Former Social Services official denies trying to conceal evidence during robodebt investigation

A former Department of Social Services official has denied trying to conceal evidence from the federal watchdog that first investigated the robodebt scandal.

A royal commission is examining why and how the unlawful Centrelink debt recovery scheme was established in 2015 and ran until November 2019, ending in a $1.8bn settlement with hundreds of thousands of victims.

With the program generating significant controversy by early 2017, the ombudsman sought internal documents from departments running the program, including any legal advice.

On Wednesday, the inquiry heard Hurman initially proposed not providing the damning 2014 document to the watchdog so only the positive legal advice would be shared. He later changed his mind after complaints from the legal branch.

After the ombudsman discovered the 2014 advice through other inquiries, the department was later asked for all documents and notes relating to it.

But Hurman told the royal commission he took no steps to obtain the information nor hand it over.

Justin Greggery KC, the senior counsel assisting the commission, said those documents were crucial for allowing the watchdog to understand the context of the 2014 advice.

The department had told the ombudsman the 2014 advice was based on earlier information and therefore not directly relevant to the robodebt scheme, which the commission has heard was untrue.

Hurman denied this, but said he was unable to explain himself further.

Hurman also conceded he signed off on a letter drafted for the DSS secretary, Finn Pratt, that indicated to the ombudsman that debts were being calculated accurately, something he knew then was untrue.

He said he took responsibility for signing off on the material and faced no pressure from above.

Earlier on Wednesday, a Department of Human Services official faced questions about her role managing the internal reviews Centrelink conducted into welfare debts and other issues.

Elizabeth Bundy, who was briefly in the role in early 2017, was asked about damning judgments from the administrative appeals tribunal that found the scheme to be unlawful.

The government never appealed these decisions, meaning the legal questions were not made public or tested by a court until years later.

Bundy conceded she had not read some of these crucial decisions, saying it was impossible to read all 13,000 judgments the tribunal made each year.

Bundy said her team mostly dealt with internal reviews handled by the department, while the legal team handled AAT matters more directly. Officials from the legal branch are set to appear this week.

The royal commission before Catherine Holmes AC SC continues.