Welfare recipients who criticise Centrelink should expect their details to be made public.

Blogger Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media last month about her ordeals in trying to contact Centrelink over a debt she claimed she did not owe.

Centrelink officials then provided details of Ms Fox’s welfare history to a Fairfax journalist for a follow-up piece, which chastised her complaints and defended the department.

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge has been questioned about the release of Ms Fox’s personal details, which lawyers and welfare groups warn appears legally dubious.

“We are able under the Social Services Act to release information about the person for the purposes of, as I quote, ‘correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression or a misleading statement in relation to a welfare recipient’,” he said.

“That is what the law allows. It allows the correction of false information which has been placed in the media. Now in relation to Andie Fox there was false information that was placed into the media, which she herself penned. And so information was provided to correct the record in relation to those allegations.”

But the legal guidelines Mr Tudge quoted from only apply when the Department of Human Services secretary authorises the release of information by issuing a public interest certificate.

To do this, the secretary has to provide a written authorisation before releasing Fox’s information.

The department now says the information was released under another law.

“They do not need to be formally authorised by the secretary,” a spokesperson told reporters.

The guidelines Tudge quoted only authorised the release of information from the secretary to the minister - not the public.

“Relevant information may be disclosed for the purpose of this section if the disclosure is necessary ... to brief a minister in relation to issues raised or proposed to be raised publicly by or on behalf of the person to whom the relevant information relates so that the minister can respond by correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, or a misleading statement,” the guidelines state.

Legal experts say the decision to release Ms Fox’s information is at the very least a shift from previous practice.

Legal Aid Victoria civil justice executive director, Dan Nicholson, says the department should set out exactly what powers it used to release the information.

“In this case the government relies on an exception to the offence that allows disclosures because they are ‘for the purposes of social security law’ – specifically because, they claim, ‘unfounded allegations necessarily undermine confidence and takes staff effort away from the dealing with other claims’,” Mr Nicholson said.

“This is an extraordinarily broad interpretation of this exception. We can’t find any decided cases that support it, and we think there are real doubts about this interpretation of the law,” he said.

“It seems that Centrelink is attempting to get around important safeguards in the Act by releasing the information in the way they have.”

ANU social security expert Peter Sutherland said the arguments may have to be tested in court.

“This appears to be a new practice,” he said.

“I am not aware of any previous occasion where a disclosure of this nature has been made under this provision of the social security law.

“It is arguable whether the department is authorised by the statute as they claim.

“However, only the courts could determine the lawfulness or otherwise of their action, possibly through a test case ... in the Federal Court.”