The employee skills 'mismatch' leaving Australia $9 billion poorer each year
"It's about how we break down the barriers. Everybody at the roundtable today could see the benefits of building better systems for workers and what skilled immigration can bring to the table. The challenge is how to operationalise it," he said.
Skilled migrant 'mismatch' In its submission to the roundtable, the Activate Australia's Skills campaign has suggested that a national governance system for all overseas skills and qualifications recognition is needed. Activate Australia's Skills is an alliance campaign of businesses, unions, social services and community groups pushing a skills and qualifications recognition policy. 620,000 permanent migrants are currently working below their skill level in Australia, according to government figures. Dane Moores is the head of strategic relations at Settlement Services International and is also the campaign manager for Activate Australia's Skills. He told SBS News migrants face a range of obstacles to finding employment. "It's what we call the migrant skills mismatch," he said. "Some of the barriers include a lack of local work experience, limited professional networks and social capital in some cases, language barriers, and in many cases, discrimination in the labour market."
LISTEN TO Moores said the group has a number of recommendations to improve the skills recognition process. "We're calling on the government to provide financial support for those migrants who can't afford to go through the system. And secondly, to reduce information barriers by creating an online portal with all the information migrants need to get their skills and qualifications recognised." The organisation's research has found Australia's economy could grow by $9 billion every year or $25 million a day if the skills of migrants were put to better use. There are currently 39 skilled migration assessing authorities approved to undertake assessments for 650 occupations, according to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). "Current skill assessment processes are expensive, complex, lack transparency, and prevent migrant workers from having equal employment opportunities," the ACTU told SBS News in a statement.
"Thousands of people are being needlessly locked out from filling skills shortages due to barriers unrelated to their skills: excessive fees, bureaucratic red tape, and slow and confusing processes throughout the skills recognition system."
Critical sector hampered by 'red tape' Sectors that rely on engineers to support construction and infrastructure have been a focus of the roundtable. Engineers Australia, which does skills recognition for overseas-born engineers, estimates that two-thirds of Australian-born engineers are working directly in engineering roles, compared with half of overseas-born engineers working in engineering roles.
The organisation says its recent research found some 47 per cent of migrant engineers actively seeking a job in the sector are unemployed.
"Engineers Australia welcomes efforts to make skills recognition clearer and more consistent, but it has to be profession-specific. Alongside recognising overseas qualifications, the real challenge is getting national harmony and consistency across states and territories," Engineers Australia CEO Romilly Madew told SBS News. Madew added that the government needs to address "the red tape" around licensing and registration between different states, to better realise the "full benefits" of the engineering workforce. A spokesperson for the Skills and Training Minister, Andrew Giles, told SBS News the government is "already doing critical work". "Programs like Free TAFE have provided the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people to upskill in areas where we need more workers – including in housing construction, nursing and aged care. "On top of that, our Government's Advanced Entry Trades Training program will see the skills of 6,000 people recognised."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Laura Tingle on Netanyahu vs Albanese
Sam Hawley: The Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, says Anthony Albanese is a weak leader who has betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews. But do we really need to be in lockstep with Israel as it broadens its assault on Gaza? Today, global affairs editor Laura Tingle on the dramatic slide in relations. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Laura, Benjamin Netanyahu has begun the mission to take over Gaza City. He really isn't listening to any of the international condemnation, is he? Laura Tingle: He's not. And he's also not listening to an exceptional level of opposition to this manoeuvre within Israel either, Sam. I mean, we've seen those massive, massive protests in Israel. News report: There are thousands of Israelis who turned out for this protest, blocking off an entire street. This is the culmination of a day of action right across the country, not only in cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but in smaller locations as well. Laura Tingle: And there's a lot of, you know, anger and resistance to what he's doing there, but certainly there's no signs of him showing any interest in what the rest of the world says about either moving into Gaza City or, for that matter, further incursions into the West Bank. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Laura, let's discuss now the stoush that is unfolding between Israel and Australia. The Israeli Prime Minister thinks our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is weak. Just tell me about this statement he put on X this week. Laura Tingle: Yes, he basically said that Anthony Albanese was a weak politician who had betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews. Now, this is an incredibly strong and very personal comment to be making about any other world leader and has followed a series of escalations or deteriorations in the relationship. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, the Prime Minister, in response to that, he was quite measured in what he said, wasn't he? Laura Tingle: He was. He basically said, no, he doesn't take any of these things personally and just refused to rise to the bait of having a go back. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: Well, I treat leaders of other countries with respect. I engage with them in a diplomatic way. I don't take these things personally. Laura Tingle: But Prime Minister Netanyahu has sort of gradually been ramping up the pressure on Australia and other countries about this and about suggesting that Australia had a, you know, quote, anti-Israel attitude. And it's not entirely clear why he thinks this is a good manoeuvre, apart from anything else, in Australia, we tend to have always taken all of these things very personally. And if some foreign figure has criticised Australia or the Australian government, it's gone straight in to be red meat into the Australian political debate. But I think it's interesting now that there's been this combination of things happen. One, I think the Prime Minister's now got his bearings and his sort of level of confidence up about dealing with foreign policy. And he's very measured in these sorts of circumstances, whether it's Israel or the US or wherever. But I think also the political mood in Australia has changed, I think, both towards Israel and also in terms of the sort of hysteria politics, if you like. I mean, some figures in the opposition have been trying to run this very hard and saying this is a gross failure on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's part. But it has not sort of developed the momentum that it might have once done a couple of years ago. Sam Hawley: Yeah, I was going to say the federal opposition leader, Sussan Ley, she thinks or says that the relationship has been badly mismanaged. Sussan Ley, Opposition Leader: We are seeing a relationship that has deteriorated and the consequences of that are not good. The Prime Minister needs to explain how he is going to get this relationship that he has so badly mismanaged back on track. Sam Hawley: But that might not be the view among the wider Australian population, you think? Laura Tingle: Well, no, I mean, polls confirm the idea that Australians' sympathy towards Israel and warm feelings towards Israel have been really hit hard by what has occurred in Gaza over the last 22 months, no matter how terrible the original attack might have been. But the actions of the Israeli government, as opposed to the Israeli people, have really lowered the sympathy level, if you like, towards Israel. So I think that's a really big difference. And I think just sort of saying that this is all the Prime Minister's fault doesn't really tally. It's sort of a bit akin with the sorts of comments that, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu makes about Gaza, which seem to be at such odds with what people are seeing with their own eyes on television every night. Sam Hawley: Well, the Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, he did go a lot further than the Prime Minister in response to Netanyahu's comments. Tony Burke, Home Affairs Minister: Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry. Strength is much better measured by exactly what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has done, which is when there's a decision that we know Israel won't like, he goes straight to Benjamin Netanyahu. Sam Hawley: Interesting, the peak Jewish body, the Executive Council of the Australian Jewry and its head, Alex Ryvchin, he's actually expressed concern about the wording by Netanyahu and by Mr Burke. He really is saying, take the heat out of this. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australia Jewry: The Australian Jewish community is profoundly disturbed and concerned by the rapidly deteriorating state of relations between our government and the government of the state of Israel. There are serious issues to transact between the two governments, but none of this is served or advanced through this public exchange of insults that's taking place right now. Sam Hawley: That's important, isn't it? Laura Tingle: I think it's really important. And he's not the only leader of the Jewish community or the only Jewish association who has said these things. Now, Tony Burke was incredibly strong and you could hear the anger in his voice when he did the interview the other morning. But Australian Jewish figures are sort of very concerned about the backlash from Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments on their own community. So, you know, there's quite a deal of alarm about that. And in fact, somebody was telling me the other day that there had been some relief, even amongst sort of harder line people who've been very critical of the government, that the government had actually refused the visa of a far right member of the Knesset, Mr Rothman, from coming to Australia because they were concerned that it would once again just stir up anti-Semitic sentiment in Australia, which helps no one. So I think this was very significant. I mean, these groups, particularly the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, have been very critical of the government and of the Prime Minister for the last couple of years, saying that they haven't done enough to combat anti-Semitism. So they're not coming from a position where, you know, they're naturally aligned, shall we say, with the government. And the fact that they've come out and said these things, I think is telling, as is, Sam, the fact that the Israeli ambassador to Australia actually distanced himself from the Prime Minister's comments. It's pretty extraordinary. Sam Hawley: Yeah. So just on that issue of the visa refusal for this Israeli, I mean, he's a far right Israeli politician, Simcha Rothman. Would that have been a decision that would have angered Israel, do you think? Laura Tingle: Well, I think the timing's been interesting. I mean, if we just go back through the timeline a little bit, things have deteriorated, shall we say, since the government announced earlier this month that Australia would be recognising the state of Palestine when the UN General Assembly is on in New York later in September. Now, other countries had done that and Israel had been critical of those decisions, saying it played into the hands of Hamas. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: To have European countries and Australia march into that, march into that rabbit hole and buy this canard is disappointing. And I think it's actually shameful. Laura Tingle: But this decision to cancel the visa seems to have tipped Mr Netanyahu over the edge into this really extreme language. But once again, I wonder the extent to which it's playing to a domestic audience using very sort of Trumpian language and the sorts of things that we see President Trump saying to his base about foreign policy issues as well. Sam Hawley: Well, Laura, Benjamin Netanyahu, he's now appeared in a Sky News interview in Australia where he's just doubled down on this criticism of Anthony Albanese. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: But I think his record is forever tarnished by the weakness that he showed in the face of these Hamas terrorist monsters. You know, when the worst terrorist organisation on earth congratulate the Prime Minister of Australia, you know something is wrong. Sam Hawley: Interesting. All right. Well, Laura, let's then consider the history of our relationship with Israel. Of course, we've been closely associated with Israel since its founding after the Second World War. It's a really important relationship, isn't it, that Australia has? Laura Tingle: Well, it's an important relationship. And essentially, Australia played an absolutely crucial role in the founding of the state of Israel. We were the first country to vote in favour of the plan, even though the UK asked Commonwealth countries to abstain because, of course, this was about partitioning Palestine, which at that stage was a British colony. And we've continued to push the case for Israel in those international forums, defended Israel when it was seen to be under sort of unfair attack from other countries. So we've had a very strong relationship with Israel going right back to its absolutely formative days. Our view of Israel has gradually changed or our our sort of approach to Israel has gradually changed as it has made further and further incursions into land originally designated for the Palestinians. But the latter day rationale has always been, look, it's the democracy sitting in this sort of sea of non-democracies in the Middle East and the only functioning state and all those sorts of things. But I think the fact that the current government in Israel is so far to the right, plus all these charges in the International Criminal Court against both Prime Minister Netanyahu and other figures in the government, that the argument that it's a democracy we have to defend also looks a bit sad at the same time. Sam Hawley: What about then, Laura, social cohesion here? Netanyahu thinks Anthony Albanese has abandoned Australia's Jews. There has been concern about anti-Semitism in Australia. Could this be damaging? Laura Tingle: Well, I think as we've seen from comments from the Jewish community in Australia, they don't see it that way. You know, I think you mentioned the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's comments and they were saying that the suggestion that Mr Albanese has abandoned Australian Jews wasn't true, wasn't the sort of language they'd use, even though they've been critical of him and they don't think it helps. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australia Jewry: We've expressed concerns for nearly two years now about some of the government's rhetoric and policies and handling of the anti-Semitism crisis. We've had serious misgivings and we've made them known, but we've never felt abandoned. We've always felt like we can speak to government and speak to the public of this country and make our case and make our appeal for a more harmonious society. But we've never felt abandoned by this government, no. Laura Tingle: So will it come back? Will the relationship come back? The question is what happens, I think, in terms of the domestic politics of Israel and what happens post Netanyahu. So, I mean, these are really important questions, but there's no reason to think that if Israel shows a more democratic approach in its internal affairs and particularly if its actions in Gaza don't continue and the West Bank, for that matter, don't continue to create outrage around the world, you know, I don't think Australians have any... They don't have any gripe with Israeli people. Sam Hawley: Laura Tingle is the ABC's global affairs editor. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead, Grant Wolter and Cinnamon Nippard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
Jim Chalmers' three-day roundtable builds consensus on road user charge, clearing housing approvals backlog
Progressing road user charging and clearing a backlog on homes awaiting environmental approvals are among the 10 immediate reform directions to result from a three-day roundtable aimed to boost Australia's ailing productivity levels. Speaking after talks ended on Thursday, Jim Chalmers said there was 'a lot of conceptual support for road user charging', however no final model had been settled. The next steps will involve presenting an options paper to state treasurers at a meeting in two weeks on September 5, which would be drafted by NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, Infrastructure Minister Catherine King and other relevant ministers. 'The model is not determined, but the key considerations are what's in and out and whether that's sequenced or not and over how long a time period,' he said. 'Treasurer Mookhey was very informed and very constructive on this question and really right around the table people had a view that this is an idea whose time has come and so we will do that work.' The charge, which would likely capture EV drivers currently exempt from the fuel excise, would reform how the government collects revenue to fund road maintenance and infrastructure upgrades. Other short-term reform initiatives involve fast-tracking deadlocked reforms on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act to speed up approvals for projects while protecting the environment, and further work to remove nuisance tariffs and regulation reductions. Speeding up housing approvals was another 'quick win' which achieved consensus following 29 hours of discussions, with Environmental Minister Murray Watt set to work with Housing Minister Clare O'Neil to speed through the 'backlog of environmental approvals for new homes, most likely in the tens of thousands'. Longer-term reform areas included investigating prefabricated and modular housing, plus more modern methods of construction to increasing housing supply. Mr Chalmers also highlighted three priority areas of tax reform, which dominated the last day of talks, and appeared to achieve little consensus beyond agreement on the need for reform. This included improving intergenerational equality, 'affordable, responsible' offsets to 'incentivise business investment', and a simpler and more sustainable system to fund services such as aged care and the NDIS. 'There are hundreds of different changes you can make to the tax system. Some of them obviously unpalatable to our government or to governments broadly,' he said. 'But what they wanted to do was to give us the guidance that they will help us in those three areas to do the work that we need to do to inform future budgets.' Speaking more broadly about the roundtable, which had been criticised as a 'talkfest' and a 'stitch up' by the opposition, Mr Chalmers said he 'finished the three days more optimistic than I was at the start'. He also praised participants for working through the issues in a 'methodical, considered, consultative way'. 'I'm genuine when I say at the end of that three days I looked around the table and I saw people of, you know, big achievers in their own areas representing workers, business CEOs, academics, economists, public servants and others,' he said. 'I drew great strength and confidence from their contributions because not because they had some kind of faux camaraderie, but because they take the challenge so seriously.'
News.com.au
7 hours ago
- News.com.au
The question Bruce Lehrmann was asked after solicitor's bold claim
Bruce Lehrmann has been asked by journalists whether he was okay as he exited court on Thursday afternoon, after his solicitor told an appeal hearing into his defamation suit loss that reporters didn't have anything nice to say about him. Justice Michael Lee last year found that Lehrmann – on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities – had raped his colleague Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in 2019. Lehrmann sued Lisa Wilkinson and Ten over Higgins' The Project interview but Justice Lee made damning findings against him and he was subsequently ordered to pay $2m in Ten's legal costs. The former Liberal staffer has now appealed Justice Lee's decision and was represented by solicitor Zali Burrows at an appeal hearing before the Full Court of the Federal Court over the last two days. Ten was represented by Dr Matt Collins SC while barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC appeared for Ms Wilkinson. 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann emerged from the court complex on Thursday afternoon alongside his solicitor. He had been present in the court, sitting at the bar table next to Burrows, for the first day and a half of the appeal hearing. But was not inside courtroom 21 after the lunch break on Thursday afternoon. Lehrmann remained inside the court complex for the afternoon session and emerged alongside Burrows. Burrows told the court late on Thursday afternoon that the media pack was not 'going to have anything nice to say to him' or 'even ask are you okay?' As he left the court he was peppered with questions by the media including 'Do you think you made your case?' and 'How do you think the last two days went?' He was also asked: 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann did not answer questions as he walked through the media pack and down Macquarie St. Nothing nice to say Burrows has ended the hearing by claiming that none of the journalists waiting outside the court for Mr Lehrmann were going to ask if he's okay. The hearing was supposed to go for three days but has wrapped up after two and the court has reserved its decision. Ms Burrows ended by arguing that Justice Lee's findings had taken a toll on him. 'When Mr Lehrmann leaves the court today, I'm pretty sure no one in the back of the court or any of the reporters downstairs are going to have anything nice to say to him,' Ms Burrows said. 'And not even ask are you okay? Justice Craig Colvin interjected: 'Is this a speech or this a submission?' 'If it wasn't so serious' Meanwhile, Brittany Higgins has made a cryptic Instagram post while the case was going on. Ms Higgins has not been present at the Federal Court for the appeal, which is unsurprising given she is not a party to the proceedings. 'I'm struggling to understand' Burrows has been pulled up by a judge after she suggested that Lehrmann was given a 'consolation prize'. She argued that Justice Lee 'made a new case up?' Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'What new case? You tell me what new case?' Burrows continued: 'It was asserted against Mr Lehrmann … that he violently raped, that it was done in a violent nature. Whereas His Honour found a totally different case as if it was, using the phrase, a soft rape.' Wigney: 'I don't think his honour A) said anything about a violent rape or a soft rape. He made findings about what happened and what Mr Lehrmann's state of mind was. I'm struggling to understand by what you mean that it was a new case.' Justice Wigney said Justice Lee made some findings in Lehrmann's favour after he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of some of Ten's and Wilkinson's claims. Burrows said: 'He should have just found 'that did not occur to the way that she (Ms Higgins) said'. Instead it's like he's given a consolation prize.' Judge Craig Colvin: 'The subject matter does not merit that kind of …' Ms Burrows then said: 'Sorry, your honour.' Burrows cut off Burrows has been cut off by one of the justices overseeing the appeal after making a submission about loud music and screaming inside the ministerial suite. She is arguing that Lehrmann had 'no opportunity' to contradict the version of events found by Justice Lee. Burrows said: 'There were no submissions by Ms Wilkinson and Ten on that case. There were no submissions put to the judge on this. Generally, we say that Mr Lehrmann could have conducted the case differently if the version — that the judge had found — against Mr Lehrmann had been put to him at the beginning. Justice Michael Wigney: 'How?' Burrows replied: 'It could have been, depending on the particular type of allegations, what witnesses could have been called.' Wigney said: 'We're talking about while they were alone in the ministerial suite? Now let's put aside the calling of further witnesses, how could he have conducted his case differently? 'Your Honour, going back on that, let's just say (there was) a version of what happened that there was loud music playing and screaming or something else happening, then he could have called …,' Ms Burrows said. Wigney said: 'This appears entirely hypothetical because no one was suggesting that version of events and no one found that version of events.' Lehrmann absent Lehrmann has sat beside Burrows at the bar table for the first day and a half of the appealing hearing. However he was absent from the courtroom after lunch and is nowhere to be seen. Burrows grilled Burrows is being pressed by one of the three judges overseeing the appeal her claim that Lehrmann was not afforded procedural fairness. She has claimed that some of Justice Lee's findings were different from the case put forward by Ten and Wilkinson and it was not cross examined on them. But Justice Michael Wigney argued that the imputations were not important, but the 'defamatory sting' that he raped his colleague was the 'essential' part of the case. 'Yes, but it comes back down to surely it would have been in the realm of the way the case was pleaded as to what the allegations were,' Burrows argued. 'The way it was pleaded, those imputations pleaded different things such as a forceful rape.' 'Additional time' We've had a delay in the hearing on Thursday after Burrows asked the court for an adjournment. Ms Burrows is due to make oral submissions to the court on the topic of Ten and Wilkinson's qualified privilege defence, which failed at trial. Wilkinson is now attempting to have that finding overturned. Ms Burrows on Thursday afternoon asked the court for an adjournment so that she could begin tomorrow morning. 'Can we commence this tomorrow morning at 10.15, we just require some additional time,' Ms Burrows said. 'I'm also instructed that there's been some assertions in respect of the transcript which may not be correct, we need this time to check.' Justice Michael Wigney denied that request. Ms Burrows began her arguments but shortly after asked for an early lunch break. The court will return at 2.15pm. 'Run a red light' Lehrmann's lawyer has questioned whether Wilkinson would have run a red light if her lawyers told her it was legal. In his trial judgment, Justice Lee made adverse findings against Ms Wilkinson and Ten after she made a Logies speech referencing Higgins' allegations on the eve of Lehrmann's criminal trial. The speech resulted in Chief Justice Lucy McCallum delaying the trial by three months. Ms Chrysanthou has told the court that Ms Wilkinson made the speech after being given repeated legal advice by the network's lawyers, as she argued she acted reasonably. But Ms Burrows said that argument raised the question whether Wilkinson would break the law if her lawyer told her it was okay. '(Wilkinson argues) she is not a lawyer and relied upon the advice of lawyers in respect of the program,' Ms Burrows said in her written submissions. 'This raises the question was it reasonable to rely upon legal advice when in the face of it is plainly wrong, which raises the proposition, if a lawyer tells you that you can run a red light, would you do it? 'With respect to Ms Wilkinson, a sophisticated highly intelligent and experienced journalist, it appears disingenuous to claim that she would follow the advice of lawyers notwithstanding it was obviously bad advice.' 'Whodunnit' Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer has argued that he was not named in The Project broadcast because they were trying to create a 'whodunnit'. Ms Wilkinson has argued that she acted reasonably when preparing the broadcast and has challenged Justice Lee's finding that their qualified privilege defence had failed. Ms Chrysanthou has pointed out that Lehrmann was not named by The Project - but accepts he was identifiable to a small number of people. However, in her written submissions — which were published by the court on Thursday — Ms Burrows argues Ten and Wilkinson did not name him for 'disingenuous' purposes. 'Mr Lehrmann does not agree with Ms Wilkinson's assertion it was a factor to consider on assessing reasonableness, that in effect she should be commended for not naming Mr Lehrmann in the program is viewed is disingenuous, and viewed as a crafted strategy to maximise the ratings of a story, to achieve an exciting air of mystery akin to a 'whodunnit', a common phrase used to ask who committed a crime with the effect of provoking a greater public interest to 'create chatter' a 'buzz', placing the primary focus on the identity of the alleged perpetrator, arguably highlighting the sensationalism of a complex plot-driven story involving political scandal cover up of a rape in Parliament,' she wrote. 'Cover up' Ms Chrysanthou has told the court Justice Lee in his finding was 'distracted' by the 'so-called cover-up' allegation. In his judgment, Justice Lee wrote that 'the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif' of The Project broadcast. Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Wednesday: 'His Honour should have been more open to the reasonableness finding because that's an acceptance of the fact because the program really wasn't about Mr Lehrmann.' She also disputed Justice Lee's finding that the broadcast made allegations of 'corrupt conduct'. Ms Chrysanthou said the cover-up allegations would be relevant if Ms Wilkinson considered Higgins' rape allegations 'absurd and fanciful'. 'That just wasn't the way His Honour addressed it,' Ms Chrysanthou said. Justice Michael Wigney said: 'It's of some relevance is it not? 'Because His Honour's reasoning was, given the way this story has been initially presented by (Higgins' partner) Mr (David) Sharaz in particular - that is that it was a political bombshell so to speak - that should have caused her to be even more cautious about her underlying allegation. 'You can't completely disassociate the two.' Qualified privilege Justice Lee did make adverse findings against Wilkinson and Ten after their qualified privilege defence failed. Qualified privilege is a defence to defamation but relies on whether the publisher's conduct was 'reasonable'. Wilkinson is appealing against that and Ms Chrysanthou is arguing that her client acted reasonably when preparing the Project broadcast. 'There was a huge amount of communication between the producers that Ms Wilkinson was excluded from,' Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Thursday. Ten say Lehrmann was 'totally unreliable' Lehrmann has asked that Justice Lee's findings be overturned on appeal, arguing that they differed from the case pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson, as well as the oral evidence at trial. However in the written submissions which were, on Thursday, released by the court, Ten's legal team of Dr Collins and Tim Senior argue: 'None of these submissions is correct.' They say it was not an 'exceptional case' where Justice Lee could not have been able to make findings either way about whether Lehrmann and Higgins should be believed. 'Rather, the primary judge found Mr Lehrmann to be a totally unreliable witness, while being forcefully struck by the credibility of Ms Higgins' oral evidence of the sexual assault,' Ten says in their submissions. Lehrmann contends he was denied 'procedural fairness' because some of Justice Lee's findings were never put to him when he was on the witness stand. It's a proposition that Ten attacked, saying that from the outset of the case they had put forth an alternative case that Higgins was too drunk to give consent. 'He was extensively cross-examined as to his knowledge of Ms Higgins' state of intoxication,' they said. During the trial, Dr Collins asked: 'Now, Mr Lehrmann, did you at any time seek Ms Higgins' consent to have sexual intercourse with you?' Lehrmann replied: 'I didn't have sexual intercourse with her.' 'Denial of natural justice' Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that Lehrmann was the victim of procedural unfairness because the findings of Justice Lee were different to the case put forward at trial. 'It's a really, serious unfair denial of natural justice if Mr Lehrmann goes through a trial where it's said 'you are accused of A, B, D, E to Ms Higgins, this is the way it happened. And the judge finds 'well I don't find any of those A, B, C, D, E',' Ms Burrows said. However Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'That's not what happened. He did a find … it was A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I … A number of the matters alleged and particularised were found.' Ms Burrows further argued that it was pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson as a 'violent rape' but Justice Lee found it was a 'non-violent rape'. Justice Craig Colvin replied: 'I'm not sure he found a non-violent rape and I'm not sure that's a concept that I understand.' Ms Burrows told the court that Lehrmann was 'taken by surprise' that Justice Lee made findings that differed from Ms Higgins' account and 'he came up with a different version, a softer version.' 'Australia's most hated man' In his judgment, Justice Lee found that Lehrmann could have only been awarded $20,000 had he won the trial. However Ms Burrows said he should be awarded a substantial amount if he had the findings overturned on appeal. She has pointed to media coverage of the trial, 'social media insults he gets' and other 'harassment'. 'He's pretty much become the national joke,' Ms Burrows said. 'As I previously submitted to this court, he's probably Australia's most hated man.' Ten attack's Lehrmann's 'astonishing' claim Dr Collins on Wednesday attacked Lehrmann's argument that he might have given different evidence had he known the findings that Justice Lee was going to make. At trial, Lehrmann told the court that he had no sexual contact with Ms Higgins at Parliament House. Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that he was the victim of procedural fairness and was surprised by Justice Lee's findings. But Dr Collins attacked that argument as 'astonishing' given that he has persistently claimed that he did not have sex with Ms Higgins. 'Our learned friend said today at the bar table that well the unfairness resides in the fact they might have called further evidence, although she backed away from that when questioned about that evidence might have been,' Dr Collins said. 'There were only two people in the room. 'But she said Mr Lehrmann's evidence might have been different. 'That's, with respect, an astonishing submission. 'It could only be that had the pleading alleged a sexual assault in which consent was in question, he would have conceded having sexual intercourse with her and argued that he had her consent or thought he had her consent.'
