The one battle Linda Reynolds must lose to truly win

Witness what is happening between former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds and Brittany Higgins, who was found, on the balance of probabilities, to have been raped by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House in 2019.

In case you missed it, Justice Paul Tottle in the WA Supreme Court found Higgins and her husband David Sharaz defamed Reynolds on social media. He ordered Higgins to pay a total of $315,000 in damages, plus interest, to Reynolds. Legal costs to come. Terrifying.

I asked Rick Sarre, emeritus professor in law and criminal justice at the University of South Australia, who has followed the case carefully, about it. Reynolds, he says, is entitled to chase the money. She's won the defamation battle. "But she hasn't yet won the financial victory which, legally, she is entitled to do."

He also warned Higgins and Sharaz against entering bankruptcy. "It is the last thing you want to do. It ruins your career for the rest of your life because of the long-term consequences of a public display of financial insecurity."

But are there long-term consequences in chasing a rape victim into bankruptcy?

I asked Andrew Hughes, lecturer in marketing at the Australian National University and an expert on political branding, what he thought.

Hughes was blunt. He believes the approach is going to further damage Reynolds's reputation.

"I understand that she probably wants a sense of vindication," says Hughes.

Sure, I say. But isn't revenge junk food for the soul? Or as Tacitus put it a couple of millennia ago: "Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit, because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure."

Hughes is far too serious a public intellectual to indulge me in my pop psychology. Shame. And he's kinder than me.

"Reynolds feels as if Higgins has destroyed her career," says Hughes. When I asked about Reynolds and revenge, Hughes says: "But where does that end?"

His view is that people will observe Reynolds chasing the payout and will wonder if, indeed, the former senator is going too far. "Higgins has already gone through the wringer ... but for Reynolds' reputation going into the future, I believe her pursuit of the money does long-term damage."

How so? He says that this is not just short-term issue on social media feeds which eventually washes away. He says her behaviour has a long-term impact. Why?

"Because of who Brittany Higgins is. In terms of the original case, we obviously believe Brittany.

"And when it comes to Reynolds, there's a sense we believe her as well on the defamation issues but at the same time, Higgins has gone through a serious traumatic event. They are not going to do things in the realm of rational thought for a while. She probably wasn't in a good head space and there needs to be some compassion towards that."

Hughes is firm on this: "Most people look at it like that like, 'Yep, you got the judgment. You got the win now. Let it go because that's a person [Higgins] who needs to heal, that person needs to recover. And you need to get on with your life'."

What is Linda Reynolds doing now, aside from chasing Sharaz and Higgins for millions of dollars? It's not entirely clear, although I hear she's doing work with Liberal women in Western Australia. Anyone trying to assist women in the Liberal Party deserves both a medal and therapy.

Here's my plan for the future of Brittany Higgins and Linda Reynolds. They meet publicly. Reynolds acknowledges the harm done to Higgins by Bruce Lehrmann, whose account of what happened that night was described by Justice Michael Lee as "an elaborate fancy". I know that Reynolds accepts that Higgins was raped so this bit should be easy: Higgins accepts that Reynolds feels genuinely hurt by the tweets. Yes, it's hard for those of us on the outside of politics to see the real people underneath. Apparently they exist.

They both agree that Bruce Lehrmann is not a good person. And we all move on: Higgins, to a life where she can focus on her little fam and a future; and Reynolds, to a life where she can cement her legacy. That would be sustainable, that would be fair.

It's all been a giant cock-up from start to (what seems like it will never) finish. And the culture of Parliament House continues. Late nights. Drinking. Harassment. Bullying.

MORE JENNA PRICE:

Maria Maley worked on Kate Jenkins' report into the culture at Parliament House, which ended up as the 28 recommendations in Set the Standard. Maley, soon to be an associate professor of politics at ANU, is keen to hear the outcome of the current review into how the recommendations have been implemented - but it's a slow process, even as we know there is still work to be done on improving the culture.

It's now years since we knew, in detail, what the culture was like and the impacts on the women who work(ed) there. We need to know what the external independent reviewer found - is it any better? What can we do to make it better? Why the hell is it taking so long?

That's the bottom line - those 28 recommendations. Until we sort that, there will be an endless procession of victims. We can't afford that. And the women who work in Parliament House can't afford that either.