Did the Department of Parliamentary Services crisis manage the Brittany Higgins rape incident?
WARNING: This article 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.
This article is for everyone who has ever wanted to know the truth of who ordered the cleaning of Linda Reynold’s office at 4pm on Saturday March 23rd, the day after Brittany Higgins was raped by Bruce Lehrmann.
In the Federal Court Judgement, (Lehrmann v Ten) Justice Michael Lee found that ‘on the balance of probabilities’, Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins early in the morning on Saturday the 23rd of March 2019.
Department of Parliamentary Services — Key Staff
Below are the names and roles of the DPS staff and politicians who are mentioned in this article, and the positions they held on March 23, 2019.
For the key people in this story, we have included their positions before and after the March 2019 Parliament House incident.
Rob Stefanic
NSW Department of Parliamentary Services
Chief Executive, (Jul 2011 - Dec 2015)
Department of Parliamentary Services
Secretary (December 2015 — Current (On Leave)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-stefanic-b12b992/
Cate Saunders
Department of Parliamentary Services
Chief Operating Officer (Dec 2017 — March 2019)
Acting Deputy Secretary (April/March 2019 — April 2023)
Services Australia
General Manager People (Secondment April 2023)
Left Public Service (October 2023)
Negotiated an incentive to retire package $315,215
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2024/11/04/inquiry-public-servants-raid
https://www.linkedin.com/in/cate-saunders-897483119/
Leanne Tunningley
Department of Parliamentary Services
Director Risk, Audit, Planning and Performance (Aug 2018 — Mar 2019)
Assistant Secretary to Chief of Staff (Mar 2019 — Jun 2019)
Assistant Secretary (Jun 2019 — Oct 2024)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/leanne-t-8b1021125/details/experience/
Peter Butler
Department of Parliamentary Services
Director Security Operations (Jul 2017 — Sep 2022)
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Director of Security (Sep 2022 — Present)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-butler-j-p-mldship-mgt-policing-srmcp-7914a440/
Fiona Knight
Department of Parliamentary Services
Assistant Secretary, Building Services Branch (Jan 2017 — April 2019)
Stephen Frost
Department of Finance
Ministerial Liaison Manger (Employment Dates unknown)
Politicians and Staff
Senator Gallagher
Labor Party Senator
Kimberly Kitching
Labor Party Senator (now deceased)
Linda Reynolds
Minister of Defence
Fiona Brown
Acting Chief of Staff — Minister of Defence
What is the Department of Parliamentary Services?
The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) provides services and products to support the functioning of the Australian Parliament, and the work of parliamentarians. Working in collaboration with the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives, DPS provides, or facilitates the following:
- library and research services
- information and communication technology services
- security services
- building, ground and design integrity services
- audio visual and Hansard services
- art services
- visitor services
- food and beverage services
- retail, health, banking, and childcare services, and corporate, administrative and strategic services for DPS.
A Secretive Department
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is facing a call to reverse an “interim” law he introduced more than a decade ago to make a Parliament House department exempt from freedom of information requests.
It comes after ABC News detailed how the federal government department tasked with protecting Australia’s democracy is facing accusations of a toxic culture, the silencing of dissent and the routine cover-up of problems.
The revelations have highlighted the opaque nature in which the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) is allowed to operate, where the only documents released are done so at the department’s discretion.
Lack of transparency etc.
The full story: Who really ordered the cleaning of Linda Reynolds office?
After the aborted ACT Supreme Court criminal trial, two defamation trials, and the ACT inquiry, there has been volumes written about this case over the last 5 years.
However, this investigation has been focused on the details and evidence of who ordered the cleaning of Linda Reynolds office the day after Brittany Higgins was raped by Bruce Lehrmann in Minister Reynolds office.
Up until now this evidence has never been properly tested.
“Lucky it wasn’t a crime scene”
In her affidavit submitted to the Federal Court on Dec 15, 2023, as part of the Lehrmann v Ten defamation case, Fiona Brown recalled the following conversation with Linda Reynolds.
The Minister raised her concerns about her office being cleaned after the incident, and I said “it is lucky it wasn’t a crime scene”. I said those words because in my mind, it hadn’t been a crime scene. We also queried why security guards were allowing staff to enter after hours if their view was that they were drunk.
The Secretary (Rob Stefanic) said words to the effect that this was “not their job, if a staff member turns up and says they are there for urgent or work purposes, the security guards aren’t going to question that”.
We expressed our disagreement with that approach. The Minister was adamant and asked for this be looked into and changes made. The Secretary (Rob Stefanic) accepted and understood these concerns and said he would be reviewing these practices.
What happened immediately after that fateful night?
The rape of Brittany Higgins occurred in the early hours of Saturday March 23rd, 2019, after Brittany Higgins accompanied Bruce Lehrmann back to Parliament House at approximately 1:41am after a night of heavy drinking with colleagues and associates.
On 24/05/2021, the Senate Estimates Finance Committee questioned Rob Stefanic about the first 48 hours following the incident after it was first reported by APH Security Staff.
The Senate Estimates hearing included these attendees, with Scott Ryan the Senate President attending.
Senator GALLAGHER asked Rob Stefanic a series of questions about who ordered the cleaning of Linda Reynolds office at 4pm on Saturday March 24th, 2019, the day after the rape of Brittany Higgins.
This specific exchange between the Senator KITCHING and Rob Stefanic is especially interesting considering what we learn later on. Please take particular notice of both Rob Stefanic and Cate Saunders answers.
Senator KITCHING: Just going back to Senator Gallagher’s question about the cleaning: did you interact with the Department of Finance about the cleaning?
Mr Stefanic: I didn’t interact with the department
Senator KITCHING: Ms Saunders?
Mr Stefanic : Ms Saunders didn’t.
Ms Saunders : I did not have any direct communication with the Department of Finance in relation to the cleaning.
Senator KITCHING: Would it be Finance who would normally do the cleaning in the ministerial wing or have control of the cleaning in the ministerial wing?
Mr Stefanic: As a routine activity, the cleaning which is done by a contractor on behalf of DPS would not require any particular approval, obviously, because it is a routine activity. But, if there were any additional clean required, the Department of Finance’s approval would be sought for permission to access the suite. A clean wouldn’t be initiated unless requested.
Senator KITCHING: Requested by whom?
Mr Stefanic: The Department of Finance.
Senator KITCHING: So, the Department of Finance ordered the cleaning on the Saturday morning?
The President: We’re going to content again here.
Senator KITCHING: Not really. I’m asking who on Saturday 23 March asked for the cleaning to be done. Was it DPS or the Department of Finance? It’s a very simple question. It’s not a content question. It is a factual question.
The President: The advice I’ve tabled, which I was given by the AFP, is anything that constitutes, quote, ‘a fact in issue’ should not be disclosed. It would be a lot easier if I could answer a lot of questions, but at the risk of prejudicing an investigation or any subsequent or potential action by putting stuff on a public record of this nature, I am not willing to do that. With respect, you are actually asking about the content of interaction between DPS and Finance.
Senator KITCHING: I’m asking who on that Saturday morning asked for the cleaning.
The President: That goes to content. In my view, the words that I’m issued with are clear around what you assert are facts.
At that juncture any further questions on that topic were shut down by the Senate President, citing an agreement not to cross over into areas the active police investigation was looking into.
However, according to an anonymous letter sent to Kimberly Kitching in March 2020, it was Cate Saunders who ordered the irregular clean of Linda Reynolds office on Saturday the 24th of March, the day after the rape of Brittany Higgins.
This extract from the Master Chronology kindly (accidentally) supplied by Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer Steve Whybrow as part of the Affidavit of Taylor Auerbach sworn on 2nd April, 2024 to the Federal Court. It reveals an anonymous letter was sent to Senator Kimberly Kitching on the 6th March 2020 with the following details.
Whilst some of the details in this anonymous letter were incorrect this specific claim has never been tested properly before now.
The Director of Security Operations, Peter Butler warned DPS officials not to clean Linda Reynolds office and to call the AFP; but they ignored his advice.
In this article by Sam Maiden, she mentions a man by the name of Peter Butler who was the former Director of Security (DSO) at Parliament House who was in charge when the incident occurred.
Below is an extract from that article.
Mr Peter Butler was a former sworn New South Wales Special Constable through his work with transit police and in the NSW Sheriff’s office, Mr Butler had raised concerns over how the March 23, 2019 incident was handled for years. But his story has remained largely hidden from view, until now.
On the morning of March 23, 2019, Director of Security Peter Butler was in Wollongong after attending a concert. He was called at 7am that morning over a report that a young woman had been found naked in a ministerial suite.
By this stage, a female security officer Nikola Anderson had reported to her superiors that the woman appeared intoxicated when entering Parliament at 1:41am and did not have her pass. The incident report said the woman “stumbled” when going through the security checkpoint.
The man, according to the incident report and evidence at the trial, left around 30 minutes later “in a hurry”. When security staff noticed the woman had not left at the same time, they conducted a welfare check several hours later at 4:15 am and found the woman naked on the couch.
Mr Butler told the security staff to perform another welfare check later that morning. To protect the individual(s) he spoke to, who were not found to have behaved improperly, we will recall the woman ‘Jane Doe.’
“I advised Jane Doe of my concerns of the female being left in the minister’s suite and the fact that she appeared to have come into the building, either in an intoxicated or affected state,’’ Mr Butler told police.
“I still had concerns for her welfare.”
Mr Butler claims he advised the Department to engage with AFP officers. They were on site. But documents state he was later told it was “not a police matter.” Instead, they ordered the room to be cleaned.
“I’d been away for the night before at a concert in Wollongong and I was not able to attend Parliament House directly myself,’’ Mr Butler told police.
“I was continually receiving phone calls throughout the morning, seeking advice on what actions should be undertaken and what to do in relation to the matter. During one of those later phone calls, I had asked if the AFP had been engaged and had come yet, and I was told no, they haven’t.”
Mr Butler claims he raised concerns about the cleaning of the suite.
“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.
Now remember when Cate Saunders told Senate Estimates “I did not have any direct communication with the Department of Finance in relation to the cleaning”.
Did they mislead the Senate?
Leanne Tunningley
This is where the story gets really interesting, and we have confirmed from Sam Maiden’s article that Jane Doe was in fact Leanne Tunningley (First Assistant Secretary Security Division) after cross checking the evidence in the Master Chronology.
Who really ordered the office clean and why?
Inside the Master Chronology is this interesting and telling radio exchange between PSS Security Officer Alan Tyler and another PSS Security staff member called David. This conversation occurred at 12:30pm on Saturday 23rd March 2019.
They are trying to understand if they should give Leanne Tunningley the mobile phone number for Stephen Frost, the Department of Finance Liaison Manager.
What’s so interesting apart from their humour and sarcasm is how they didn’t really know who was in charge. And for astute readers it might be interpreted they knew of the relationship between Stefanic and Saunders and were being sarcastic about her suddenly being in charge of Building Services and Security.
Impressive alright!!
So let us try and understand what just happened.
It was Leanne Tunningley asking for Frost’s number, but Cate Saunders and Allan Tyler were standing right next to Tunningley at the same time he was on the radio to his workmate David.
Peter Butler stated in the Sam Maiden article linked to above, that his earlier call to Leanne Tunningley at 8:33am resulted in the matter being escalated to various representatives of the Department.
Timeline of Key events
At 8:33am Mr Butler formally reported the matter, which was escalated to various representatives of the Department of Parliamentary Services on Saturday, 23rd of March 2019. (Given Peter Butler was Head of Security this must have been Leanne Tunningley or Cate Saunders he spoke with).
Brittany Higgins was still asleep in Linda Reynolds office.
8.59am Peter Butler then reported matter to Stephen Frost. And this was recorded by Tunningley. (Remember This)
9.06am Cate Saunders tries to call Rob Stefanic
9.14am Rob Stefanic returns call to Cate Saunders. They discuss if an ambulance is necessary. And to maintain discretion.
9.15m Another welfare check was conducted. The security officer spoke to Ms Higgins through a closed door and said she indicated “everything was okay.”
9.30am Peter Butler calls Leanne Tunningley to advise that a welfare check had been done. Peter Butler again reiterated to Leanne Tunningley they should be engaging the AFP to handle the matter.
Leanne Tunningley then texts Cate Saunders to advise her that welfare check was done and ambulance not needed.
9.57 Allan Tyler PS Team Leader emailed Peter Butler to confirm additional welfare check was done and the female seemed OK.
10.02 At approximately 10:02am, Ms Higgins exited the building.
10.09 Cate Saunders and Leanne Tunningley arrive at Parliament House.
At this point Cate Saunders was advised by Peter Butler of the last welfare check and that the female was OK (Tunningley had already texted Saunders this info at 9.30am)
12.15 TUNNINGLEY asks security guards for Stephen Frosts phone number. Tunningley was in company of Saunders and Tyler when having this discussion.
Unanswered questions
1: Did Leanne Tunningley and Cate Saunders contact Stephen Frost to discuss cleaning Linda Reynolds office?
2: How did they know an ambulance was not needed? Was Brittany ever asked if she wanted an ambulance or offered medical help?
4: Why didn’t they speak to her that morning before she left the building at 10am?
5: Did Cate Saunders discuss the possibility of an ambulance with Leanne Tunningley in her call to Saunders at 8.33am i.e. before Saunders discussed ambulance issue with Stefanic at 9:14am?
The ‘Approval’ to Clean
At 12:40pm on Saturday the 23rd of March 2019 the Department of Finance Liaison Officer, Stephen Frost contacts the DSO (Peter Butler) and gives approval (via an email to Leanne Tunningley) for cleaning staff to access office to undertake cleaning.
The First Assistant Secretary (FAS), Building Services Branch, Fiona Knight was contacted and then organised the cleaning of Linda Reynolds office.
Here’s the kicker.
Why did Cate Saunders via Leanne Tunningley want Stephen Frost’s mobile number suddenly out of the blue at 12:30pm on that Saturday?
Why did they ask Alan Tyler and convince his workmate David they had the authority to have Stephen Frost’s mobile, when Leanne Tunningley had already recorded that she knew Peter Butler had contacted Stephen Frost earlier that morning at 8:30am! Why didn’t Leanne Tunningley simply ask Peter Butler for Stephen Frosts mobile? Why go behind his back?
The only reason she could foreseeably want it at that exact time was relating to the Higgins incident unfolding. And the only reason she or they needed to communicate with Stephen Frost at that exact time was to request the afterhours cleaning of the Defence Ministers office.
Now, we are assuming the request was not only in relation to cost (because it would have been a piddling amount of money in terms of the $160M a year Budget that is costs Parliament House to run) but also relating to a security matter. It was the Defence Ministers suite, and they couldn’t just go wandering in there. According to Senate Estimates, Rob Stefanic later confirmed this was the established protocol for unscheduled cleaning in Ministerial Suites. For starters registered cleaners with the right security clearance need to be engaged.
So, while an incident of concern is unfolding, Cate Saunders and her junior Leanne Tunningley hunt down the direct number of the official liaison officer for Department of Finance and then do what exactly? Call him and ask him for more loo paper?
There aren’t many possibilities at that time for her to want to contact him other than to request formal approval to clean the Defence Ministers Minister’s office.
There was no party, and they already knew that!
At 12:56pm Fiona Knight received call from Leanne Tunningley who told her they had to organise a cleaner urgently in the Ministerial suites due to a staff party which was there last night, and someone may have vomited in there.
At 1.02pm Leanne Tunningley sent an email to Stephen Frost.
Further to our discussion if you could please put the request through to me via email to have the suite cleaned and provide permission for the cleaning.
1.05pm An email was received by Leanne Tunningley from Stephen Frost approving the cleaning.
Fancy that!
How to quickly get the office cleaned!
Who said there was a party in the Ministers Office? Nikola Anderson did not report that in her Security Report to Peter Butler earlier that morning. And Leanne Tunningley had already spoken earlier with Peter Butler at 8:33am where he told her all the details of incident as reported by PSS Team leader Alan Tyler.
There was never any mention of a party happening by Peter Butler or Alan Tyler. (It must have been a small party of two as they knew only two occupants had entered).
The only conclusion any fair-minded observer could make is they needed to convince Fiona Knight and Stephen Frost of a reason for the unscheduled office clean without alerting them to their prior knowledge of the incident. In follow up emails from Leanne Tunningley it’s clear that Saunders and Tunningley wanted Stephen Frost to document the requests via an official email chain, so it looked like it was the Department of Finance who requested the office clean.
In other words, they were covering their tracks.
What Security Breach?
In the ABC 4Corners episode Nikola Anderson explains how there was no security breach. Both Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins were cleared by APH Security to access Linda Reynolds office after hours.
So when did the incident first become a ‘Security Breach’? And more importantly why?
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the man Brittany Higgins accuses of raping her that night was later sacked over a security breach it was because of a security breach that was the reason for it and it as i understand it related to the entry into those premises.
Miss Anderson questions whether the prime minister has been given the right information.
“What was the security breach because the night that we were on shift there was no security breach.”
Much of this story is obscured by shades of grey but this is black and white!
There was NO “security incident”.
Who changed the Incident Report?
There is nothing recorded in any of the evidence in this case that described the incident as a ‘security incident’ until Rob Stefanic personally delivered the initial DPS Report to Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown on Wednesday the 27th March, 2019.
The initial incident report submitted by Peter Butler, the Director of Security Operations categorised the type of incident as Staffing Issue/APH Occupants.
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”.
There is no other mention of that label to describe the incident used by any of the APH security staff who were on duty that day. But after Wednesday the 27th of March 2019, it was suddenly 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”? Was it then classified as a security incident so Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds could use it as the reason for sacking Lehrmann, given he had the earlier Security Incident on March 19th? Given that if they sacked Lehrmann for the ‘Afterhours Incident’ then they would have had to sack Brittany as well and go into the real details of what actually happened.
The harsh reality is, we may never really know.
However, what we do know, is the incident report given to Linda Reynolds by Rob Stefanic on Wednesday the 27th of March was sanitised to change the word ‘naked’ to ‘undressed’ and the type of incident was changed from (Staffing issue/APH occupants) to (Security Incident).
The wording of Nikola Anderson’s report was also altered to suggest Ms Higgins had acknowledged Officer Anderson.
However, Nikola Andersons’ initial report stated the following.
“I opened the door and found the female asleep lying on her back, completely naked on the lounge that was positioned at the entry way of the door. The female half opened her eyes, looked at me and turned positions on the lounge so that she was then facing outwards. I had noticed that her shoes and her dress were on the floor next to the lounge that she was sleeping on. I believed the female to be sleeping off her night, she was breathing, conscious and didn’t appear to be in any distress which then concluded my welfare check. To prevent any further humiliation and loss of dignity I closed the minister’s door behind me as I left. I immediately called my nightshift team leader.”
Nobody ever spoke with Nikola Anderson again about the incident until after the Brittany Higgins story broke in February 2021.
Gaps in the timeline
There is a noticeable gap in all the recorded evidence of what actually took place between 10:09am and 12:15pm involving Peter Butler, Leanne Tunningley, Cate Saunders and Rob Stefanic.
What were they all doing in that time? We simply don’t know because there is no public record of this anywhere.
Were they having a crisis meeting? Were phone calls being made to Rob Stefanic or the PMO? Did they have a tea break? We may never know.
DPS Officials questioned
On Tuesday the 28th May 2024, Rob Stefanic told @sbasfordcanales at @guardiannews he denied being in a relationship with Cate Saunders.
Yet rumours and speculation over their undeclared relationship continued to such a point that Cate Saunders went on secondment to Services Australia on 17th April 2023. However, she still owned her job at DPS.
Rob Stefanic signed an MOU for the secondment. Whilst on secondment to Services Australia, Cate Saunders opted for early retirement and received $315,000 payout. Stefanic says he gave delegation to Services Australia to negotiate payout. But payout was paid by DPS because she essentially belonged to DPS.
In this article Rob Stefanic denied they were in a relationship at the time he made her Deputy Secretary (When was that exactly?) but then he refused to say exactly when they were in a relationship. And he very cleverly didn’t mention if he meant when she was first appointed as acting Deputy Secretary in March 2019, or the specific date he first made her acting Deputy Secretary!
Who is Cate Saunders?
This is a short bio for Cate Saunders. Long term followers will be interested in some of those previous roles Ms Saunders has undertaken.
The Silent Promotion
It is a massive coincidence that Cate Saunders just happened to be made acting Deputy Secretary (a new role that wasn’t formalised until the following year) around the same time as the Higgins incident occurred.
On Cate Saunders LinkedIn page it says she started as Deputy Secretary in April 2019, but according to all the evidence from the Higgins trial and defamation cases she was already acting in the role either before or around the time of the Higgins incident on March 23, 2019.
The DPS 2017/18 Annual Report states that Cate Saunders was the COO up until March 18th, 2019. According to the org chart in the 2017/18 Annual Report the COO was not responsible for Building Services or Security.
Rob Stefanic told Senate Estimates on April 8th, 2019 that last month (March 2019) he had “informed” the presiding officers of the Senate of his “intention” to create a 12-month trial position of Deputy Secretary.
According to a verified source on March 18th, 2019, Rob Stefanic sent an all-staff email informing them he was intending to create a position of Deputy Secretary and he was going to appoint Cate Saunders into that role. However once again the wording of that email is non-specific to the exact date Cate Saunders was appointed acting Deputy Secretary and when she actually commenced in that role.
This raises lots and lots of questions.
How did they go through the process of appointing Cate Saunders as acting Deputy Secretary in less than 5 days (4 working days) before the Higgins incident on March 23rd. 2019?
What was the process?
And more even importantly were Cate Saunders and Rob Stefanic in a relationship at the time?
Did Rob Stefanic or Cate Saunders get a phone call after the Parliament House Security Officer Nikola Anderson found Brittany naked, and in the state she was found in at 4:15am?
Did Rob Stefanic appoint Cate Saunders as Deputy Secretary in that moment, so she (and by proxy) he, had full control over DPS Building Services and Security?
The Australian public and more importantly Brittany Higgins have a right to know how Cate Saunders was suddenly made acting Deputy Secretary around the time the shit was hitting the fan on March 23, 2019!!
October 3, 2024 — NACC Raid on Parliament House
The Department of Parliamentary Services has declined to confirm whether it was the target of a visit by the National Anti-Corruption Commission last week.
NACC investigators went to Parliament House to seek further information to assist with an ongoing investigation but neither the DPS nor the NACC would confirm to The Mandarin if reports in The Guardian that the NACC dropped into the DPS were correct.
The DPS directed queries over to the NACC in one line.
“Questions regarding the operations of the National Anti-Corruption Commission should be referred to them for their response,” the DPS statement provided to The Mandarin reads.
The NACC said an ongoing investigation prompted the visit to the building on the hill.
“The commission can confirm it carried out operational activity last week at Parliament House. This was in relation to an ongoing investigation,” the NACC statement says.
“Beyond confirming that the activity did not relate to a current or former parliamentarian, it is inappropriate to comment further as to do so may compromise operational activities or unfairly impact reputations.”
However, the Guardian Newspaper went further citing inside sources had confirmed it was DPS offices the NACC raided.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission’s raid conducted at Parliament House on Thursday was related to the Department of Parliamentary Services, according to sources within the building.
Guardian Australia has been told that part of the department was closed off when officers arrived to conduct a search.
Guardian Australia also witnessed an area of the department, which is normally open for entry during business hours, with its doors still closed on Thursday afternoon.
The NACC has confirmed it attended Parliament House on Thursday. It declined to answer questions about the subject of its inquiries.
What is Moral Disengagement?
Moral disengagement refers to psychological processes through which individuals justify and rationalise unethical behavior while preserving their self-image of being moral people.
Here’s a breakdown of how it typically works:
- Moral Justification: This involves reinterpreting the morality of one’s actions by convincing oneself that the behavior serves a higher moral purpose. For example, believing that causing harm is acceptable if it’s for the “greater good.”
- Euphemistic Labeling: Using language that makes harmful actions sound more acceptable or benign. Military terms like “collateral damage” for civilian casualties is an example.
- Advantageous Comparison: Comparing one’s actions to something considered worse to make them seem less bad or even acceptable. “At least what I did isn’t as bad as what someone else did.”
- Displacement of Responsibility: When individuals believe they are not responsible for the moral consequences of their actions because they were just following orders, or their role was minor.
- Diffusion of Responsibility: In group settings, individuals might feel less personally accountable because the responsibility is spread across many people.
- Disregard or Distortion of Consequences: Minimizing, ignoring, or denying the harm caused by one’s actions.
- Dehumanization: Viewing the victim(s) as less than human, making it easier to harm them without feeling moral conflict. This often happens in contexts like war or extreme political rhetoric.
- Attribution of Blame: Blaming the victims for what happened to them or attributing their misfortune to their own actions, thus absolving oneself of guilt.
Moral disengagement allows individuals or groups to engage in behavior that they would typically find unethical or wrong without feeling the usual moral discomfort. This concept is important in understanding how people can commit acts of violence, fraud, or other forms of harm while still maintaining a positive self-image. It’s studied in fields like psychology, ethics, and organisational behavior to understand phenomena ranging from everyday dishonesty to large-scale atrocities.
Former Public Servant Steve Davies @OZloop has written a handbook on this topic and we can’t recommend it highly enough.
The People’s House
Our Parliament or the ‘people’s house’ is meant to be the bastion of democracy, a place where the highest standards of integrity are held up for the country to have faith in our political system.
Sadly, it has been degraded time and time again into a place where dark secrets are kept, transparency removed, and seasoned gatekeepers like Stefanic are placed and supported by all those who want their own secrets kept hidden.
There have been several reviews into workplace culture at Parliament House, and within DPS, with none of them really successful in achieving substantial changes. If we want to fix our democracy, we have to start with fixing the problems with the ‘people’s house’, and the veil of secrecy and firewalls that are setup to obstruct.
Hopefully our research into the way DPS managed the rape of Brittany Higgins, will be the start of more seismic and lasting changes.
We can only hope.
Summary of key findings
- The initial incident report submitted by Parliament House Security Staff was altered by DPS officials before it was provided to the AFP or Defence Ministers Office.
- The incident report was sanitised to change the word ‘naked’ to ‘undressed’ and the type of incident was changed from (Staffing issue/APH occupants) to (Security Incident). The wording of Nikola Anderson’s report was also altered to suggest Ms Higgins had acknowledged Officer Anderson.
- Peter Butler, Director of Security Operations strongly advised both Cate Saunders and Leanne Tunningley on the morning of Saturday 23rd March 2019 not to have the office cleaned, and to call the AFP to investigate the incident first.
- Parliament House Security Officer, Nikola Anderson told ABC 4Corners there was no security breach.
- DPS officials requested approval to do a ‘urgent’ unscheduled clean of Linda Reynolds office and told Department of Finance Liaison Officer Stephen Frost it was because a ‘party’ had occurred, and someone may have vomited.
- DPS officials sanitised their role in the request to clean Minister Reynolds office by getting MLM Stephen Frost to write emails ‘requesting’ the office clean.
- On 28th May, 2024 the Senate Estimates Finance Committee questioned DPS Secretary Rob Stefanic over his undisclosed relationship with Cate Saunders and the timing and process of her promotion to acting Deputy Secretary sometime in March 2019.
- On 4th October 2024 the NACC raid DPS offices at Parliament House with a warrant to enter, search and seize documents and devices.
- On 9th October 2024 the DPS Secretary Rob Stefanic went on a sudden ‘period of unscheduled leave’.
- Former anti-corruption commissioner Jaala Hinchcliffe steps in as the acting DPS Secretary after Rob Stefanic announces his sudden decision to take leave.
Sources/References
Federal Court Evidence and Exhibits
- Exhibit 60 (Bundle of documents and correspondence) (PDF, 28.2 MB)
- Affidavit of Taylor Auerbach sworn 30 March 2024 (PDF, 94.8 MB)
- Affidavit of Nikola Lee Anderson sworn 6 October 2023 (PDF, 2.7 MB)
- Exhibit R87 (Notes of Fiona Brown) (PDF, 7.2 MB)
- Affidavit of Fiona Brown sworn 15 December 2023 (PDF, 824.9 KB)
- DPS Annual Reports
Senate Estimates
- Senate Estimates Finance Committee Hansard — May 2024
- https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadestimatesquestions/EstimatesQuestion-CommitteeId1-EstimatesRoundId24-PortfolioId1-QuestionNumber141
Other Sources
Media Articles
- The Brittany Higgins story: an allegation of sexual assault in Australian politics | Four Corners
- https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0706
- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/20/bruce-lehrmann-timeline-defamation-trial-brittany-higgins-rape-allegation-network-ten-lisa-wilkinson-ntwnfb
- https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/police-investigation-into-alleged-parliament-rape-close-to-going-to-prosecutors-20210525-p57uwp.html
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/department-of-parliamentary-services-toxic-culture-cover-ups/103890240
- https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-fights-to-appeal-against-bruising-defamation-suit-loss/news-story/1e5f470b0afa1e88b513134e4af6b1f8
- https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/brittany-higgins-incident-reports-into-alleged-werent-handed-to-police-for-two-weeks
