I thought the same when I read that the government was paying out Brittany Higgins. You and I don't know what happened between her and Bruce Lehrmann. That's not the point. There are a number of serious concerns.

First the Commonwealth is paying out a claim without putting it to any real test. Both of Ms Higgins' direct employers apparently have clearly different versions of events of what might have happened that night in Parliament House but they don't get to put them to the Commonwealth before the government decides to fork out millions of your and my dollars. That seems dodgy to me.

Second the Commonwealth appears to have locked out the view the two ministers may have put by threats of not paying their legal fees. Surely a Labor government wouldn't bully women. Extraordinary. A previous federal Labor government paid around half a million dollars for Carmen Lawrence's legal fees in a WA royal commission into her actions as a member of the state parliament. But they threaten not to pay the fees of federal ministers doing their jobs!

Third, confidentiality of the settlement. The rules make it clear that confidentiality should only be agreed in rare circumstances. They should tell us what they are

Fourth, do members of the government have an interest in this matter just going away and are you and I paying for that. The now-Prime Minister, Attorney General, Finance Minister and Foreign Minister all said things indicating that Ms Higgins claims were true. No thought appears to have been given to innocent until proven guilty. That's just appalling. Indeed evidence in court showed that Ms Higgins' partner David Shiraz stated that the Finance Minister would "probe and continue it going" once the allegations were aired. Current ministers knew about this and set about weaponising it for political gain. Did anybody make a fuss in parliament as to whether Mr Lehrmann had been given the presumption of innocence? When parliament appears to care little for one of the cornerstones of our freedom you might start to be concerned.

Fifth, any employer and manager must now be in a state of high concern if not panic. That Ms Higgins went to an after work drinks function with people from her workplace and others and by her own admission chose to drink a lot is irrelevant. What's scary, and has been from the beginning, is that her employer appears to accept responsibility for whatever consequences followed. Is an employer responsible for the consequences of actions taken outside the workplace because a worker happened to go back to the workplace by choice, after hours.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

How did the government come to the conclusion that they were liable? Labor made a mistake in the first instance with the Higgins saga. The political opportunity to attack Higgins' direct employer was too good for them to pass up. Hence the attacks on the defence minister at the time.

Are we now to accept the implicit assumption that something which allegedly happens physically in the work premises is the employers problem. Are employers now responsible for what happens on their premises out of hours? If workers in a mine, a building company, an accounting firm leave work, go out drinking and for whatever reason come back to the workplace after hours the employer may be responsible for what takes place.

Clearly this is not an assumption we should make easily. What if workers go for drinks after work, come back after the party to get their things and one stabs the other to death? Why would anyone assume the employer was responsible simply because the incident occurred at the premises? Is it the relationship as co-workers that draws the employer in? Consider another example. One worker co-rents accommodation with another. Is a dispute over responsibilities under their housing contract the employer's problem? We need to be clear about what responsibilities flow to the employer simply because two people are employed by them.

Thankfully, employers and managers do have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. That duty goes well beyond having safe equipment and no banana skins lying around on hard floors. The workplace must be free from harassment and bullying. What if a guy spreads stories about a female co-worker being "a tart", "up for it" and liking to "go Greek"? Completely unacceptable. How could you say otherwise? And what if a female co-worker spreads rumours that a guy is "a lech" or "a touch up artist" or worse?

It appeared as if Ms Higgins was being used by the then-opposition, just to bash the government and make themselves look caring. The consequences of brightening the spotlight on Ms Higgins were no doubt unintended. It's just that they didn't appear to have been given much thought, if any. They are now glaringly obvious.

Scott Morrison got sucked in by the political maelstrom Labor was creating about unsafe workplaces and apologised to Ms Higgins for the bad things that happened to her. He too appeared to make the assumption of Mr Lehrmann's guilt. Otherwise why apologise? Neither opposition, nor government cared for the assumption of innocence. By accepting Ms Higgins version of events our parliament, both opposition and government, was the stage for trashing the most valuable cornerstone of our freedom. Who ever thought Scomo, Wong, Dreyfus and Albanese would all make such a terrible mistake?