Media reports are accusing bureaucrats in the Department of Human Services of spying on private files in breach of the Public Service Code of Conduct.

News Corp. journalists have allegedly uncovered up to 170 potential cases of unauthorised snooping-around by staff with high-level access to files kept by Medicare, Centrelink and other services. Reports claim one case has been referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The information allegedly comes from departments questioned in Senate estimates hearings, reports say the inquiry revealed that of 65 investigations into unauthorised access completed by the conduct standards team, 63 were found to be in breach of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.

There are claims sanctions were imposed in 58 cases in the nine months to March 31. Investigations led to ten employees resigning before they could be disciplined, of those, eight faced termination. Five of the sanctions imposed in the 48 other cases were termination.

Human Services Minister Jan McLucas said the prying behaviour was exposed as part of routine monitoring, saying “while the number of cases of unauthorised access are relatively small given the size of the Department of Human Services, the department takes a zero-tolerance approach to any staff who access personal records without authorisation to do so... DHS monitors and audits all access to personal records, and appropriate action is taken if breaches are detected.”

National Welfare Rights Network spokeswoman Maree O'Halloran says: “All Australians need to be sure that their details are safe, so any unauthorised access to a person's confidential information is deeply concerning... Centrelink has a strong culture of protecting individuals' personal and private information, and the consequences can be severe if the lines are crossed. It is extremely disappointing that some staff break the rules, but safeguards exist and strong penalties are a deterrence.”

Sanctions for breaches include fines, salary reductions, duty reassignment and, in extreme cases, dismissal or referral to the CDPP for possible action under the Social Security Law or Crimes Act; several cases have had to follow that path this year.