Alan Tudge referred to AFP

The Meeting Place > Government & Centrelink > Alan Tudge referred to AFP

7 yrs ago

linda burney

The Alan Tudge privacy palava continues, with Labor frontbencher Linda Burney referring the Human Services Minister to federal police because he broke social security laws.

Ms Burney stated that Mr Tudge releasing the the personal information of a Centrelink recipient to the media was "shocking", after it was revealed by the DHS secretary that the department had not secured a public interest certificate before releasing the woman's information.

"A private individual's information appears to have been provided to a media outlet without their permission," she said.

"If this is the case then how can anyone trust the government to look after their private information? If you or I go to Centrelink or a hospital or a school, we expect it to stay private."

Ms Burney went on to say that Mr Tudge's actions were "immoral at best" and "illegal at worst."

Victorian Legal Aid services is now advising clients publicly express any personal information in their dealings with Centrelink.

"It is important to remember the real human consequence of this decision," Victorian Legal Aid said in a statement.

"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."

Do Mr Tudge's actions warrant such treatment? Or was his release of personal information warranted?

4 comments

pedro the swift

7 yrs ago

Mr Tugde should be forced to resign and anu who is involved in this decision should also go.

Everywhere you go all companies and gov departments have socalled privacy policies in place which really are protecting themselves not your privacy.

This is a gross invasion of privacy, not the first time either. Who remembers when loads of medical records were found in a dumpster?.

Old Geezer

7 yrs ago

Companies just pull the privacy trick when tehy want toprotect thmeselves not their clients. I come accross this all the time.

Lescol

7 yrs ago

There are laws relating to slander/libel and if defamation occurs on social media, etc, it should be easy to prove in a court of law. Suitable fines and public retraction may then occur.

Whatever the situation there can be no excuse for betraying the trust and goodwill that so many have strived to build. Allowing him to resign is unacceptable; his 'boss' should sack him from the position for inepitude.

cheers

Sack him, no question, get rid of the sludge.

dougie

7 yrs ago

When a person uses the Public Media to critisize any organisation whether it be a public company, a private business or individual or in fact the public service operated organisations, there must be a right of reply. This right of reply allows the organisation etc to at least hold the person or persons who have adversely commented, to answer for their statements.

Should the original complainant feel that this information disclosure has maligned or embarassed them they then have the right to seek redress via the courts. At this stage both parties will have a chance to fully disclose all facts etc relevant to the initial claim and subsequent response by the individual or organisation.

What could be fairer, a decision is reached by the courts in line with the law of the land and the party in the wrong can be held to account by way of court costs and or damages if sought. If not satisfied either party has the right of appeal to a higher court. Again what could be fairer?

The fact that a member of a political party has asked for the matter to be reviewed by the AFP may well place the complainant in an uncomfortable situation. Who knows what the outcome will be. The politician may well find that she has inflamed the matter to a point where no-one is satisfied with the outcome.

I watch this case with great interest and for no other reason than to see where it goes and what future doors it may open or close.

Janran

7 yrs ago

Dougie, the trouble with that is this: if you are a Centrelink recipiant, how likely is it that you have money to waste taking someone to court? Especially if you're up against someone who has a lot of money?

If it is a civil case, I can tell you who will win - the person with the most money. Just because you have the right to seek redress via the courts, doesn't mean you can actually seek it.

You ask "What could be fairer?" Answer: not the legal system.

dougie

7 yrs ago

Janran,

You too miss the point, this person who made the statements through the press would probably have been granted some type of assistance by the media outlet should just such a situation arise.

However if the person was not entirely truthful in her statements to the media she would be dropped like a hot cake. If she was entirely truthful and factual the media would back her to the hilt in this stupid rush by the media to embarass one and all in the government.

It is again a case of who is right and who is wrong and only the courts can adjudicate. I am sorry if you want to fight the big boys be prepared for a direct confrontation.

4 comments

To make a comment, please register or login

Alan Tudge referred to AFP

Preview your comment