Page 1 of 2 
Document 5 
E-mail Message 
From: 
Jackson, Maggie [EX:/O=CWLTHAG/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE 
GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MAGGIJ] 
To: 
Brown, Frances [SMTP:xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xx.xxx.xx] 
Cc: 
Sent: 
2/10/2013 at 4:03 PM 
Received: 
2/10/2013 at 4:03 PM 
Subject: 
RE: disclosure log [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
Attachments: 
image001.png 
UNCLASSIFIED 
I think that we should go down that route  and at least gauge the level of interest 
for certain types of information and we can then review whether we only publish 
information or publish the documents at the outset for some which are frequently 
requested.  We should let Louise and David (for the purposes of his Dep Secs group) 
know that we are doing this. 
Maggie Jackson 
Corporate Counsel 
Office of Corporate Counsel 
Phone 61413275 
From: Brown, Frances 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013 3:45 PM
To: Jackson, Maggie
Subject: disclosure log [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
UNCLASSIFIED 
Hi Maggie 
As I have mentioned in a previous e-mail, I am thinking about a change to our 
approach to the AGD disclosure log.  To date we have put up a notice each time we 
have released documents in response to an FOI request and we have provide links to
the released documents so that they can be  downloaded.  In a small number of cases 
we have decided that it would be ‘unreasonable’ to publish the documents at all or
that no link would be provided because the documents were heavily redacted. 
A number of agencies including the ATO, ComCare, Department of Environment, and the 
Departments of Employment and Education (whose websites have not yet been updated)
publish information about the documents but do not provide links to the documents 
RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 
file:///C:/Users/perrye/AppData/Local/Hewlett-Packard/HP%20TRIM/TEMP/HPTRIM.4...  29/11/2013 

---

Page 2 of 2 
themselves.  Instead the documents are available on request.  DEEWR (as it was) has 
some linked documents – my understanding is that they put them up in fully 
accessible formats once they receive a request for the documents following 
publication of notice on the disclosure log. 
I would like to move to publication of information about the documents released, 
without uploading the actual documents.  This would be less resource intensive in 
terms of organising web publishing and would also avoid publication of documents 
with extensive redactions (which unfortunately is a necessary feature of the sort of 
documents that are requested from the department).  It would also avoid the website 
having a lot of material attached to it that is seldom, if ever, accessed.  In 
addition it would  help the department reach is accessibility goals by stopping the 
publication of a whole lot of relatively inaccessible documents.  Where documents 
proved popular we could take action to make them accessible and publish them online. 
Do you have any concerns with adopting this different approach? 
Regards 
Frances 
Frances Brown 
Director, Freedom of Information & Privacy Section 
Office of Corporate Counsel 
Attorney-General's Department 
3-5 National Circuit 
BARTON  ACT  2600 
Ph: (02) 61412735 
Email: HYPERLINK "mailto:xxx@xx.xxx.xx"xxx@xx.xxx.xx 
2586 Indigenous signature block NEW (2) 
RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 
file:///C:/Users/perrye/AppData/Local/Hewlett-Packard/HP%20TRIM/TEMP/HPTRIM.4...  29/11/2013 

---