Senator Reynolds

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,854
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Senator Reynolds did not cover herself with glory as a Minister in the Morrison Government & has been written off politically (my opinion), so it will be interesting to watch her attempts at redemption:

(the article is lengthy & I have not posted it in full in deference to the rules over copyright.)


'With this week marking the two-year anniversary of the explosive interview with Higgins by Lisa Wilkinson on The Project, Reynolds wants to set the record straight. Once and for all time, she says.

Reynolds spoke with The Weekend Australian last weekend, over more than four hours. As she sat down, she said she would answer every question. No holds barred. She is a no-nonsense woman. There is not a hint of self-pity. Which is remarkable given that Reynolds has been portrayed as a central villain in the Higgins story, a political conspirator who hid the rape of her staffer prior to the 2019 federal election.

At the outset, Reynolds tells me she respects Higgins’ right to tell her story. “I respected her agency and it was her to story to tell. Just because it didn’t match with my recollection of events and my story, it doesn’t invalidate her right to tell her story, which she has,” Reynolds says.

“But it didn’t accord with my recollection of what had happened two years ago.”

Reynolds was not able to tell her story during the criminal trial last year; prosecutor Shane Drumgold treated her as a hostile witness during the trial. Reynolds was prevented from telling her story during the civil claim where Higgins made serious allegations against her former boss and also against Reynolds’ chief of staff, Fiona Brown; Labor Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus used his powers to muzzle Reynolds, instructing her not to attend the mediation in return for the commonwealth paying her legal fees.

Reynolds recounts watching the Project interview in her office with her staff. “It was just like a bomb went off in my head. It was like, what is, what is Lisa saying? What is this conversation about me and about Fiona?” Reynolds says. “Because almost everything that was said did not accord with my recollection of what had happened two years previously.

“I actually couldn’t believe what I was hearing and seeing. It was just such a shock. Being accused of covering up the rape of a young woman for political purposes. It was like a stake through my heart.

“It hurt,” she says, quietly.

That pain is still not far from the surface. The 57-year-old former defence minister recalls how Labor senators “just kept at me asking me questions day after day, essentially saying that I covered up the rape of a young woman. And that was one of the most distressing and confronting things in your workplace, having your colleagues not only in your workplace, but in front of the entire nation, accusing you day after day of covering up the rape of a woman.”

Labor senators Penny Wong and Katy Gallagher led the charge, using a pincer movement in the days and weeks that followed the Project interview. Between them they asked Reynolds eight questions in the Senate on February 15, 2019, the night the Project interview aired. With no clue about what was about to explode that night, Reynolds didn’t have immediate access to notes or files. The next day, February 16, another six questions were fired at Reynolds; the next day, another nine.

Reynolds gave a statement in the Senate on February 18, setting out how, during a meeting with Higgins, she offered her young staffer full support in whatever course of action she chose. In that statement to her Senate colleagues, Reynolds asked that this very serious issue be dealt with “away from politics”.

Not a chance. Labor senators lined up the next day, posing nine questions to her, then a dozen more the following day.

Reynolds maintained then what she maintains now: she did the right thing, supporting Higgins, encouraging her to speak with AFP officers in Parliament House and to seek counselling if that’s what she wanted. “Parliament is the last place, and the media is the last place that these matters should ever be discussed,” she says to me. “Having supported family members and friends, and a colleague in the parliament as well, a staffer in previous years … I understood the concept of agency from those personal experiences. Anything relating to sexual assault … these are not matters that should be played out in public.”



After the Higgins allegations exploded on the national stage two years ago, Reynolds recounts that she requested a private meeting with Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins on February 23, 2021, to discuss the issue. In late September, Reynolds met Jenkins again for an extended interview for her report that was precipitated by the Higgins scandal. “She (Jenkins) was unable to advise me what more I could have done.”

On the ABC’s Insiders program in March 2021, Jenkins confirmed that a victim-centric approach means respecting the agency of women as to whether they wish to make a police complaint. Jenkins alluded to the “very wicked problem” that ministers face when confronted with these issues.
Reynolds was attacked day in, day out for her handling of this matter, including for not informing prime minister Scott Morrison. But she maintains she was respecting Higgins’ agency.

“Was I going to tell the prime minister? No,” she insists. “If you were a staff member in BHP, if you were thinking about whether you were going to make a complaint, if you were talking to police and counsellors, would you want someone else to tell the CEO? Doing so without their permission is a violation of their agency.”


The day before her breakdown, Morrison had very publicly rebuked Reynolds, describing it as unacceptable that she had not told him or his office about the alleged rape in her office.

Reynolds tells me that Morrison expressed regret to her in private the next day when Reynolds was escorted, in a state of collapse, from the Senate chamber into the Senate anteroom, and then into Dean Smith’s office.

“He was clearly sorry for what had happened to me. And I explained to him why I couldn’t and didn’t tell him, and he understood,” she says.

“While she never said the rape word, we had sort of thought she may have had some concerns, something had happened. But it was never my story to tell anyone.”

I ask Reynolds about the extent of the collateral damage done to her, attacked in the Senate, in the media, hung out to dry by her own side. “I could have died,” she says simply.

Reynolds ended up in hospital on the eve of a National Press Club address.


‘I feel sorry for Brittany’

“There are no winners from this,” she says more than once to me.

“I feel very sorry for Brittany Higgins because her personal circumstances should always have been played out in the privacy of the justice system – she was terribly exploited by proponents of the #MeToo movement, by opponents of the government.


heard/news-story/42429034d30d325f498b4882cbcfc796
 
Reset the Oz " Lisa Wilkinson " counter !

great piece on Mediawatch this week about how, despite sam maiden being employed by the same company, her being sued didn't seem to get mentioned as much as Lisa has


Jim ok.jpg
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

How does an interview with the official LNP mouthpiece clear anything up? I'm sure she'll answer every single question she's written for them.
Reynolds is calling the shots, as anyone can.
See The Guardian has picked it up so 'sheltered workshop' commentary is open to those needing it.
 
Limiting news sources limits your understanding of what Reynolds is on about.
See the 'white supremacy' story out of Alice Springs as an example of limiting news sources.

Limiting Newscorp news sources is a very good step in any attempt to understand anything.
 
Limiting news sources limits your understanding of what Reynolds is on about.
See the 'white supremacy' story out of Alice Springs as an example of limiting news sources.
A person in that meeting said that was how she felt the mood in room was, not a statement of fact but one person's opinion and part of Australia lost their mind because someone said the quiet part out loud.
 
A person in that meeting said that was how she felt the mood in room was, not a statement of fact but one person's opinion and part of Australia lost their mind because someone said the quiet part out loud.
The ABC have pulled it down for the good reason. Are you across why ?
ALL current media are flawed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they are equally flawed.

Check out the sheltered workshops here on BF. Many here read only what they want to hear (sic)

I don't think they should have pulled it.
See Alice Springs town meeting

'The ABC Ombudsman has determined that the story was not in accordance with standards 2.1 (accuracy) and 4.5 (impartiality) of the editorial policies. ABC News apologises to audiences for providing an incomplete picture of the event in this instance. Following this report, ABC News published additional coverage of the issue which included a broader range of perspectives and context'.
 
Check out the sheltered workshops here on BF. Many here read only what they want to hear (sic)


See Alice Springs town meeting

'The ABC Ombudsman has determined that the story was not in accordance with standards 2.1 (accuracy) and 4.5 (impartiality) of the editorial policies. ABC News apologises to audiences for providing an incomplete picture of the event in this instance. Following this report, ABC News published additional coverage of the issue which included a broader range of perspectives and context'.
Great isn't it? ABC self monitoring, acknowledging and fixing. Hard to find anything like this in the sheltered workshops you prefer.

Check out the number of complaints before Press Council and which media outlets. No prize for guessing that the majority are Murdoch owned media outlets.

 

Perhaps another for the Press Council?



ABC self monitoring, acknowledging and fixing.

Needing a Senate Committee to expose the MDs ignorance of the issue, i.e drumming up race hatred. No wonder the ABC in the NT are upset at Ultimo's 'know better' editing.

No doubt you were appalled by Kamahl being described as an 'honorary white'.
Same dance, different step.
 
You have no idea what is in it , NO IDEA.
The same "News" Organisation is going to lose Billions because internally they admit they know they're lying, but they're going to continue to tell people what they want to hear, even if it's not true.

And the Chairman - Murdoch, offers to do anything at all to get the GOP elected.

It's all in writing and sworn testimony.

ANYTHING you read in the Murdoch papers has to be read in that vein. Selective editing and management means this article should be considered a press release, not journalism.

I'll judge Reynolds on what she did and said at the time, rather than what her PR team has come up with a year later. So I don't need to read the article to comment on Linda Reynolds' behaviour or character, though I have read snippets of this weekends puffery.

Reynolds is claiming she's the victim because the things she said and did were acts of incompetence/negligence. Her reputation is in tatters because she's an awful person, not because people spoke publicly about what an awful person she is. This is the part some people, conservatives in particular seem to miss.

It's like Dutton's Mrs saying he's not a bad person, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They're more concerned about the public appearance of their behaviour than the actual substance of their behaviour. Even Perrottet was trying to paper over a revenge-pr0n blackmailing by somebody senior in his own Govt. No doubt in 6 months, Murdoch will run another sob-story for him too. Hell, they're even promoting Latham at the moment.
 
The same "News" Organisation is going to lose Billions because internally they admit they know they're lying, but they're going to continue to tell people what they want to hear, even if it's not true.

And the Chairman - Murdoch, offers to do anything at all to get the GOP elected.

It's all in writing and sworn testimony.

ANYTHING you read in the Murdoch papers has to be read in that vein. Selective editing and management means this article should be considered a press release, not journalism.

I'll judge Reynolds on what she did and said at the time, rather than what her PR team has come up with a year later. So I don't need to read the article to comment on Linda Reynolds' behaviour or character, though I have read snippets of this weekends puffery.

Reynolds is claiming she's the victim because the things she said and did were acts of incompetence/negligence. Her reputation is in tatters because she's an awful person, not because people spoke publicly about what an awful person she is. This is the part some people, conservatives in particular seem to miss.

It's like Dutton's Mrs saying he's not a bad person, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They're more concerned about the public appearance of their behaviour than the actual substance of their behaviour. Even Perrottet was trying to paper over a revenge-pr0n blackmailing by somebody senior in his own Govt. No doubt in 6 months, Murdoch will run another sob-story for him too. Hell, they're even promoting Latham at the moment.
I genuinely can't believe that after Rachelle Miller and her evidence in the Robodebt RC that the Oz is still trying to get away with running this sort of rubbish. It reads like a Simon Benson special.
 
Needing a Senate Committee to expose the MDs ignorance of the issue, i.e drumming up race hatred. No wonder the ABC in the NT are upset at Ultimo's 'know better' editing.

No doubt you were appalled by Kamahl being described as an 'honorary white'.
Same dance, different step.


You know the thing about brains, is that there are people who will read all three of these tweets and still think that the payout was more than $3m and that Higgins is just after money, because it suits their narrative. Brains will filter out the information which doesn't suit their narrative and the only thing they'd take from this is that it confirms Higgins is a money-hungry liar. When all evidence points to the contrary.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top