’s lack of cooperation, that he wrote a formal complaint to the head of the House of Reps and the President of the Senate about the way the AFP had been sidelined by DPS. However, was the fact that their DPS head had been stymieing the police’s request really such startling news to those two Parliament leaders?
In addition to this, Rob Stefanic also delayed the handing over of his incident report into the issue to the AFP. So much so, that eventually a senior AFP officer - two weeks after they had been repeatedly asking for the report - threatened to take the matter further. We know Stefanic compiled an incident report and handed it over to Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown in person on Wednesday March 27. So we know there actually was a report in existence, ready to go. Why the stonewalling by Stefanic? What was the purpose of all of this obfuscation?
See Rule 1. Also see Rule 3.
It’s difficult to believe that Stefanic delayed handing over these important details to the police without checking further up the hierarchy chain. Stefanic answered directly to the House Speaker, Tony Smith and the Senate President, Scott Ryan - both then Liberal party MPs. Scott Ryan claims he found out about the issue on Wednesday March 27, Tony Smith says he found out on April 8, 2019. Did Stefanic stonewall the police’s requests with the full knowledge and authority of his two bosses, in particular Scott Ryan? Or did Stefanic, a man with over 20 years in parliamentary services under his belt, decide to follow this line of action all by himself?
We will never know.
Part 12:
One thing we do know is that by Wednesday March 27th, when Rob Stefanic delivered an incident report to Senator Reynolds and Fiona Brown in the minister’s office, a few details within had been quietly massaged.
You’ll see in the screenshot of the report that the incident is officially classified as an “Other – Staff” issue, not a security breach issue. You’ll also note that “completely naked” has now become “undressed”.
Those two phrases have different meanings. You’ll also note that the female has now “acknowledged” Officer Anderson, when all Anderson said was that the female had “opened her eyes and rolled over”.
Opening your eyes is not at all like greeting someone.
Who massaged these details to soften them? We will never know.
Shades of grey.
One thing we do know is that by Wednesday March 27th, when Rob Stefanic delivered an incident report to Senator Reynolds and Fiona Brown in the minister’s office, a few details within had been quietly massaged.
You’ll see in the screenshot of the report that the incident is officially classified as an “Other – Staff” issue, not a security breach issue. You’ll also note that “completely naked” has now become “undressed”.
Those two phrases have different meanings. You’ll also note that the female has now “acknowledged” Officer Anderson, when all Anderson said was that the female had “opened her eyes and rolled over”.
Opening your eyes is not at all like greeting someone.
Who massaged these details to soften them? We will never know.
Shades of grey.
Part 13:
There are lots of things around the early days of the incident that remain unclear, like why the office was cleaned so urgently, not once, but twice.
The people involved with it say they didn’t know it was a crime scene. They also however, didn’t know it wasn’t.
They had a distressed female who had arrived drunk, along with a seemingly sober male who signed her in. They knew this because they’d been told this. The female had grass stains on her dress when she arrived, indicating her dishevelled state. They knew this because they’d been told this. The female was found naked and semi-conscious on a couch. They knew this because they’d been told this. The male she was with had abandoned her and left the building in a hurry. They knew this because they’d been told this.
Their highly experienced head of security repeatedly said to call the police. Several times he made this call. They knew this because Butler himself had told them this. They also knew Peter Butler had warned not to have the offices cleaned, warning them that they should leave it up to the AFP to make those determinations. They knew this because they’d been told this.
Of course nobody *knew* for certain that a sexual assault had taken place. It’s a ridiculous premise for somebody to claim they automatically *knew* anything. Not one of those adults there in charge that day thought for the remotest second that a sexual assault could have possibly occurred? Not one? It never crossed any of their minds? It certainly crossed the mind of Peter Butler, the head of security.
As Fiona Brown said many times during the Lehrmann defamation trial, “Couldn’t rule it in – couldn’t rule it out.”
So why did the people involved immediately rule it out? This is not in any way implying that the people involved behaved in an unlawful manner. It’s more a matter of curiosity. Stefanic, Saunders, Tunningley and Frost may not have had immediate knowledge - largely because they didn’t ask, and nobody confronted with any unexpected scene has immediate confirmed knowledge of anything - but they certainly had immediate indications that something wasn’t right. They may not have had confirmationof certain facts, but they were certainly conscious of certain facts.
So what were their immediate thoughts? They didn’t contact Linda Reynold’s Chief of Staff or even the Deputy Chief of Staff, who could have then contacted the female whose name and identity they knew, to see if she was alright, to see if she had arrived safely home or if there was anything they could do. Their main thought was to urgently clean the office. Urgently.
Mark Fairweather said at the criminal trial that he was worried the two had had sex in the office. But there were no reports from anyone at the time who’d entered the office that it was a mess or had debris lying around or was otherwise in a state of disarray. No reports anywhere that day said anything of the kind.
And yet the immediate thoughts of the DPS managers were to urgentlyclean an office that appeared to not require cleaning. Not clean it early Monday morning when the usual cleaning crew came in before everyone started work, but an urgent clean that required special permission from Dept of Finance and a specially credentialed cleaner to be called in, and a lot of extra paperwork compiled as well. An urgent clean, as soon as possible, right there and then.
The senior DPS managers would say they did this out of an abundance of caution. There could have been sex going on in there. Perhaps, although nothing appeared to be a mess. But they still thought they should follow through anyway and give the office a full thorough clean.
When it came to Brittany Higgins however, the same zeal and care was never extended to her. Nobody erred on the side of caution for Brittany, you know, double checking things just out of abundance of caution. Nobody called for help for her, nobody contacted her to see if she required any assistance. Even after she’d left the building and somehow made her way home, nobody communicated with Brittany in any way about the incident until the Tuesday afternoon when she was called into Fiona Brown’s office. Anything could have happened to Brittany. Nobody followed up on it. But the DPS senior staff certainly made sure that office was clean.
What happened that morning and in the days after was this - the welfare of Parliament House, the integrity of Parliament and all that it stood for, was placed far above the welfare and integrity of a young woman, Brittany Higgins.
There are lots of things around the early days of the incident that remain unclear, like why the office was cleaned so urgently, not once, but twice.
The people involved with it say they didn’t know it was a crime scene. They also however, didn’t know it wasn’t.
They had a distressed female who had arrived drunk, along with a seemingly sober male who signed her in. They knew this because they’d been told this. The female had grass stains on her dress when she arrived, indicating her dishevelled state. They knew this because they’d been told this. The female was found naked and semi-conscious on a couch. They knew this because they’d been told this. The male she was with had abandoned her and left the building in a hurry. They knew this because they’d been told this.
Their highly experienced head of security repeatedly said to call the police. Several times he made this call. They knew this because Butler himself had told them this. They also knew Peter Butler had warned not to have the offices cleaned, warning them that they should leave it up to the AFP to make those determinations. They knew this because they’d been told this.
Of course nobody *knew* for certain that a sexual assault had taken place. It’s a ridiculous premise for somebody to claim they automatically *knew* anything. Not one of those adults there in charge that day thought for the remotest second that a sexual assault could have possibly occurred? Not one? It never crossed any of their minds? It certainly crossed the mind of Peter Butler, the head of security.
As Fiona Brown said many times during the Lehrmann defamation trial, “Couldn’t rule it in – couldn’t rule it out.”
So why did the people involved immediately rule it out? This is not in any way implying that the people involved behaved in an unlawful manner. It’s more a matter of curiosity. Stefanic, Saunders, Tunningley and Frost may not have had immediate knowledge - largely because they didn’t ask, and nobody confronted with any unexpected scene has immediate confirmed knowledge of anything - but they certainly had immediate indications that something wasn’t right. They may not have had confirmationof certain facts, but they were certainly conscious of certain facts.
So what were their immediate thoughts? They didn’t contact Linda Reynold’s Chief of Staff or even the Deputy Chief of Staff, who could have then contacted the female whose name and identity they knew, to see if she was alright, to see if she had arrived safely home or if there was anything they could do. Their main thought was to urgently clean the office. Urgently.
Mark Fairweather said at the criminal trial that he was worried the two had had sex in the office. But there were no reports from anyone at the time who’d entered the office that it was a mess or had debris lying around or was otherwise in a state of disarray. No reports anywhere that day said anything of the kind.
And yet the immediate thoughts of the DPS managers were to urgentlyclean an office that appeared to not require cleaning. Not clean it early Monday morning when the usual cleaning crew came in before everyone started work, but an urgent clean that required special permission from Dept of Finance and a specially credentialed cleaner to be called in, and a lot of extra paperwork compiled as well. An urgent clean, as soon as possible, right there and then.
The senior DPS managers would say they did this out of an abundance of caution. There could have been sex going on in there. Perhaps, although nothing appeared to be a mess. But they still thought they should follow through anyway and give the office a full thorough clean.
When it came to Brittany Higgins however, the same zeal and care was never extended to her. Nobody erred on the side of caution for Brittany, you know, double checking things just out of abundance of caution. Nobody called for help for her, nobody contacted her to see if she required any assistance. Even after she’d left the building and somehow made her way home, nobody communicated with Brittany in any way about the incident until the Tuesday afternoon when she was called into Fiona Brown’s office. Anything could have happened to Brittany. Nobody followed up on it. But the DPS senior staff certainly made sure that office was clean.
What happened that morning and in the days after was this - the welfare of Parliament House, the integrity of Parliament and all that it stood for, was placed far above the welfare and integrity of a young woman, Brittany Higgins.
Part 14:
So many sliding doors moments passed.
So many opportunities to step in and do what anybody else would have done in any other workplace in Australia – except for Parliament House.
Imagine. Imagine if instead of Brittany being left there alone and naked on a couch, imagine if somebody in authority had conducted a proper medical check, right then, at the time instead of seeing her open her eyes, move and concluding that meant she was “alright”. Imagine if the DPS security staff actually felt they had the authority to intervene, instead of just shut-up.
Imagine if the second time a “welfare check” was done at 9.15am, somebody had actually spoken directly to Brittany about her welfare. Imagine if one of those people in authority had actually called an ambulance to help her, to attend to her. Imagine what those paramedics might have done or put into action from there.
Imagine if any of them had done as Peter Butler requested and called the police, so the police could immediately begin ascertaining what exactly had gone on. Imagine if the Minister’s office had been left alone and untouched until somebody in authority had actually determined for absolute certain what had gone on.
“Couldn’t rule it in – couldn’t rule it out,” as Fiona Brown said.
Imagine if all those people concerned with Brittany’s welfare had actually focused on her welfare and put her needs first, instead of the needs and reputation and welfare of Parliament House.
Imagine if everyone talking about Brittany over those first hours and days, had actually talked to Brittany.
Imagine how different the entire traumatic, seemingly never-ending scenario would have played out if all of those things had been handled differently, with only Brittany Higgin’s welfare as the sole, guiding principle right there at the very beginning.
But they did not.
And the Cleaner’s work was done.
So many sliding doors moments passed.
So many opportunities to step in and do what anybody else would have done in any other workplace in Australia – except for Parliament House.
Imagine. Imagine if instead of Brittany being left there alone and naked on a couch, imagine if somebody in authority had conducted a proper medical check, right then, at the time instead of seeing her open her eyes, move and concluding that meant she was “alright”. Imagine if the DPS security staff actually felt they had the authority to intervene, instead of just shut-up.
Imagine if the second time a “welfare check” was done at 9.15am, somebody had actually spoken directly to Brittany about her welfare. Imagine if one of those people in authority had actually called an ambulance to help her, to attend to her. Imagine what those paramedics might have done or put into action from there.
Imagine if any of them had done as Peter Butler requested and called the police, so the police could immediately begin ascertaining what exactly had gone on. Imagine if the Minister’s office had been left alone and untouched until somebody in authority had actually determined for absolute certain what had gone on.
“Couldn’t rule it in – couldn’t rule it out,” as Fiona Brown said.
Imagine if all those people concerned with Brittany’s welfare had actually focused on her welfare and put her needs first, instead of the needs and reputation and welfare of Parliament House.
Imagine if everyone talking about Brittany over those first hours and days, had actually talked to Brittany.
Imagine how different the entire traumatic, seemingly never-ending scenario would have played out if all of those things had been handled differently, with only Brittany Higgin’s welfare as the sole, guiding principle right there at the very beginning.
But they did not.
And the Cleaner’s work was done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
