The Australian Federal Police has decided not to investigate Human Services Minister Alan Tudge over the controversial disclosure of a welfare recipient's personal information to a journalist.

Mr Tudge and the Department of Human Services (DHS) have faced widespread criticism over its decision to release the welfare details of a blogger who wrote an opinion piece in Fairfax newspapers criticising Centrelink's much maligned automated debt recovery system.

In a statement, the AFP confirmed Labor's human services spokeswoman Linda Burney had referred the incident, doubting Mr Tudge's claim that the DHS had clear legislative power to release the information to correct the public record.

"The AFP has conducted an evaluation into this matter and concluded that there was no breach of Commonwealth legislation," an AFP spokesperson said.

Andie Fox had argued she was being "terrorised" over a debt she did not owe.

Ms Fox's welfare history was given to a journalist, who wrote a comment piece from the perspective of the Government a few weeks after the original column.

AFP decision 'no surprise'

Mr Tudge has labelled Ms Burney's actions as "a political stunt and part of its Centrelink scare campaign".

"The decision to end the consideration of this referral is no surprise," Mr Tudge said in a statement.

"Social security law and family assistance law allow for the release of limited information to respond to incorrect or misleading information in the media about specific cases, in order to maintain public confidence in the integrity of government programmes.

"The Government takes privacy very seriously and complies with all the requirements of the relevant legislation."

Ms Burney said she was disappointed by the AFP's decision and said she would refer Mr Tudge to the Information Commissioner.

"Whether this was a criminal offence or not, there is one thing for certain, Alan Tudge has acted unethically and without regard to an individual's privacy," she said.

The release had been criticised by lawyers who believed it was designed to stop criticism of the Government, and said it could be a test case for privacy law.