The federal Department of Environment is conducting research to figure out how to "deliver relevant and useful information" to journalists. I was approached to take part in the study. I have a few suggestions... **Thread** https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Down pointing backhand index" aria-label="Emoji: Down pointing backhand index">

For one thing, they could comply with the law, and publish FOI documents on the disclosure log. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/16/environment-department-illegally-withholding-thousands-of-foi-pages">https://www.theguardian.com/australia...

For another, they could publish emissions data immediately. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/angus-taylor-delayed-emissions-data-foi-documents-reveal/11343154">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019...

Major environmental approvals could be published in a way that is actually usable. The EPBC website allows huge decisions to be virtually hidden. http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/referralslist/ ">https://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/referrals...

I mean, honestly, they don& #39;t need to do research to figure this out. They just need to comply with the law and not try to hide information. That would be a start at least.

The FOI department could stop throwing around S22 redactions like they& #39;re going out of style. Who are they to determine information is not relevant to a request?

I& #39;m sure @p_hannam @_LisaMCox and @knausc will have a few suggestions too.