20 July 2023

Robodebt bureaucrat Kathryn Campbell stood down 'involuntarily' from $900k role

| Genevieve Jacobs
Join the conversation
14
Headshot of woman

Kathryn Campbell has been on leave from the APS since the Royal Commission into Robodebt handed down its report. Photo: File.

In the wake of the Robodebt scandal, senior bureaucrat Kathryn Campbell has been stood aside without pay from her $900,000 per annum AUKUS advisory role just three days after a royal commission report described the scheme as “neither fair nor legal”.

Ms Campbell, who was also a Major General in the Army Reserve, was Secretary of Social Services and Human Services at the height of the Robodebt crisis, going on to become Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in the Morrison Liberal government.

She was removed from DFAT in June last year following the election, but given the special advisor role with Defence in July. In doing so, she retained the conditions of employment, such as remuneration, of her previous secretary role.

Multiple sources have confirmed that Ms Campbell was involuntarily stood down from her Defence role on Monday (17 July).

The royal commission’s findings were presented to the Governor-General on 7 July.

The report said that during Ms Campbell’s time as head of the Department of Human Services, she was “responsible for a department that had established, implemented and maintained an unlawful program”.

READ ALSO Deloitte boss admits he’s overpaid, but won’t admit much else

In a highly critical report, Commissioner Catherine Holmes said Ms Campbell did “nothing of substance” when she became aware of the substantial issues regarding the income averaging process and its probable illegality.

The commissioner also found that Ms Campbell failed to act when she had the opportunity to seek legal advice regarding the program’s operations.

Robodebt has been described as a “crude and cruel” process. Commissioner Holmes noted it created significant emotional and financial distress for people wrongly targeted by the department on the assumption they had lied about their income for the purposes of social security payments.

It’s alleged that several people took their own lives as a consequence of being wrongly pursued for debts.

Ms Campbell told the royal commission that she had assumed Robodebt was lawful, although internal departmental advice had already raised significant concerns. She agreed that she should have sought external legal advice, given the implications for those whom the scheme affected.

While she agreed that in hindsight, this was a big assumption to make, she insisted that she had never sought to mislead the government.

The royal commission heard evidence from several Human Services bureaucrats who said Ms Campbell was so feared that lawyers wouldn’t tell her things she didn’t want to hear.

The department’s former principal legal officer, Anna Fredericks, gave evidence to the inquiry that she was uncomfortable in 2018 with the department’s culture under Ms Campbell’s leadership and that a reticence to deliver unwanted news pervaded the department.

A number of crossbench and Greens politicians called on Ms Campbell to resign from her Defence role, describing it as an insult to victims of the scheme.

Greens senator Barbara Pocock also raised questions about how Ms Campbell was offered the Defence job, claiming there was “every indication” that the role has been constructed for the purposes of giving the former secretary a soft landing in the weeks leading up to her dismissal from DFAT.

Minister for Government Services Bill Shorten said any adverse findings regarding public servants would be considered by the Public Service Commission and the departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Attorney General’s before decisions would be made concerning their futures.

There has been no comment on Ms Campbell’s role from the Department of Defence.

Join the conversation

14
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

At least the ESA Commissioner Georgeina Whelan did the honourable thing and resign when her organisation went to sh*t. Something that appears to be beyond this self serving bully. Why did Albanese allow this incompetent person to continue in the APS, and why did two Departmental Secretaries (PM&C and Defence) orchestrate a bailout position for this underperformer? More to this story than meets the eye.

Parzival Pimo10:21 am 21 Jul 23

Certainly not missed at any of the previous depts she ‘led’ from what I understand.

I’ve gotta ask whether it’s right for *anyone* to be paid $900k per year in the first place.

Certainly not missed at DFAT; we live in an age were the top brass are well paid to take responsibility but the actual taking of responsibility appears to be optional.
She will be fine, $900k indexed for life plus what ever military pensions she can pull, more money than the king! Once she’s spoken with her tax agent she’ll wonder why the hell she was still working.

It was obvious that Katherine Campbell was unsuited for any job in the public service. I would like an investigation into who was responsible for putting her into the DFAT job and more importantly, the Defence $900000 job.

This article (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/robo-debt-bureaucrat-suspended-from-her-900k-job-20230720-p5dpru.html) in the SMH states:
“Senior government sources who cannot be named because they are not authorised to speak publicly said Campbell had been suspended without pay on July 10, three days after the royal commission delivered its findings.”

I don’t know Ms Campbell but I know people who have worked for her. The general impression I got from them, is she was not the easiest person to work for and many are not the least bit sad to see she is in the cross hairs.

Ross of Canberra5:03 pm 20 Jul 23

A few years of that remuneration would carry her though the next 50 years. Perhaps 900k is excessive.

All other bureaucrats and politicians who were directly liable for this illegal affront of Robodebt on the Australian people should be held to account by legal action against them.

Only if taxpayers don’t have to pay their legal fees.

Yes, but they must pay their own legal fees, otherwise they really have nothing to lose aside from time, reputation and future employability.

Stephen Saunders3:49 pm 20 Jul 23

Some sources say she was actually stood down over a week ago. But nothing on earth will ever induce her to resign. She will have to be blasted, pushed, sacked, cashiered, dismissed, discontinued, removed, un-appointed, toppled, overturned, retired, detonated….

Would seem her Public Service medal should also be under reconsideration.

Do we get her to repay here salary over the years, or fine her heavily?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.