The senior public servant who oversaw the unlawful robodebt scheme has been stood down from her position at the Department of Defence following the royal commission findings.
Kathryn Campbell, who was previously the head of the Department of Human Services, has been involuntarily stood down from her advisory role at defence, AAP has confirmed.
She was suspended without pay from July 10, three days after the royal commission report was tabled.
Campbell was made an adviser on the AUKUS security partnership in June last year, with a salary of $900,000 a year.
She was singled out in the royal commission report into robodebt. The commission found Campbell gave misleading evidence to cabinet about robodebt but stayed silent because then-minister Scott Morrison wanted to pursue robodebt and the government wouldn’t be able to achieve budget savings without it.
While the commission said she was “likely to mislead because it contained no reference to income averaging or the need for legislative change”, Campbell said it was an “oversight”.
However, the commission said such claims were extraordinary for someone of her experience.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed the decision to suspend Campbell was made by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and “appropriate bodies”.
Mr Albanese said the royal commission identified failings within the public service and there was a need to respond.
“Most people who have a look at the human tragedy that was caused by robodebt and the findings of the royal commission are very, very clear about failings by the Morrison government, and indeed going back to when Scott Morrison was the minister,” he told ABC Radio on Thursday.
Mr Albanese did not say if the suspension would be permanent.
He said the government would respond in an appropriate way to the findings of the royal commission, which were “more damning than anyone was expecting”.
Campbell being stood down is good, but can we talk about the pay packet for a moment??
900k p.a. is more than $17,300 every week. That is obscene for a public servant.
Australia has some of the highest paid politicians in the OECD, and Campbell’s wage dwarfs theirs.
Considering she’s likely to be paid monthly, after tax, once a month, the govt is dropping more than $40k directly into her personal bank account. After tax!!!
Her superannuation payments will be greater than $100k p.a., which is higher than the avg wage in Aus. She gets more in superannuation every week than nurses and teachers in their pay packets – before tax!!
OBSCENE
You seem to have missed the headline:
But we didn’t miss the statement “Mr Albanese did not say if the suspension would be permanent.”
A permanent suspension is more or less impossible. She must in due course be dismissed, resign, retired or reinstated.
Don’t think Mr. Rarebit was referring to the headline, seems he was questioning why these people are paid such ludicrous sums of money
But Campbell is not paid such ludicrous sums of money. She was, but now she is paid nothing. If Mr. Rarebit was making a general point about ‘these people’ (which I would agree with, even if there are far worse examples in the private sector) he did a good job of disguising it by referring solely to Campbell in the present tense.
Also noticed the “involuntary” word.
You seem to have missed the point. This person was once paid $900k p.a.
No, it’s the opposite. That is my point. She was paid that, she is now paid nothing. The comment I was replying to referred to her receiving $900k at present; which is incorrect.
It is quite unusual to suspend someone so senior without pay. It is notable she is not on ‘gardening leave’, i.e. suspended with pay.
Today is 26/7/23 and she has resigned. While her actions, or lack of them, were deserving of being singled out in the RC Report, there is no doubt that she was not the only one involved. We will just have to see who else may be called to the NACC which means ‘unsealing the envelope”. Whatever the outcome for Ms Campbell, I hope she is not going under the bus on her own.
Today is 26/7/23 – Campbell has resigned. Whatever the outcome for her, I don’t believe for a moment that she is the only person involved in this terrible and illegal scheme. I hope she won’t be the only person to face the consequences. The deliberate blindness and, in some cases, of deliberate deafness, were spread through several Govt Depts, including the Govt. itself. 2030 took their own lives, many others were were left traumatised by the Govt pursuit, while the Govt. pursued the people most vulnerable in our society whose only suspected “crime” was to welfare recipients and part of a continued focus from Ministers and Public Servants who seemed to think that welfare fraud was a huge problem. Looking at the news over the last several weeks, it’s a totally different and previously highly thought of companies who contract to the Govt. and who are found to have to have defrauded the Govt across many departments.
Now you know why AUKUS is a bit pricey.
yeah the blokes who got the bulk of public funding is worse ; EY remuneration for one OF THE executive responsible for a poor outcome on one such contract is 2 milliion pa!
I also was
I also was shocked when my brother tried to tell me this. How can she be worth more than twice what our PM gets? Mind-boggling.
All that is needed now is for the politicians responsible to be brought to justice.
Including the religious bigots at the centre.
I believe that there are quite a few more public servants who also need to be brought to account
Thoughts and prayers.
This is a good start. How Campbell ever thought she would get away with this gross betrayal of her position was beyond comprehension.
Perhaps Ms Campbell will take the time she has on her hands now, to think on her actions. I suspect that in her own mind she feels she has been the one who was badly done by…
That description only makes sense if you take one particular view of the the role of the APS. The Coalition has a very different view, has done since Howard was PM, and Campbell seems to have understood and respected that, not suprisingly – how else do you get on in the APS these days? Her job plan or description, like every other senior APS official, could be summed up as “I will keep my boss happy at all times”. She not only did what Morrison and other ministers demanded, she had the initiative to anticipate their wishes and carry them out ruthlessly. Hardly a betrayal; as Morrison or Robert might quote from the Bible:
2 million – 4 million is the salaries of the top brass in the big 4 ! Yes – the overpaid ineptitude in the public service shows form if you compare the ineptitude and public theft
“I will keep my boss happy at all times”. Has worked for Macquarie Bank for four decades.
Experience, I’d wager.
To be fair a HR professional friend in the PS observed similar in the noughties, the cultural change around PS management under Howard’s govt., i.e. more top down and authoritarian.
They complained then that no one was allowed to disagree on anything, let alone discuss any issues or plans that allow analysis and improvement in their services and delivery; take it and implement.
I reckon she thought she was covered by that edict of Morrison’s (soon after being elected to govern) when he virtually said that a PS of his government’s had a ‘whatever it takes’ obligation to deliver whatever his government wanted, and she was only to happy to indulge her ‘hobbies’ under that aegis.
It’s a start but now criminal charges need to be brought against of those responsible for implementing and pursuing Robo-debt, both politicians and public servants.
Theft and Blackmail under the Australian Capital Territory Criminal Code 2002.would seem to be appropriate.
s.308 THEFT
A person commits an offence (theft) if the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property.
Maximum penalty: 1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.
s.342 BLACKMAIL
A person commits an offence if the person makes an unwarranted demand with a menace of someone else with the intention of –
(a) obtaining a gain; or
(b) causing a loss; or
(c) influencing the exercise of a public duty.
Maximum penalty: 1 400 penalty units, imprisonment for 14 years or both.
s.340 Interpretation
Meaning of menace for pt 3.5 (Blackmail)
(1) A “menace” includes—
(a) an express or implied threat of action that is detrimental or unpleasant to someone else; OR
(b) a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant action that is implied because the person making the demand is a public official.
yes sadly I think it was the other more evil party leader who changed the social security act to allow such criminality and malfeasance and dumb Aussies are missing the facts it is a dictatorship
Albo said the decision to suspend Campbell was made by the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet. Come on Albo own this, correct, decision and make it permanent. It would not have been made without the approval of the Prime Minister himself.
Albo is such a wuss
Are we all Lisa Wilkinson now?
The recommendations for prosecution handed down from the Royal Commission were sealed to ensure a fair trial for those accused ahead of the persons being charged. But the government would have seen them…
Might be helpful for the process of justice if the media didn’t run up a flag every time someone likely to be charged is stood down from duty.
ummmm watch the exhibition of the first hand witness accounts.. you would not be e pounding natural justice as youd be equally ropeable
sic expounding
I wish Albo could gtow bigger kahoonas and change the status quo to preference AUSTRALIANS
AA is not the beachboy type, even if he had the cojones.