Centrelink's decision to release a welfare recipient's personal information to a journalist is unprecedented and will have a chilling impact on public criticism, lawyers say.

Key points: Lawyers change legal advice to clients who think they have an incorrect Centrelink debt

Lawyers change legal advice to clients who think they have an incorrect Centrelink debt Now being advised that if they speak out, their confidential information will no longer be safe with Centrelink

Now being advised that if they speak out, their confidential information will no longer be safe with Centrelink Department of Human Services says it will continue to release personal information should it wish to correct statements

Blogger Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media early in February claiming Centrelink had "terrorised" her over a debt she claimed she did not owe.

A few weeks later, her personal details were supplied to a journalist who wrote a comment piece from the Government's perspective, raising the prospect that Centrelink had been "unfairly castigated".

Victorian Legal Aid will now change its legal advice to clients to protect their private details from public release by the Government.

"It's important to remember the real human consequence of this decision," executive director Dan Nicholson said.

"We would now have to advise any person who thinks they have an incorrect Centrelink debt that, if they speak publicly about their situation, their confidential information is no longer safe with Centrelink.

"This is an unsatisfactory situation."

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and his department claim the disclosure is legal according to section 202 of the Social Security Act 1999, and section 162 of the A New Tax System Family Administration Act 1999.

The minister stood by the decision in Parliament on Tuesday and said false information had been placed in the media by Ms Fox.

"Information was provided to correct the record in relation to those allegations," he said.

In a statement, the Department of Human Services told the ABC it would continue to release personal information should it wish to correct statements made by clients.

Ms Fox has lodged a complaint with the department over the disclosure and Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has made inquiries to ensure no protocols were broken.

The ABC understands the journalist approached the minister's office and the department to confirm details about Ms Fox and they were then supplied.

Legal case for disclosure under scrutiny

Peter Sutherland, a social security legal expert at the Australian National University (ANU), said the department had never made a public disclosure with this specific legal argument.

"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 by constitutional write in the Federal Court."

Mr Nicholson said the disclosure was a serious matter that should concern all Australians.

"The starting point is that disclosure of this kind is a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years imprisonment unless a specific exception applies," he said.

Mr Nicholson said the Government was relying on an exemption to the offence that allows disclosures for "the purposes of social security law", given their claim that unfounded allegations distract staff and undermine public confidence in the agency.

"This is an extraordinarily broad interpretation of this exception," he said.

"We can't find any decided cases that support it, and we think there are real doubts about this interpretation of the law.

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

Senior law lecturer at Latrobe University Darren O'Donovan has also questioned the legality of the disclosure.

"The Australian public will be bewildered that, at a time when the accuracy of social security records has been under considerable criticism, the department made the decision to place elements of an individual file on the public record," he wrote in a piece for the university.