Linda Reynolds is as bitter as an unripe quince. She is forever disappointed. She says “I am bitterly disappointed…” She says her “primary concern has always been how the Commonwealth could possibly settle unsubstantiated and statute barred claims made against me, alleging egregious conduct on my part without taking a single statement from me or speaking to me at all”.

A week earlier, at a conference in Geelong, Brittany Higgins introduced herself as a woman whose name became a headline and who like too many others was failed by the system purporting to protect her.

“Like so many people, until I actually was forced to engage in the criminal justice system, I didn’t realise how brutalising it is to report a rape and how hard it is to navigate the legal system,” she said.

“We must reimagine the criminal justice system as a space where survivors are supported, heard and treated with dignity.

“I am not standing here today to tear down the legal system. I’m standing here to say: it wasn’t built for us, and it hasn’t evolved fast enough to meet the needs of a society that now demands better.”

As Higgins spoke, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was finalising its investigation into a compensation payment made to her after she said she was raped in Reynolds’ office. The investigation was triggered by complaints from Peter Dutton and from Reynolds, who is still in the process of suing her for defamation.

The NACC was unequivocal. There was no corruption. The decision to pay Higgins compensation for lost earnings and medical bills and hurt and humiliation was based on independent legal advice.

There was nothing unusual or exceptional in the timing or approach. The advice to the Coalition government was the same as the advice to Labor. The approach never changed. The sum paid was less than the maximum amount recommended.

Crucially, there was no interference by ministers or officials. “To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government.”

A day before the NACC’s decision, Reynolds updated a separate claim in the federal court, where she is suing the Commonwealth over the settlement. She says former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus had a conflict of interest when he approved the payment, having publicly supported Higgins. She claims the settlement “enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins’ claim”.

While Reynolds pursues this, Higgins is campaigning for affirmative consent laws, for better police training and judicial practice. She is focused on a world larger than herself. She does not once mention bitterness. It is hard not to note the difference.

“This work will be difficult. It will be uncomfortable,” she says. “It will involve letting go of centuries of inherited legal thinking. But it will be worth it – because the next generation deserve to live in a country where justice doesn’t come at the cost of survival.” 

RELATED READING News ‘Some kind of monster’: Inside the Reynolds defamation trial Rick Morton Giving evidence in Linda Reynolds’ defamation trial, Scott Morrison says he doesn’t remember the details of the review he commissioned into Brittany Higgins’s rape but says Reynolds suffered as a result of prolonged ‘attacks’.